Nandvandan College Of Nursing Run ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 2194 MP

                                   1
                                             W.P. No.1756/2022 and W.P. No.1838/2022



IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR
                      BEFORE
              SHRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                         &
        SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

                ON THE 17nd FEBRUARY, 2022

              WRIT PETITION No. 1756 of 2022

 BETWEEN :-

 Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Nursing,
 Run by Center for Higher Studies
 Research for AAH Education Society
 Through Rajendra Verma,
 S/o Shri Khemchandra Verma,
 Aged 55 years,
 Occupation- President/Director,
 R/o Delight Talkies Compound, South
 Civil Lines, Jabalpur (M.P.)
                                                    ........Petitioner

 (By Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate.)

 AND

 1. State of Madhya Pradesh
    through the Principal Secretary,
    Department of Medical Education,
    Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal.


 2. M.P. State Medical Science University, Jabalpur
    Through its Registrar, M.P. Medical Science
    University, Near Medical College,
    Jabalpur (M.P.)


 3. Directorate of Medical Education
    through its Commissioner,
    Bhim Nagar, Arera, Hills, Bhopal.
                                                    ......Respondents
                                         2
                                                 W.P. No.1756/2022 and W.P. No.1838/2022




     (By Shri Anant Mishra, Advocate)

                   WRIT PETITION No. 1838 of 2022

     BETWEEN :-

     Nandvandan College of Nursing,
     Run by Uttarayan Shiksha Samiti
     President of Society,
     Through Rajendra Verma,
     S/o Shri Khemchandra Verma,
     Aged 55 years,
     Occupation- President/Director,
     R/o Delight Talkies Compound, South
     Civil Lines, Jabalpur (M.P.)
                                                        ........Petitioner

     (By Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate.)

     AND

     1. State of Madhya Pradesh
        through the Principal Secretary,
        Department of Medical Education,
        Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal.


     2. M.P. State Medical Science University, Jabalpur
        Through its Registrar, M.P. Medical Science
        University, Near Medical College,
        Jabalpur (M.P.)


     3. Directorate of Medical Education
        through its Commissioner,
        Bhim Nagar, Arera, Hills, Bhopal.
                                                        ......Respondents


     (By Shri Anant Mishra, Advocate)

Whether approved for reporting
                                        3
                                                      W.P. No.1756/2022 and W.P. No.1838/2022



Law Laid down :-


                                O R D E R

Sujoy Paul, J.:-

Regard being had to the similitude of the questions involved, on the

joint request of the parties, both the matters are analogously heard and

decided by this common order.

2. The petitioners are institutes of Nursing duly recognized and affiliated

with the statutory bodies. The singular question which needs determination

is whether the relevant students who could not be enrolled with the

university are similarly situated qua the students of Premvati College Of

Nursing Ahimsa Chowk Vijay Nagar, Jabalpur Run by Jagannath Das

Premvati Welfare Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and other which was

decided on 12.01.2022 in W.P. No.24245/2021.

3. Shri Rohit Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in both

the instant cases, the left out students are similarly situated qua the students

for whom W.P. No.24245/2021 was filed and allowed.

4. To elaborate, Shri Rohit Jain, learned counsel for petitioners submits

that for few students appropriate applications seeking enrollment/obligation

could not be filed because of COVID Pandemic related problems. The

revised notification was issued on 28/10/2020 (Annexure P/4) whereby the

last date was extended up to 15th December, 2020. Indisputably, the

concerned students/college could not prefer appropriate applications before

15th December, 2020. Thereafter, pursuant to repeated prayer of the

institutions, another notice dated 7.9.2021 (Annexure P/6) was issued

W.P. No.1756/2022 and W.P. No.1838/2022

whereby three days time was given to submit offline applications for

registration along with relevant information/documents. In furtherance

thereof, both the petitioners submitted appropriate applications, affidavit and

relevant documents as desired in the notice dated 7.9.2021. Heavy reliance

is placed on para-5.13 of the petition wherein pleadings in this regard are

made.

5. Furthermore, it is submitted that the earlier notifications dated

28.10.2020 and 7.9.2021 includes Nursing/Para-medical Institutions,

whereas another notification dated 13.1.2021 Annexure P/12 (with rejoinder)

shows that the date was again extended for the purpose of registration but

this notification was confined to Medical, Dental and Ayush Colleges. The

extended date was between 14th January, 2021 to 18th January, 2021. For no

valid reason, the similarly situated colleges and students of nursing were left

out. Thus, it is prayed that the petitioners be given similar treatment as was

given to Premvati College (Supra).

