Madrasdated High Court · 2006
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. The brief facts necessary for disposal of these writ appeals withreference to W.A.No.620 of 2006 are that the Appellant Trust hasestablished various Educational Institutions in Tamil Nadu and Pondicherryi.e., two medical colleges in the Union Territory of Pondicherry and onein Salem, Tamil Nadu. To…
- Para 1919. In a recent decision of a Division Bench of this Court reportedin 2006 (2) LW 346 (Dharma Medical and Research Charitable Trust v.Government of India and others)(DB) it is held that once the authoritiescompetent to grant permission granted permission, the Dr.M.G.R. MedicalUniversity has no…
- Para 2323. In the result, the order of the learned single Judge is set asideand the writ appeals are disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/-Asst. Registrar & Vacation Officer./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ vrTo1.The Tamil Nadu Nurses and…
Judgment
This writ appeal is preferred against the order of the learned singleJudge dated 3.4.2006 in W.P.No.15877 of 2003 presented to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamusdirecting the first Respondent University to forthwith process theapplication for affiliation in respect of the B.Sc. Nursing Courses andgrant affiliation with effect from the academic year 2002-2003 by holdingnecessary inspection and observing other formalities in the light of thepermission granted by the Govt. of Pondicherry and the recognition grantedby the Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midwives Council and also the NOC issued bythe University within such time as the Honourable Court may stipulate. For Appellant in both appeals :Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, Sr.Counselfor Mr.Satish ParasaranFor 1st Respondent in WA.619/2006 : Mr.A.R.NixonFor 1st Respondent in W.A.620/2006 :Ms.G.Thilakavathi& 2nd respondent in W.A.No.619/2006For R-3 in W.A.No.619/2006 &:Mr.T.MurugesanRR-2&3 in W.A.No.620/2006Govt. Pleader (Pondicherry)For RR-4 to 52 in W.A.620/2006:Mr.Hari Shankarfor Mr.Srinath SridevanFor R-4 in W.A.619/2006 &:Mr.T.Arunan, CGSCR-53 in W.A.620/2006COMMON JUDGMENTN. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR, J.W.A.No.620 of 2006 has been directed against the order made inW.P.No.15877 of 2003. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writof certiorarified mandamus calling for the records comprised in theproceedings of the first respondent University dated 18.2.2003, proceedingdated 11.4.2003 and proceeding dated 10.6.2003 and quash the same andconsequently direct the first respondent to consider the grant ofaffiliation for the B.Sc (Nursing) Course offered by the petitioner forthe academic years 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 in the light of the permissiongranted by the Government of Pondicherry, the recognition granted by the Indian Nursing council and the Tamil nadu Nurses and Midwives Counciletc., to enable the students to continue their course and undertake allexaminations until completion of the course. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
W.A.No.619 of 2006 has been filed against the order inW.P.No.5080 of 2006, wherein the prayer is to issue a writ of certioraricalling for the records of the first respondent comprised in proceedingsdated 7.2.2006 and quash the same.
Both the above writ petitions along with some other connectedwrit petitions were disposed of by the learned single Judge by the commonorder dated 3.4.2006, which is under challenge in the present writ appeals.
The brief facts necessary for disposal of these writ appeals withreference to W.A.No.620 of 2006 are that the Appellant Trust hasestablished various Educational Institutions in Tamil Nadu and Pondicherryi.e., two medical colleges in the Union Territory of Pondicherry and onein Salem, Tamil Nadu. To consolidate the importance of medical education, petitioner Trust wanted to start another Paramedical course, pursuant towhich, R.M.college of Paramedical sciences sponsored by Al IslamicEducational Trust at Pondicherry was purchased by a deed of transfer. Thesaid R.M.College of Paramedical Sciences was offering various paramedicalcourses including B.Sc (Nursing). The appellant Trust, before enteringinto the agreement to take over the said R.M.College of ParamedicalSciences, desired to obtain permission from the Government of Pondicherryand accordingly made a representation to respondents 2 and 3. TheGovernment of Pondicherry by letter dated 11.6.2002 intimated that the Government had no role to play in the proposed merger of both theinstitutions. However, it was informed that if the merger takes place theminority status given to the R.M.College of Paramedical Science would betreated as withdrawn and the management, which takes over the said Trustshould protect the interest of the students already admitted and studyingin various courses and it was also requested to send documents relating tomerger for record purposes.
