Delhi High Court
Saraswati Shrestha vs The Central Public Information Officer on 15 October, 2024
Author: Manmohan
Bench: Tushar Rao Gedela, Manmohan
$~42
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 1031/2024 & C.M.60339/2024
SARASWATI SHRESHTA .....Appellant
Through: Mr.Ratnesh Singh with Mr.Bimlesh
Kumar Singh and Mr.Sudip Lodh,
Advocates.
versus
THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER
.....Respondent
Through: Mr.V.S.R Krishna with
Mr.V.Shashank Kumar, Advocates
(Through VC)
% Date of Decision: 15th October, 2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, CJ : (ORAL)
1. Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 05th August,
2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 10722/2024. The
Appellant had filed the underlying writ petition seeking directions to set
aside the order dated 21st May, 2024 passed by the Chief Information
Commissioner ('CIC'), New Delhi and the RTI response dated 8th
December, 2022 and the order dated 13th March, 2024 passed by the First
Appellate Authority, Indian Nursing Council (INC), New Delhi.
Signing Date:16.10.2024
17:32:46
2. The learned Single Judge, after considering the request made by the
Appellant vide RTI application dated 24th November, 2022 and the INC's
response to the same dated 8th December, 2022 and the order of the CIC
dated 21st May, 2024 has held that the INC has provided the information it
had to the Appellant in terms of the Right to Information Act, 2005. He also
stated that the question whether the response was sufficient to support the
decision of revocation of recognition of the Proficiency Certificate Level of
the Appellant and the consequent rejection of her application for rejection
with the Bihar Nursing Registration Council, Patna was beyond the scope of
the proceedings and that the Appellant was at liberty to agitate her
grievances pertaining to the rejection by filing appropriate proceedings.
3. Learned counsel for the Appellant states that the learned Single Judge
failed to appreciate that no order / letter / circular was provided to the
Appellant in response to the RTI application. He further states that the
Appellant had obtained a proficiency certificate level in nursing by Nepal
Nursing Council Kathmandu, which has in the past been accepted by the
Indian Nursing Council, New Delhi and appointment has been given to other
nurses basis the same and therefore, it was imperative that the Appellant be
shown the order / letter / circular on the basis of which her application was
rejected.
4. At the outset, from a perusal of the prayer in the underlying writ
petition, it is clear that the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the
issue in question was only with regard to the validity of the order dated 21st
May, 2024 and the sufficiency of the response and assessing whether the
same was sufficient to warrant a rejection was beyond the scope of the writ
petition.
Signing Date:16.10.2024
17:32:46
5. Moreover, the said response expressly stated that the Appellant had
obtained a proficiency certificate level in nursing by the Nepal Nursing
Centre, Kathmandu, which was not recognized under Section 10 of the
Indian Nursing Councils Act, 1947.
6. Also, the learned counsel for the Appellant has not placed on record
any document to substantiate his submission that other nurses have been
appointed basis the same qualification as obtained by the Appellant.
7. In any event, this Court has been informed that the Appellant has filed
a case before the Patna High Court bearing Case No.CWJC 17344/2022
challenging the decision of the INC to not consider her qualification.
Consequently, no ground for interference exists. Accordingly, the present
appeal along with the application are dismissed.
MANMOHAN, CJ
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J
OCTOBER 15, 2024
KA
Signing Date:16.10.2024
17:32:46
