Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bansal Nursing Charitable Trust vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 October, 2023
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11450/2016
Bansal Nursing Char. Trust
----Petitioner
Versus
State And Ors
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16713/2018
Bansal Nursing Charitable Trust, Bansal School Of Nursing And
Bansal College Of Nursing Manaksar Hanumangarh Through Its
Managing Director Shri Vishnu Purohit S/o Shri B.l. Purohit, Aged
About 49 Years.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through
The Secretary Medical And
Health (Group-3) Department,
Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Indian Nursing Council,
Through Its President
Combined Councils Building,
Kotla Rod, Temple Lane, New
Delhi.
3. Rajasthan Nursing Council,
Jaipur, Through Its President.
4. Private Physiotherapy Nursing
And Paramedical Institutioni-
Jaipur, Through Its Secretary,
Sangam Hotel-17, Motilalatal
Road, Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16910/2019
Bansal Nursing Charitable Trust., Bansal School Of Nursing And
Bansal College Of Nursing Manaksar Hanumangarh Through Its
Managing Director Shri Vishnu Purohit S/o Shri B.l. Purohit, Aged
(2 of 17) [CW-11450/2016]
About 50 Years.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through
The Secretary Medical And
Health (Group-3) Department,
Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Indian Nursing Council,
Through Its President
Combined Councils Building,
Kotla Road, Temple Lane, New
Delhi.
3. Rajasthan Nursing Council,
Jaipur Through Its President.
4. Private Physiotherapy Nursing
And Paramedical Institution -
Jaipur, Through Its Secretary,
Sangam Hotel - 17, Motilal Atal
Road, Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1804/2021
Bansal Nursing Charitable Trust, Bansal School Of Nursing And
Bansal College Of Nursing Manaksar Hanumangarh Through Its
Managing Driector Shri Vishnu Purohit S/o Shri B.l. Purohit, Aged
About 51 Years.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through
The Secretary Medical And
Health Department
Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Indian Nursing Council,
Through Its President,
Combined Council Building,
Kotla Road, Temple Lane, New
Delhi.
(3 of 17) [CW-11450/2016]
3. Rajasthan University Of Health
And Science, Through Its
Registrar, Kumbha Marg,
Pratarp Nagar, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
4. Rajasthan Private Nursing
Schools And College
Federation, Through Its
Chairman, 357, Laxmi Nagar,
Paota B Road, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11473/2021
Bansal Nursing Charitable Trust, Bansal School Of Nursing And
Bansal College Of Nursing Manaksar Hanumangarh Through Its
Managing Director Shri Vishnu Purohit S/o Shri B.l. Purohit, Aged
About 52 Years.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through
The Secretary Medical And
Health (Group-2)Department,
Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Indian Nursing Council,
Through Its President,
Combined Council Building,
Kotla Road, Temple Lane, New
Delhi.
3. Rajasthan Nursing Council,
Jaipur Through Its President.
4. Private Physiotherapy Nursing
And Paramedical Institution,
Jaipur Through Its Secretary,
Sangam Hotel 17, Motilal Atal
Road, Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14785/2021
(4 of 17) [CW-11450/2016]
Bansal Nursing Charitable Trust, Bansal School Of Nursing And
Bansal College Of Nursing Manaksar Hanumangarh Through Its
Managing Director Shri Vishnu Purohit S/o Shri B.l. Purohit, Aged
About 51 Years.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through
The Secretary Medical And
Health Department,
Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Nursing Council,
Through Its Registrar, B-39,
Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme,
Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan University Of Health
And Science, Through Its
Registrar, Kumbha Marg, Pratap
Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9090/2022
Bansal Nursingh Charitable Trust, Bansal School Of Nursing And
Bansal College Of Nursing Manaksar Hanumangarh Through Its
Managing Director Shri Vishnu Purohit S/o Shri B.l. Purohit, Aged
About 53 Years.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through
The Secretary Medical And
Health (Group-3) Department,
Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Indian Nursing Council,
Through Its Its President
Combined Councils Building,
Kotla Road, Temple Lane, New
Delhi.
3. Rajasthan Nursing Council,
(5 of 17) [CW-11450/2016]
Jaipur Through Its President.
4. Private Physiotherapy, Nursing
And Para Medical Institutions,
Jaipur Through Its Secretary,
Sangam Hotel-17, Motilal Atal
Road, Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10541/2023
Bansal Nursing Charitable Trust, Bansal School Of Nursing And
Bansal College Of Nursing, Manaksar Hanumangarh Through Its
Managing Director Shri Vishnu Purohit S/o Shri B.l. Purohit, Aged
About 54 Years.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through
The Secretary Medical And
Health (Group-3) Department,
Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Indian Nursing Council,
Through Its President
Combined Councils Building,
Kotla Road, Temple Lane, New
Delhi.
3. Rajasthan Nursing Council,
Jaipur Through Its President.
4. Private Physiotherapy Nursing
And Paramedical Institution,
Jaipur Through Its Secretary,
Sangam Hotel-17, Motilal Atal
Road, Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9081/2022
Bansal Nursing Charitable Trust
----Petitioner
Versus
(6 of 17) [CW-11450/2016]
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5402/2022
Biyani Institute of Science and Management
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankur Mathur with
Mr. Harshvardhan Thanvi
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Vandana Bhansali, AGC.
Mr. Manish Tak, Dy.G.C.
Dr. Mohit Singhvi
Mr. Sangram Singh
Mr. Mahendra Vishnoi
Mr. Yashpal Khileree
Mr. Rajesh Punia
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
Reserved on 03/10/2023
Pronounced on 09/10/2023
1. Since all the instant petitions involve a common controversy
though with marginal variation in the contextual facts, therefore,
for the purposes of the present analogous adjudication, the facts
and the prayer clauses are being taken from the above-numbered
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1804/2021, while treating the same as
a lead case; rival submissions of the parties and the observations
of the Court, in the present order, would also be based,
particularly, on the factual matrix of the lead case.
2. The prayer clauses read as under:-
(7 of 17) [CW-11450/2016]
"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ
petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ,
order or direction:-
i. the writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be
allowed;
ii. The record of the case may kindly be called for;
iii. It may kindly be declared that the petitioner institution is
entitled to take admission of students for B.Sc. Nursing
Course for the academic session 2020-21 with intake
capacity of 50 seats.
iv. The respondents may kindly be directed to include
petitioner in the list of institutions with intake capacity of 50
seats and allowed to take admission of students for B.Sc.
Nursing Course for the session 2020-21.
v. any other appropriate relief which this Hon'ble Court
deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.
vi. Costs of the writ petition be also awarded in favour of the
petitioner."
3. As the pleaded facts would reveal, the petitioner is an
unaided self-financed educational society having its college,
namely, Bansal College of Nursing, at Hanumangarh. The
petitioner-institution filed an application for issuance of No
Objection Certificate (NOC) for opening new B.Sc Nursing College,
and the same was duly issued by the State Government on
30.01.2007, to run the B.Sc. Nursing Course with intake capacity
of 50 seats.
3.1. In pursuance of issuance of such NOC, the petitioner-
institution applied before the respondent-Indian Nursing Council
(INC) for grant of recognition for undertaking B.Sc Nursing
Course; whereafter, the respondent- INC sought NOC from the
(8 of 17) [CW-11450/2016]
respondent-Rajasthan University of Health And Science (RUHS);
thereupon, the respondent-RUHS vide its communication dated
07.02.2007, issued the requisite NOC to respondent-INC and
stated that the RUHS has no objection in case the respondent-INC
grants permission to the petitioner for staring the B.Sc. Nursing
Course. Thereafter, the respondent-INC vide order dated
18.08.2008 granted permission to the petitioner-institution for
conducting the Course in question with intake capacity of 30
seats.
3.2. Subsequently, upon an application being filed and after
conducting the necessary inspection, the respondent-INC granted
permission to the petitioner institution to run the Course in
question with the approved intake capacity of 30 seats, for the
academic sessions 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-
14 and 2014-15. Thereafter, the respondent-INC again conducted
inspection of the petitioner-institution and granted permission to
run the Course in question for the academic sessions 2016-17,
2017-18, and 2018-19 with same approved intake capacity. The
respondent-RUHS also issued a list of institutions permitting them
to run the Course in question with their respective intake capacity
of students; in the said list, the name of the petitioner-institution
was also included with intake capacity of 30 seats. The
respondent-INC further extended such permission for the
academic session 2019-20.
3.3 Thereafter, the respondent-INC and the respondent-State
issued office notes dated 03.11.2020 and 09.12.2020,
(9 of 17) [CW-11450/2016]
respectively, and stated inter alia that the respondent INC was
having no power to grant recognition to the nursing institutions,
as only the State Nursing Council/State Government is
empowered to do so.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite
issuance of the clarification note by the State Government and the
INC, the respondent-INC issued a list of the eligible institutions,
including the petitioner-institution, to run the Course in question
in the academic session 2020-21, with their respective intake
capacity.
4.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent-INC
was having no authority to grant the NOC and recognition to the
nursing institutions in the State; the petitioner was already having
the NOC issued in its favour, with intake capacity of 50 seats, by
the State Government, but despite the same, the respondent-INC
granted NOC with intake capacity of 30 seats only, for the
aforementioned academic sessions.
4.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the inspection
conducted by the respondent-INC under Section 13 of the Indian
Nursing Council Act, 1947, and the report thereof was submitted
before the Executive Committee; however, the respondent-INC
was having no power to proceed with such inspection report
without forwarding the same to the institution, and therefore, the
entire impugned action herein is highly illegal and arbitrary.
4.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner-
institution is a recognized institution under the provisions of law;
(10 of 17) [CW-11450/2016]
when the State Government/State Nursing Council had already
granted the necessary permission, with a particular number of the
seats, then the respondent-INC had no power to reduce the intake
capacity of the petitioner-institution.
4.4. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner-institution
had already incurred a huge sum of money for establishing the
institution to run the Course in question, and the students have
already been allocated and admitted after allotment by the State
Government. Therefore, as per learned counsel, the impugned
action herein is contrary the provisions of law.
4.5. Learned counsel further submitted that in pursuance of the
interim order dated 09.02.2021 passed by this Court, the
petitioner-institution had admitted the students as per the NOC
granted by the State Government and the students are pursuing
their studies in the petitioner-institution.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondents opposed the aforesaid submissions made on
behalf of the petitioner.
5.1. Learned counsel for respondent-RUHS submitted that the
petitioner-institution had applied for affiliation for the Course in
question for intake capacity of 30 seats on 28..01.2020 and the
petitioner neither submitted any application for affiliation with
increase in the number of seats from 30 to 50 seats upto the last
date i.e 31.07.2020, nor submitted any affiliation fee in that
regard.
(11 of 17) [CW-11450/2016]
5.2 It was further submitted that the State Government has
granted the NOC to the petitioner-institution in the year 2007 to
run the Course in question with intake capacity of 50 seats, but
since the petitioner-institution had applied for affiliation with
intake capacity of 30 seats by paying the affiliation fee to that
extent only, therefore, the respondent-RUHS has rightly included
the petitioner-institution in counseling process with regard to
intake capacity of 30 seats only.
5.3. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that the
petitioner-institution did not submit the requisite application in the
prescribed format within the stipulated period seeking
enhancement in the number of seats, as claimed to have been
permitted/approved by the State Government, and therefore, the
petitioner-institution was not included in the counseling with
regard to intake capacity of 50 seats for the Course in question.
5.4. Learned counsel for the respondent-INC submitted that it is
not disputed that the power to grant recognition to the nursing
institutions in the State vests with the State Nursing Council/
State Government, and that, the respondent-INC does not claim
the same in regard to running of the Course in question in any of
the institutions in the State, but the INC is having the right to
inspect the Nursing institutions, so as to ensure that such
institutions maintain the minimum requisite standards of nursing
education, as it pertains to health services in the State.
5.4.1. It was further submitted that the respondent-INC had
conducted the inspection of the petitioner-institution for the first
(12 of 17) [CW-11450/2016]
time on 05-06.05.2008, in terms of Sections 13 and 14 of the
Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947, and thereafter, on the basis of
the said inspection, the Executive Committee found the petitioner-
institution to be suitable for 30 seats only, as the strength of the
seats commensurates to the availability of the infrastructure,
clinical facility and teaching faculty of the institution concerned.
5.4.2. It was also submitted that as per the general practice, the
NOC is granted to the concerned institution(s) subject to its
meeting the guidelines of the Indian Nursing Council (INC). In the
present case, after the inspection of the petitioner-institution, it
was found that the institution is suitable for 30 seats only, and
therefore, the entire action as taken herein, is justified in law.
5.5. It was further submitted that the petitioner-institution was
deficient in many aspects, like not having proper teaching faculty
and proper infrastructural facilities, and built up area of the hostel
was only 22,000 sq.ft. and only 20 students were residing therein;
on count of the fact that such deficiencies have not been removed
by the petitioner-institution, it is not eligible for grant of
NOC/permission to run the Course in question with intake capacity
of 50 seats.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
record of the case.
7. This Court observes that the petitioners-institutions applied
for the NOC before the State Government and the same was
granted by the State Government with intake capacity of 50 seats
on 30.01.2007. In pursuance of issuance of such NOC, the
(13 of 17) [CW-11450/2016]
petitioners-institutions applied before the respondent-INC for
grant of recognition for the course in question; whereafter, the
respondent- INC sought NOC from the respondent-RUHS, and
thereupon, the respondent-RUHS conveyed its no objection to the
respondent-INC, in the event of grant of permission by the
respondent-INC to the petitioners-institutions to run the Course in
question. Thereafter, the respondent-INC, vide order dated
18.08.2008, granted permission to the petitioners-institutions for
conducting the Course in question with intake capacity of 30
seats, which was continued with the same intake capacity for the
subsequent years as well.
8. This Court further observes that in Special Appeal
(D.B.S.A.W. No. 508/2018-Indian Nursing Council Vs
Kamaksha & Ors.), a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court vide
order dated 02.09.2019 observed that the respondent-INC does
not have power to recognize the nursing institutions, but has
ample powers to conduct the necessary inspection of the
institution(s) concerned. Relevant portion of the said order is
reproduced as hereunder:-
"It is, therefore, clear from the above provisions that the Central
Council acting through the Executive Committee has ample
powers to inspect recognized institutions, colleges etc. which are
recognized by the State Council. This is in furtherance to the
Union's powers of coordination and determination of standards
under Entry No. 66 of the List-1 of the VII Schedule to the
Constitution of India. Being primarily, a standard setting and
coordinating body, the Council is empowered with consequential
power to ensure compliance, by way of constant oversight. At
the same time, this Court is of the opinion that such a power of
(14 of 17) [CW-11450/2016]
inspection cannot be invoked arbitrarily and must be for some
reason expressly recorded in its files. The mode of taking action
pursuant to any deficiency found would also entail active
involvement of the State Council, which is primarily seized of
matters regarding recognition, enforcement etc. Natural justice
and a degree of fairness is involved and has to necessarily be
followed if recognition, once granted, is sought to be withdrawn.
In the light of the above reasons and the formulation of
law approved by the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court clearly
emerges that the Central Council does not have the power to
recognise institutions, which is a power vested with the State
Council. The Central Council through the Executive Committee
can ensure inspection, as and when needed and based upon
such inspection reports, which of course has to be supplied to
the concerned institution and the State Government. Inputs are
to be received under Section 13 from the State, after which,
adverse action can be taken, if warranted.
During the course of the hearing, learned counsel has
submitted that the Central Council would have the power to
grant recognition as is evident from Section 3. In the opinion of
this Court, that argument is not correct or accurate. Section 3
deals with the constitution of the committee and election to the
Central Council. For the purposes of election, the consideration
of recognition would be in accordance with the standards that
the Central Committee Council might prescribe. However, those
are quite independent from the autonomy granted by the State
to its State Committee to recognise or refuse to recognise
institutions falling within the territory of each State."
8.1. This Court also observes that the State Government and the
respondent-INC also issued communications, wherein the
aforementioned proposition was reflected.
9. This Court further observes that in the present case, it is
clear that the petitioners-institutions have NOC issued by the
State Government to run the Course in question with intake
capacity of 50 seats, but the respondent-INC allowed the
(15 of 17) [CW-11450/2016]
petitioners-institutions to run the Course in question with intake
capacity of only 30 seats; after inspection of the petitioners-
institutions particularly, with regard to the infrastructural facilities
available in the institutions. Thereafter, the respondent-INC has no
power to recognize the nursing institutions, and that, the
petitioners-institutions admitted the students as per the NOC
issued to them by the State Government.
9.1. This Court also observes that the students of the petitioners-
institutions are continuing with the Course in question and were
provisionally allowed to participate in the counselling process by
virtue of an interim order dated 09.02.2021 passed by this
Hon'ble Court; the relevant portion of the said interim order is
reproduced as hereunder:
"In the meanwhile, if the counselling is still in progress, the
petitioner - institution may be provisionally included for
allotment of students for admission to BSC Course for upcoming
academic year 2020-21 as per the annual intake capacity of 60
seats sanctioned by the State/Rajasthan Nursing Council.
However, it is made clear that inclusion of petitioner - institution
for allotment of students and admission accorded in pursuance
thereto, shall not create any right of equity in favour of petitioner
- institution or the students admitted to the course pursuant to
this interim order. The admission accorded shall remain subject
to the decision of the writ petition."
10. This Court further observes that it is clear that the
petitioners-institutions are recognized institutions having been
issued the NOC by the State Government to run the Course in
question with intake capacity of 50 seats, and even the
respondent-INC granted recognition to them for running the
(16 of 17) [CW-11450/2016]
Course, though with intake capacity of 30 seats. The petitioners-
institutions admitted the students as per the State Government's
NOC, and therefore, it is not a case where any irregularity or
illegality was committed by the petitioners-institutions, in granting
such admissions.
11. This Court also observes that the students are pursuing the
Course in question in the petitioners-institutions, and were also
allowed to participate in the counselling process by virtue of the
aforementioned interim order. The students, who took admission
in the petitioners-institutions to pursue the Course in question are
young students, and cannot be penalized or made to suffer only
on technical ground regarding which authority has the power to
issue NOC for running the Course in question, with a particular
intake of seats. Therefore, at this stage and looking into the
interests of the students, the students who were admitted in the
petitioners-institutions and are continuing the Course in question
with intake of 50 seats in academic session of 2020-21 are
ordered to be allowed to continue with their studies in the Course.
12. Thus, in view of the above, the present writ petitions are
disposed of with liberty to the petitioners-institutions to apply for
fresh NOC for the next academic session with enhanced intake of
seats in the Course in question, before the State
Government/State Nursing Council within a period of 15 days from
today, and the cases of the petitioners-institutions, with regard to
such NOC, shall be considered and decided by the State
Government/State Nursing Council, within a period of 45 days
(17 of 17) [CW-11450/2016]
thereafter, strictly in accordance with law, in case the institutions
desire to further continue with the Course in the next academic
session. Such decision taken by the State Government/State
Nursing Council/INC shall remain binding on all the institutions, for
intake capacity/future running of the Course in question. Thus, it
is directed that the fate of the institution(s) for the intake
capacity/future running of the Course in question shall be as per
the decision of the State Government, while keeping into
consideration the stand of the INC and State Nursing Council.
12.1. It is needless to say that the respondent-INC will be
free to exercise its powers, as per the order passed in the case of
Indian Nursing Council Vs Kamaksha & Ors. (Supra). This
Court thus, directs the respondents to regularize the students,
who were admitted as per State Government's NOC and were
allowed to participate in the counselling process by virtue of the
aforementioned interim order dated 09.02.2021 passed by this
Hon'ble Court. All pending applications also stand disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
SKant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