The appellant, pursuant to the said letter of the Government of Pondicherry, entered into a deed of taking over, dated 26.6.2002 and tookover the control of the management of R.M.College of Paramedical Sciencesto impart education in various paramedical courses including B.Sc(nursing) comprising of degree, diploma and certificate courses. On3.7.2002, the appellant wrote to the first respondent University about thesaid fact of obtaining permission for taking over from the Government of Pondicherry and requested to grant affiliation for various paramedicalcourses run by the said R.M.College of Paramedical Courses, which thepetitioner Trust had taken over in the name of 'Vijayaka Mission's Collegeof Paramedical Sciences' sponsored by the petitioner Trust. On 5.7.2002,appellant submitted representation and reiterated that permission has beenobtained from the Government of Pondicherry for taking over and requestedto grant affiliation for eight courses including B.Sc (Nursing).According to the appellant, several further representations were made andthe management proceeded to conduct various courses including B.Sc.(Nursing) degree course and students have been admitted from July, 2002for the academic year 2002-2003.
On 4.12.2002, the appellant submitted a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ representation to the Registrar, Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midwives Councilseeking its recognition for B.Sc (Nursing) degree course and based on theinspection conducted by the said Council, established under the Tamil NaduNurses and Midwives Act, it granted temporary recognition to the appellantinstitution by order dated 4.12.2002 to conduct degree programme in basicB.Sc (Nursing) for the academic year 2002-2003 with an annual intake of 50students and also made it clear that the first batch of admission ofstudents is permitted in July for the academic year 2002-2003. In thesaid recognition order, various conditions were laid down, which were alsocomplied with by the appellant. The appellant pointed out the grant ofrecognition by the Tamil Nadu Nursing Council before the first respondentand requested the first respondent University to conduct examination for50 students admitted.
However, the first respondent University failed toprocess the application for affiliation, which resulted in appellantmaking further representation to the University. On 9.1.2003, the firstrespondent University requested the petitioner to furnish the originalpermission granted by the State Government for take-over of the R.M.College of Paramedical Sciences and also took note of the fact thatstudents have been admitted without obtaining affiliation and alsoadverted to the fact that already a writ petition was filed by the AlIslamic Trust for grant of affiliation, which was subsequently withdrawnby the said institution on 21.3.2003. Appellant had informed the University about the withdrawal of the earlier writ petition filed by theerstwhile management and also furnished all the necessary particularssought for by the University and also pointed out the grant of noobjection by the first respondent University on 17.6.199 to theR.M.College of Paramedical Sciences for four courses. However, the University refused to pass any order on the request for affiliation of thepetitioner Nursing College.
The appellant, initially filed the writ petition and prayed for awrit of mandamus seeking direction for the first respondent University toforthwith process the application for affiliation in respect of the B.ScNursing Course and grant affiliation with effect from the academic year2002-2003 by holding necessary inspection and observing other formalities, in the light of the permission granted by the Government of Pondicherryand the recognition granted by the Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midwives Counciland also the No Objection Certificate issued by the University.
A counter affidavit was filed in the said writ petition in whichit is stated that taking note of the time frame under which theinstitution had approached the University for grant of affiliation andwith reference to the relevant regulations, more particularly clause 5(a)of the academic ordinance under the Pondicherry University Act, 1985,appellant Trust was informed that its application for affiliation could beconsidered only for the academic year 2003-2004 vide University lettersdated 18.2.2003 and 11.4.2003 and mentioned that the consideration ofaffiliation for the academic year 2003-2004 could be considered subject tothe petitioner being able to provide the approval of competent authority https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ before the end of May, 2003 and the No Objection Certificate received fromthe Government of Pondicherry. Thereby the first respondent Universitycontended that the affiliation request for 2002-2003 was negatived by thesaid order. 8. Taking note of the said stand, the appellant filed amendmentpetition to amend the prayer in the writ petition to that ofcertiorarified mandamus as stated supra.
The second writ petition was filed by the petitioner Trust toquash the order dated 7.2.2006 passed by the Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midwives Council, Chennai-104, wherein the appellant was directed to handover the students' original certificates, other documents, files, registers, records and communications pertaining to these students to beallotted to other institutions.
The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petitions taking noteof the submission made by the Pondicherry University that the applicationfor affiliation for 2002-2003 was not submitted by the appellant Trustbefore the last date fixed under the affiliation norms i.e, 15th August ofthe preceding year and ultimately the learned single Judge held that theaffiliation having not been granted to the petitioner's Nursing College, the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Nursing Council on 7.2.2006 is valid.11.(a)The learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant inboth the writ appeals argued that the application submitted foraffiliation before the Pondicherry University for B.Sc Nursing Course2002-2003 was not considered by the University on merits and no inspectionwhatsoever was made to find out as to whether the appellant NursingCollege had fulfilled the academic requirements and the infrastructuralfacilities for the grant of affiliation.
The only reason stated forrejecting the request for affiliation for 2002-2003 is that theapplication for affiliation was submitted beyond the prescribed time. Thelearned Senior Counsel further submitted that the Indian Nursing Councilhas granted permission to the appellant Nursing College by letter dated23.9.2003 to admit students for the academic year 2002-2003 with an annualintake of 50 students and the said Council also granted permission for theacademic year 2003-2004 by letter dated 30.7.2004 with an intake of 60students, and for 2004-2005 with an intake of 60 students. The saidpermission was granted by the Indian Nursing Council under section 10 ofthe Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947, after making Inspection oncompliance of the requirements for the grant of recognition. (b)The learned senior Counsel also submitted that the Tamil NaduNurses and Midwives Council has also granted temporary recognition for2002-2003 by letter dated 4.2.2003 for an annual intake of 50 students.
The said Council also granted temporary recognition for 2003-2004 for anintake of 60 students on 4.6.2003 and also 60 students in the year 2004-25. In the year 2004-2005 the appellant was brought under the ambit of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Deemed University and therefore the only requirement now is to getaffiliation for the academic year 2002-2003 and 2003-2004. The learnedSenior Counsel further stated that 49 students admitted during 2002-2003have written the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th semester examinations and their resultshave been declared only for the 3rd and 4th semester examination by ordersof the Court and 60 students admitted during 2003-2004 have written the1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th semester examinations and the results for the 1st and 2ndsemester alone have been declared. The failed students have now beenallowed by the Pondicherry University to take up the arrears examinationto be held shortly.
The learned counsel further submitted that in similarmatter in W.P.No.10850 of 2004, a learned single Judge of this Courtdirected the University to conduct inspection and grant affiliation withina reasonable time in the interest of students. The Writ Appeal filed bythe University in W.A.No.3393 of 2004 was also dismissed by a DivisionBench of this Court. (c)The learned Senior Counsel therefore submitted that the matter inissue is covered by the decision of this Court above referred and thelearned single Judge has not considered the said decision and strictlyconstrued the time limit prescribed by the University and dismissed thewrit petitions on that sole ground. On the said background the learnedSenior Counsel requested this Court to give direction to the firstrespondent University to inspect the appellant Nursing College based onwhich orders can be passed with reference to the grant of affiliation forthe academic year 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 only, so that the interest ofthe students would be protected.
The learned senior Counsel also arguedthat suppose the first respondent University inspected and rejectedaffiliation due to want of requirements, the appellant could not haveadmitted students and is not entitled to insist for affiliation. Here inthis case, admittedly there is no inspection and only on technical groundsthe request for affiliation was rejected and in fact the first respondentUniversity is not strictly adhering to the cut of date for submitting theapplication and on earlier occasions the first respondent processed theapplication for affiliation even though institutions have submittedapplication for affiliation beyond the prescribed time. Hence the learnedcounsel prayed for suitable direction to the first respondent to inspectthe petitioner Nursing College and pass orders on merits and ifaffiliation is granted, the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Nursing Councildated 7.2.2006 need not be given effect to.
The learned counsel for the University argued that because of thebelated submission of the application for affiliation the appellant'srequest for affiliation was not considered on merits and as the Universityis strictly adhering to the time limit, no exception can be made againstthe order passed by the single Judge and prayed for dismissal of the writappeals.
We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the Pondicherry https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Government, learned counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midwives Council, Counsel for the students of the petitioner institutionand also the learned counsel for the Indian Council for Nurses.
It is not in dispute that the application for affiliation wassubmitted by the appellant and recognition by the competent authoritiesviz., the Indian Nursing Council for the academic year 2002-2003 for 50students and for the year 2003-2004 for 60 students were granted by ordersdated 23.9.2003 and 30.7.2004 respectively. The Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midwives Council also granted temporary recognition for 50 students forthe 2002-2003 and 60 students for year 2003-2004 by orders dated4.12.2002 and 4.6.2003 respectively. It is also not in dispute that 49students admitted during 2002-2003 and 60 students admitted during 2003-2004 have written their examinations. In the light of the aboveundisputed facts, the point to be considered is whether the University isjustified in not considering the affiliation application on merits merelyon the ground of delay in submitting the same.
A similar issue came up before this Court for consideration inW.P.No.10850 of 2004 and by order dated 2.9.2004 this Court taking note ofthe grant of affiliation to several courses to several institutions, irrespective of the belated submission of applications, held as follows,"(vi)The reason for refusal to grantaffiliation is not because that there was anydeficiency or defect in the infrastructuralrequirements for running the Institution, in whichcase, public interest may be stated to be involved. Inthe present case, the only defect is not havingforwarded the application on or before 15th of August ofthe Previous year. (vii)The situation faced by the petitionerInstitution is the outcome of defects in the verysystem, requiring the approval / permission fromvarious authorities, one after the other. In thiscase, the petitioner has sought for EssentialityCertificate in the year 2001 itself. If only theapplicants are entitled to approach all the authoritiessimultaneously, as they should be, such anomaloussituations could be avoided. For all the above-said reasons and bearing in mindthe plight of the students who have been admitted ondirection from the Government, the writ petitiondeserves to be allowed. "The Pondicherry University, viz., the first respondent herein challenged https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the order of the single Judge made in W.P.No.10850 of 2004, in W.A.No.3393of 2004 and the same was dismissed by this Court on 30.9.2004.
Mr.S.S.Subramani, J., in W.P.No.1270 of 1999 dated 22.2.1999(Kousalya Ramamurthy and others v. Pondicherry University), relying on theobservation that all the authorities concerned should take simultaneousdecision and one authority cannot delay the process and that when onceAICTE has granted permission, the Management would be legally entitled toadmit the students. In W.P.No.23925 of 2001 by order dated 22.3.2002(Aarupadai Veedu Medical College v. Pondicherry University), A.Kulasekaran, J. had observed that when once the Central Government hasgranted permission to admit the students, it was not right on the part ofthe University to prescribe a different period by rejecting theapplication for affiliation. In St.Xavier's Educational Trust v.Manonmaniam Sundaranar University and Others, W.P.No.20496 of 2000, byorder dated 19.12.2000, K.Govindarajan, J. directed the University togrant affiliation for the academic year 2000-2001, though the judgment wasrendered on 19.12.2000.
A similar issue arose before this Court in the decision reportedin 2005 WLR 257 (Madras Education and Research, Integrated Trust v. ThePeriyar University represented by its Registrar, etc. & another) whereinalso the Periyar University, Bharathidasan University and Madurai KamarajUniversity refused to entertain applications for affiliation of B.Edcourses even after the grant of recognition by the NCTE on the ground thatthe affiliation application was submitted beyond the time prescribed bythe respective Universities and also on the ground that no objectioncertificate/permission from the State Government was not obtained forestablishment of B.Ed. Colleges. The learned single Judge in the abovereferred decision negatived the said contention of the respectiveUniversities and allowed the writ petitions and ordered to consider eachof the applications submitted before each of the Universities for grant ofaffiliation, subject to the condition of affiliation, which are notinconsistent to the provisions of either NCTE Act or regulations andcomplete such exercise on or before 31.12.2004. The respectiveuniversities filed writ appeals against the said order of the learnedsingle Judge and in the decision reported in 2005(2) CTC 182(Bharathidasan University V. Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Educational and Charitable Trust)(DB), this Court dismissed the writ appeals and directedthe Universities to pass orders on the request of affiliation by therespective B.Ed Colleges, without insisting for NOC/permission from the State Government by sending necessary inspection team. All theinstitutions applied for affiliation before the respective Universitiesbeyond the prescribed date, since recognition was granted for the saidB.Ed Colleges after the last date prescribed for submitting applicationfor affiliation for that academic year. Taking note of the said fact, thelearned single Judge as well as the Division Bench directed the Universities to pass orders on the affiliation applications after makinginspection. The said order of the Division Bench was also confirmed by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Honourable Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.6241 of 2005, order dated17.4.2006 following the judgment reported in 2006 (3) SCALE 675 (State of Maharashtra vs. Sant Davaneshwar Shikshan Shastra).
In the decision reported in 1993 WLR 965 (The Registrar, Pondicherry University, etc., v. Trustee, Dr.Alexandar EducationalFoundations, etc.) a Division Bench of this Court directed to consider theaffiliation without reference to the cut of date. Paragraph 6 of thesaid Judgment reads thus,"For the reasons stated above, the writ appeal isallowed. The order dated 2.8.1993 passed inW.P.No.6294 of 1993 is set aside. The writ petition isdisposed of in the following terms: The firstrespondent shall make an application in accordance withthe provisions of the statutes with necessary fees onor before 15th October, 1993. If such an applicationfor affiliation of the college for conducting coursesleading to B.Pharm, B.Sc.,(MLT) and B.Sc. (Nutrition)is filed, the same shall be considered by the University in accordance with the provisions of therelevant regulations, statutes and the Act, withoutraising an objection that the application has beenfiled beyond 15th August, 1993 and the University shallcomplete the procedure required by the statute and the Executive Council shall take a decision on theapplication for affiliation within 3 months from thedate of filing of the application. In the facts andcircumstances of the case, there will be no order as tocosts. "
In a recent decision of a Division Bench of this Court reportedin 2006 (2) LW 346 (Dharma Medical and Research Charitable Trust v.Government of India and others)(DB) it is held that once the authoritiescompetent to grant permission granted permission, the Dr.M.G.R. MedicalUniversity has no jurisdiction to reduce the student strength even thoughthe University may not be precluded from carrying on the inspection withregard to the infrastructural facilities of the Institution.
Section 11 of the Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947, clearlystates the effect of recognition granted by the Indian Nursing Council, which reads as under,"11. Effect of recognition.- (1) Notwithstandinganything contained in any other law,-(a) any recognised qualification shall be asufficient qualification for enrolment in anyState register; (b) no person shall, after the date ofcommencement of this Act, be entitled to beenrolled in any State register as a nurse, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ midwife auxiliary nurse-midwife, healthvisitor, or public health nurse unless he orshe holds a recognised qualification: Provided that any person already enrolledin any State register before the said date maycontinue to be so enrolled notwithstanding thathe or she may not hold a recognisedqualification: ..... "Admittedly the Indian Nursing Council and the Tamil Nadu Nursing and Midwives Council granted recognitions for the B.Sc (Nursing) course forthe academic years 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005.
Hence the firstrespondent is duty bound to consider the request of the appellant for thegrant of affiliation, otherwise the grant of recognition by the competentauthorities will be set at naught. The Central Nursing Council, StateNursing Council and the University must co-ordinate to carry out theobject of smooth functioning of the Institutions, failing which the grantof recognition by the Competent authorities will not have any effect andthe interest of the students and the Institution will be in jeopardy. Thestand of the first respondent that the appellant should have appliedbefore 15th August of the preceding year without the recognition by thecompetent authorities is an impossibility of performance. While disposingof W.P.No.10850 of 2004, K.P.Sivasubramaniam, J. in paragraphs 20 and 21observed as follows,"20. While parting with this case, it would beappropriate to place on record the totalunsustainability of the methodology adopted by thevarious authorities who are involved in the grant ofpermission / sanction / affiliation, etc., for startinga professional college / courses, namely, Medicaldental, Nursing, Teachers' Training, Engineering, Technical, etc. when the Government is not able to runsuch educational Institutions and the right ofeducation being recognised as a fundamental right, theneed of imparting education through private sector hadbecome inevitable and a recognised feature.
But, inorder to see to it that the private sector does notexploit the situation commercially and in anunconscionable manner and to ensure proper standards, many regulations have been formulated to control thefee structure, to ensure all infrastructuralfacilities, staff pattern, etc., before and after theinstitution is allowed to admit the students andcommence its functioning. In the said process, necessarily different authorities are involved such as Central and State Governments, Governing Councils likethe Medical Council, Dental Council, AICTE, etc., andthe University. No doubt, these authorities have toact independently in their own spheres and according totheir own standards. But it should not be forgotten https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that they are statutory authorities discharging thefunctions of one single entity, namely, the SovereignGovernment. The various authorities above-mentionedare part and parcel of that single entity and theyfunction differently only for administrative reasonsand due to division of labour.