6. Per contra, Shri Anant Mishra, learned counsel for the University,

submits that the petitioners are not properly reading the notification dated

07.09.2021 (Annexure-P/6). By placing reliance on the language so

employed in the notification, Shri Mishra strenuously contended that the

notification intends to give benefit of extension of time of three days to such

left out colleges whose students could not submit their application for

registration/enrollment previously. This notification, by no stretch of

imagination, can cover such colleges whose students have been

enrolled/registered but few of them were left out. He fairly submits that

although the facts of these cases are similar to the case of Premvati College

W.P. No.1756/2022 and W.P. No.1838/2022

(supra), the petitions deserve to be dismissed because the notification dated

07.09.2021 does not cover the left out students of petitioners' college whose

remaining students were already enrolled.

7. The parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated above.

8. We have bestowed our anxious consideration on rival contentions and

perused the record.

9. Before dealing with the rival contentions, it is apposite to take into

account the findings given by this Court in the case of Premvati College

(supra). The relevant portion reads as under :-

"These 13 students could not submit their online applications for registration for the Sessions 2019-20 in the relevant course within the stipulated time. Their inability was because of Covid-19 pandemic related problems. The University extended the application dates till 15th December, 2020. However, these 13 students could not prefer the same within the stipulated time. Thus, petitioner's college preferred application dated 22.12.2020 (Annexure-P/10) followed by the reminders dated 05.01.2021 (Annexure-P/11), 03.02.2021 (Annexure- P/12) and 18.06.2021 (Annexure-P/13) requesting the University to open the portal to enable 13 students to fill the formalities. Since none could fetch any result, petitioner preferred a representation to the State Government. In turn, State Government by communication dated 14.07.2021 directed the DME of Directorate to consider the said prayer and apprise the department about the decision. In turn, by communication dated 07.09.2021 the University issued a notice permitting submission of offline applications of the left out students within three days. It is specifically pleaded in para 5.21 of the petition that the said students preferred their offline applications and fulfill the formalities within three days by offline mode. An affidavit in this regard was filed by the Director of the college on 09th September, 2021.

W.P. No.1756/2022 and W.P. No.1838/2022

Shri Rohit Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the students of M.Sc. Nursing and B.Sc. Nursing of 2019-20 batch were given general promotions, whereas for BPT Course Examination, is going on. The next examination is scheduled on 14th & 18th of this month. Shri Jain further submits that despite fulfilling the formalities through offline mode within three days as per notice dated 07.09.2021, the 13 students were not given the requisite benefits.

The similar issue cropped up in relation to similarly situated students of different institution before the Gwalior Bench. The Court by various interim orders directed the University to process their applications. Few such orders passed in W.P. Nos.25794/21 ((M.L.B. College of Nursing Chandapur Near Berja Bilhati Morar Gwalior (M.P) thr. Principal Smt. P. ID Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh), 26602/2021 ((Shri Ramnath Singh Mahavidyalya College of Nursingh Gormi Distt. Bhind run by Society namely Shri Vs MP Medical Science University Jabalpur), 26003/2021 ((R.L.D. Nursingh College thr. Director MR. Alok Udaipuriya S/o Shri Kailash Narayabn Udaipuriya Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others) and 25986/2021 ((Preston College thr. Its Director HRI Probodh Tripathi Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and others) are placed on record with I.A. No.325/2022. The reliance is also placed on document dated 02.01.2021 filed with said IA to establish that in furtherance of Gwalior Bench order in the aforesaid cases, the students of 13 colleges, who were similarly situated have been given the benefit of opening the portal by entertaining their applications.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that aforesaid 13 students are similarly situated and there is no justification in not opening the portal for them and not entertaining their offline applications. The return of respondent is silent about para 5.21 of the petition.

Shri Mishra, learned counsel for the University opposed the prayer and submits that if all other students could have preferred online applications before last date of

W.P. No.1756/2022 and W.P. No.1838/2022

submission i.e. on 15th December, 2020, it is not comprehensible as to why these 13 students could not do the same. For this reason alone, their applications are not entertainable. The attempt of college is to include the students by backdoor, which is impermissible. He submits that although name of one such student Arti is mentioned in the attendance register, since register is not alphabetically arranged, it creates doubt about the genuineness of her name in the attendance register.

The parties confined their arguments to the extent indicated above, we have heard the parties at length and perused the record.

Indisputably, by revised notification dated 28.10.2020, the last date of submission of online application without late fees was extended upto 15th December, 2020 and during this time, aforesaid 13 students could not prefer their online applications. However, as categorically pleaded in para 5.21 of the petition by notice dated 07.09.2021 (Annexure-P/16), the offline applications were invited within three days, the necessary formalities for these 13 students were made by the petitioner college/students. There is no denial to this categorical pleading in the entire reply. On a specific query from the Bench, learned counsel for the respondent could not point out any pleadings which amounts to rebuttal of avernments of para 5.21 of the petition. The Apex Court in Naseem Bano (SMT) vs. State of U.P. and others, 1993 Suppl. (4) SCC 46 opined that if categorical pleadings of petition are not specifically denied, it will amount to admission of the pleadings. We deprecate the practice of filing sketchy returns by the statutory bodies like University. Once notices along with the petitions are received by the University, it is the minimum expectation that the university will file para-wise reply dealing with each and every averment of the writ petition.

