Wednesday, 17, Jun, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Decided On : 17.07.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 2062 HP

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 2062 HP
Judgement Date : 17 July, 2025

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Decided On : 17.07.2025 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Another on 17 July, 2025

Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
                                                                                                  2025:HHC:23332


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT
                              SHIMLA

                                                                                 CWP No. 11146 of 2025.
                                                                                 Decided on : 17.07.2025




                                                                                              .
    Jakh Institutional Society.





                                                                                                    ...Petitioner
                                                              Versus





    State of Himachal Pradesh and another.
                                                                                              ...Respondents
    Coram




    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge
    Whether approved for reporting?1
    For the petitioner                             :       Ms. Minakshi Sharma, Advocate.

    For the respondents :                                  Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional

                                                           Advocate General.
    Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

Notice. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Additional

Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

2. With the consent of the parties, this petition is being

disposed of, at this stage.

3. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has, inter

alia, prayed for the following relief:-

"i) To issue writ int eh nature of mandamus with a

command to the respondents to issue necessary NOC in

1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2025:HHC:23332 favour of the petitioner to run Post Basic (Nursing)

course as recommended by the Committee with an

intake capacity of 40 seats."

.

4. The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure P/15,

Communication dated 27.03.2025, which reads as under:-

"In this context, it is stated that the Directorate

Level Evaluation Committee evaluated the SDM Level

Inspection Committee report as per the directions/orders

of the Hon'ble High Court passed in CWP No. 5806/2021

and thoroughly examined the report of SDM Level

Inspection Committee as per the guidelines of the Indian

Nursing Council dated 20.04.2018 and according to

governing body i.e. Indian Nursing Council "An institute

already offering B.Sc.(N) programme is eligible to

establish Post Basic B.Sc. (N) course" whereas at that

time your institute does not have B.Sc. Nursing

programme and Directorate Level Evaluation Committee

recommended the case for starting of B.Sc. Nursing

course strictly as per Indian Nursing Council norms

applicable at that time and accordingly, the Government

had issue the Essentiality & Feasibility/No Objection

Certificate in favour of your nursing institution for starting

of B.Sc. Nursing seats with 40 seats.

2025:HHC:23332 Therefore, you are directed to apply afresh for

starting of new Post Basic B.Sc. Nursing course in your

institution as and when the Expression of Interest called

.

by the Government. This is for your information and

necessary action at your end."

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

when the petitioner institute applied for running of B.Sc Nursing

course, it simultaneously also applied for the running of Post

Basic B.Sc Nursing course, for which it also deposited the

requisite fee, with the respondents. She further submitted that

now the respondents cannot take a U-turn and call upon the

petitioner to apply afresh for starting of new Post Basic B.Sc

Nursing course.

6. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate

General submitted that when the petitioner applied for the Post

Basic B.Sc Nursing course, the institute had not yet been

permitted to run B.Sc Nursing Course. He further submitted that

only those institutions which already stand granted permission

to run B.Sc. Nursing course, are eligible to run new Post Basic

B.Sc Nursing course. Accordingly, he submitted that as there is

infirmity in Communication dated 27.03.2025, the petition be

2025:HHC:23332

dismissed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

even if the petitioner has to apply afresh then the fee which was

.

taken by the respondents from the petitioner for this particular

course, be adjusted.

8. Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that

in case, any fee has been paid by the petitioner for this course

i.e. new Post Basic B.Sc Nursing course, then it will be

adjusted, but if today the fee is in addition to what it was at that

time, then the petitioner will have to pay the balance fee.

9. Be that as it may, taking into consideration the fact

that it could not be disputed before this Court that only those

institutions are eligible to apply for new Post Basic B.Sc

Nursing course which already are running B.Sc Nursing course

and when the petitioner had applied for the new Post Basic

B.Sc Nursing course in the year 2018, it had not yet been

granted any permission to run B.Sc Nursing course, this Court

finds no infirmity in Annexure P-15, dated 27.03.2025, this writ

petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioner, if so

advised, may apply afresh for starting new Post Basic B.Sc

2025:HHC:23332

Nursing course. This obviously will be when expression of

interests are invited by the Government. In such an eventuality,

if any fee has been paid by the petitioner earlier with regard to

.

new Post Basic B.Sc Nursing course then it be adjusted by the

respondents. This does not means that the petitioner will not

have to pay any fee at all. All that this Court is observing is that

the amount which has been paid by the petitioner earlier, be

adjusted and additional amount, if any, shall be demanded from

the petitioner.r

10. With these observations, this writ petition is

disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also

stand disposed of accordingly.

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

July 17, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter