Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Indira Education Institute Of Nursing vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:39891) on 25 September, 2024
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2024:RJ-JD:39891]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13307/2024
Indira Education Institute Of Nursing, Through Its Director Dr.
Ram Sagar Nagar S/o Shri Mangilal Ji Nagar, Aged About 53
Years R/o 5-6, Opp. U.t.i. Community Centre, Sector 4, Hiran
Magari, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Medical And
Health (Group-Iii) Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Nursing Council, Through Its Registrar B-39,
Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Private Physiotherapy, Nursing And Para Medical
Institutions Society, Branch Office Jodhpur Through Its
Secretary, Plot No. 273, Subhash Nagar, Pal Road,
Jodhpur Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankur Mathur with Mr.
Harshvardhan Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. NS Rajpurohit, AAG assisted by
Ms. Ruchi Parihar
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
25/09/2024
1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed
thus:-
"(a) The record of the case may be called
for.
(b) The respondents may be directed to
allow the petitioner institution to admit
100 students in GNM Course in consonance
with the permissible accorded.
(c) The respondents may further be
directed to include the name of the
petitioner institution in the list of eligible
[2024:RJ-JD:39891] (2 of 6) [CW-13307/2024]
institution for the purpose of counsellng for
the academic session 2024-2025 onwards
in GNM Course with intake capacity of 100
students.
(d) The respondent federation/association
may be directed to recommend the
authorities for enhancement of seats and
also be directed to include the petitioner
institution in its counseling with intake
capacity of 100 seats.
(e) The respondent authorities may further
be directed to accept the fees for enhanced
intake capacity of seats.
(f) Cost of litigation and damages may also
be allowed in favour of the petitioner.
(g) Any other appropriate writ or order or
direction which is favorable to the
petitioner in the facts and circumstances of
the case may kindly be granted to the
petitioner."
2. Various submissions have been made before this Court on
previous dates of hearing and on last occasion (10.09.2024), this
Court has issued following direction to Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, learned
Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State:-
"(3). List these cases on 23.09.2024, on
which date the respondent - State shall
come with a categorical stand as to
whether the petitioners - institutions to
whom NOCs have been granted will be
entitled to take part in the counselling for
the seats mentioned in respective NOCs or
for lesser number of seats and reasons
thereof."
3. Today, before responding to the above query, learned
Additional Advocate General submitted that the officer in-charge
has brought to his notice that an order dated 07.11.2023 was
passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in petitioner's own writ
petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9837/2022, filed for
previous academic year (2022-2023). He pointed out that in the
[2024:RJ-JD:39891] (3 of 6) [CW-13307/2024]
said order, while following the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in the case of Mayurakshi College of Nursing, Jodhpur
vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.15732/2022), this Court had expressed its concern about
petitioner approaching the Court again and again and even gone
to the extent of recording that - in case, petitioner files
subsequent writ petition and prays for grant of any interim order
without applying for NOC, the same shall be deemed to be in
defiance of the directions issued in the present writ petition (S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.9837/2022).
4. The operative part of the order dated 07.11.2023 reads
thus:-
"4. This Court is of the opinion that the
issue in question would be covered by the
observations and decision of the co-
ordinate bench in Mayurakshi's case
(supra).
However, it is hereby reiterated
that the present order would operate
only qua the academic session 2022-
23. As observed in Mayurakshi's case
(supra), if the petitioner Institutes are
desirous to continue the course in
question for the next academic
session, it would mandatorily have to
apply for a fresh NOC before the State
Government/State Nursing Council.
5. The case of the petitioner Institutes
with regard to NOC shall be considered and
decided by the State Government/State
Nursing Council within a period of 45 days
from the said application. The decision as
taken by the State Government/State
Nursing Council qua the intake capacity
shall be binding on the Institutes.
6. It is further made clear that if in
future, the petitioner Institutes apply
before this Court for grant of any
[2024:RJ-JD:39891] (4 of 6) [CW-13307/2024]
interim order in its favour without
applying for issuance of the NOC to
the State Government, the same shall
be deemed to be in defiance of the
directions issued in the present writ
petitions.
7. The present writ petitions are
disposed of with directions as issued in the
case of Mayurakshi's case (supra) and the
observations made above.
8. Stay petitions and all pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed
of."
5. Mr. Rajpurohit, learned AAG submitted that the petitioner
had neither applied for fresh NOC nor has it cared to make a
reference of above referred order (07.11.2023) passed in
petitioner's own writ petition, let alone placing copy of such order
on record!
6. He argued that by virtue of the earlier order dated
07.11.2023 passed in petitioner's earlier writ petition, the
petitioner could not have filed a fresh writ petition, without
applying for NOC.
7. Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner tried to
canvass that the petitioner is already having an NOC and hence,
there is no reason for applying for fresh NOC. He also submitted
that a review petition (S.B. Review Petition No.117/2023) has
been preferred by him in the case of Bansal Nursing Charitable
Trust (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11450/2016) which is
pending consideration.
8. He submitted that since the above review petition was
pending, the petitioner bonafidely believing that there was no
requirement of applying for fresh NOC, has preferred this writ
[2024:RJ-JD:39891] (5 of 6) [CW-13307/2024]
petition. He added that it was due to inadvertence that he omitted
to bring the order dated 07.11.2023 to the notice of this Court.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of
the view that in the face of the order dated 07.11.2023 passed in
petitioner's earlier writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.9837/2022), the petitioner could not have filed a fresh writ
petition seeking indulgence of the Court, without applying for the
NOC.
10. It is surprising rather startling to note that in the earlier
round of litigation, the petitioner was represented by none other
than the counsel who is representing it in the present writ
petition. It is easier said than believed that the petitioner omitted
to produce copy of the earlier order dated 07.11.2023 passed by
this Court.
11. It is a matter of grave concern that on the previous date of
hearing Mr. Mathur has strongly relied upon the order dated
20.10.2023 but has kept the above referred order (dated
07.11.2023) out of the Court's knowledge.
12. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in unequivocal terms had
directed that the earlier order would be confined to year 2022-23
and the petitioner shall have to apply for NOC.
13. The petitioner's action firstly of not applying for NOC and
then, filing the present writ petition with impunity and not making
a reference is nothing short of misleading.
14. The matter has been got listed on 9 occasions in last 40-45
days citing urgency. Substantial hearing has taken place on the
previous date and during which learned counsel cited all other
orders but the one which has been shown by Mr. Rajpurohit today.
[2024:RJ-JD:39891] (6 of 6) [CW-13307/2024]
15. Filing of the present writ petition is therefore, clearly in
defiance of the earlier order passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court. And then, non-disclosure of earlier writ petition and not
bringing the said order to the notice of the Court is like adding fuel
to fire - it cannot be taken lightly.
16. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with a cost of
Rs.5,00,000/-. The petitioner shall pay such cost to the State
Government; the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- shall be utilized for the
welfare of nurses of TSP area.
17. In case, petitioner fails to pay the aforesaid amount within a
period of two months from today, the State shall recover it as
arrears of land revenue. The State shall be free to de-recognize
the petitioner's Institute, in such event.
18. As a cost of Rs.5,00,000/- has been imposed, this Court
desists from initiating contempt proceedings against the
concerned persons.
19. The stay application also stands dismissed accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
415-raksha/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