As discussed above, we find no reason to disbelieve averments of para 5.21 of the petition and, therefore, find no justification in the action of University in not accepting the offline application of 13 students. These 13 students, in our opinion, are entitled to get

W.P. No.1756/2022 and W.P. No.1838/2022

same benefit, which was granted subsequently by the Gwalior Bench also in catena of orders, which was translated into action/reality by passing a specific order dated 02.12.2021 filed with I.A.

No.325/2022.

As analyzed above, the respondents have committed an error in not accepting the offline applications of said 13 students. Their applications shall be treated to be accepted and the benefit of general promotion be given to the students of B.Sc. and M.Sc. So far as the students of BPT Course are concerned, they be forthwith permitted to participate in the remaining examination. The examination which they have been missed out may be taken by way of supplementary. The petition is allowed to the extent indicated above."

(Empahsis Supplied)

10. The petitioner in para-5.13 of the petition has pleaded as under :-

"5.13 That, thus the petitioner institute immediately reciprocated on 10.09.2021 itself along with the necessary documents and the affidavit. Copy of the letter with affidavit dated 09.09.2021 but submitted on 10.09.2021 is annexed herewith as Annexure- P/7."

11. The respondents, for the reasons best known to them, have neither

chosen to rebut the said pleadings mentioned in para-5.13 nor decided to file

a para-wise reply. This Court in previous round of litigation in Premvati

Institute (supra) specifically deprecated the practice of statutory bodies/

Universities in filing sketchy return and expected that such practice will be

eschewed. However, in absence of any rebuttal to para-5.13 of the petition,

we find no reason to disbelieve the said averments in the light of judgment

of the Supreme Court in Naseem Bano (SMT) vs. State of U.P. and others

reported in 1993 Suppl. (4) SCC 46.

12. The petitioner is otherwise similarly situated qua Premvati Institute

(supra). Only distinction tried to be made by Shri Anant Mishra is based on

W.P. No.1756/2022 and W.P. No.1838/2022

the language employed in the notification dated 07.09.2021 (Annexure-P/6).

We are not impressed with this artificial distinction sought to be made by

Shri Anant Mishra because -

(i) This Court in the previous round of litigation considered the same

notification and did not agree with such interpretation and said judgment is

binding on us.

(ii) If said artificial distinction is accepted, it will divide a

homogeneous class of students and will create a class within the class.

(iii) The students of both the colleges, colleges whose few students

were enrolled and few were left out and the colleges who did not submit any

application for enrollment before the cut-off date are, in our opinion,

similarly situated. As per Shri Anant Mishra, the students of such colleges

who en bloc did not submit application for enrollment/ registration due to

Covid related problems are permitted to enroll themselves as per the said

notification but the petitioners colleges whose few students have already

enrolled are deprived of the same. If this interpretation is accepted, it will

hit Article 14 of the Constitution and similarly situated students of the

colleges who could not submit their applications due to Covid related

problems will be put into two different compartments. This interpretation

runs contrary to the equality clause enshrined in the Constitution of India.

Thus, we are unable to persuade ourselves with the said line of argument of

Shri Anant Mishra.

13. It is not in dispute that petitioners have preferred appropriate

applications for enrollment/registration of concerned students in furtherance

of notification dated 07.09.2021. Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled to

W.P. No.1756/2022 and W.P. No.1838/2022

reap same benefits which was granted by this Court in the case of Premvati

Institute (supra).

14. Before parting with the matter, we would like to express our

displeasure for inserting paragraph 15 in the return. In the said paragraph,

the University has made effort to justify its action in relation to a different

litigant namely Premvati Institute (supra) (W.P. No. 24245 of 2021). The

action impugned in the said case was disapproved by this Court and the Writ

Petition was allowed. The said order in Premvati Institute (supra) case has

not been put to test before any higher forum. After having lost the battle in

the case of Premvati Institute (supra), it is no more open to the University

to justify their action in the present case, which was subject matter of

adjudication in the case of Premvati Institute (supra). We deprecate this

practice adopted by the University and expect that the said statutory body,

which is a 'State' within the meaning under Article 12 of the Constitution

will act in a reasonable manner.

15. In view of foregoing analysis, the respondents have certainly

committed an error in not accepting the offline applications of the students

of petitioners' Institutions. Their applications shall be treated to be accepted

and the benefit of general promotion be given to the students of B.Sc and

M.Sc.

16. The petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above.

                                         (SUJOY PAUL)                    (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
                                            JUDGE                                  JUDGE


                   ahd/Priya/Shub/bks
Signature Not Verified
  SAN




Digitally signed by MOHD AHMAD
Date: 2022.02.18 11:11:43 IST