But the unfortunateoutcome of such division of labour is the impossibleand impracticable situations and requirements which theapplying institution has to face for establishingitself. Which authority is to be approached first, second third or last is a question which no one cananswer. But one thing is sure. "A: authority wouldrequire the approval by "B", "C" and "D" authorities, while "B" authority would require approval /permissionby the other three authorities and likewise in the caseof "C" and "D" authorities. I ask myself the questionas to how this could be possible at all and where isthe need for such a requirement. The applyinginstitution is expected to successfully complete thisjugglery, after having invested several lakhs of rupeesonly to find at last being told that students cannot beadmitted for the particular academic year. Thissituation inevitably leads to red-tapism, corruption, favouritism and inconsistent orders being passed infavour of and against different institutions byadopting different yardsticks.
This rigmarole is goingon for the past many years, flooding the Courts withpetitions where it is also found that innocent studentsare caught in this confusion. They already have afrightening and competitive future ahead of them andeven at the threshold of their professional education, they are subjected to painful suspense and many times, are forced to loose money and valuable years when theyare told that the institution in which they areadmitted is not yet recognised or affiliated. Take forinstance this case itself where the Government of Pondicherry itself directs the College to admit thestudents, while the University states that they cannotaffiliate, as the application was belated. If onlysimultaneous applications are made possible, thisproblem would not have arisen at all. When thepetitioning College is required to approach the University only after the Essentiality Certificate isgiven by the Government, it results in unnecessarydelay and the requirement that the application foraffiliation should have been made on or before 15th of August of the previous year itself is renderedimpossible.
Further, it is also seen that while the Indian Nursing Council grants permission on 20.9.2003, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Tamil Nadu Nursing Council points out certaindefects and ultimately grants its approval only on11.5.2004. It is baffling to find that both the Nursing Councils should be involved though they operateonly on the same field, but both of them have differentapproach regarding the infrastructural requirements.
Who is responsible for this situation and isit such a complicated issue to evade solution by theeducational authorities ? It should be certainlypossible to evolve a methodology by which the applyinginstitution would be required to present itsapplication before all the authorities simultaneously, something in the nature of a single window system and atime limit for all the authorities to pass orders fordirections to rectify the defects, if any, and tocomply with the requirements. "21. Having perused the above referred judgments we are of theconsidered view that the stand taken by the first respondent University isunsustainable and the writ petitions filed by the appellant deserve to beallowed with a direction to the first respondent University to considerthe request of the appellant Nursing College for the grant of affiliationfor the academic years 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 after making necessaryinspection. The first respondent University is consequently directed tomake inspection of the appellant Nursing College and pass orders on theapplication for affiliation for the academic years 2002-2003 and 2003-2004, within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On such inspection, if the appellant gets affiliation, the students neednot be transferred to other colleges.
Insofar as W.A.No.619 of 2006 is concerned, the impugned orderpassed by the Tamil Nadu Nursing Council dated 7.2.2006 shall be kept inabeyance till the first respondent pass orders as per the directionsstated supra.
In the result, the order of the learned single Judge is set asideand the writ appeals are disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/-Asst. Registrar & Vacation Officer./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ vrTo1.The Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midwives Council, Santhome High Road, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.2.The Registrar, Pondicherry university, Pondicherry. 3. The Secretary, Government of Pondicherry, Chief Secretariat (Health), Pondicherry,4.The Secretary, Indian Nursing Council, Combined Council Building, Kotla Road, Temple Lane, New Delhi – 110 002.+ 2 CC to Senior Govt. Pleader cum Senior Public Prosecutorfor Pondicherry, Advocate SR NO 23502 and 23503.+ 1 CC to Mr.A.R.Nixon, Advocate SR NO 23499.+ 1 CC to Ms.G.Thilakavathi Advocate SR NO 23495.+ 1 CC to Mr.Srinath Sridevan, Advocate SR NO 23491.+ 2 CC to Mr.S.Satish Parasuran, Advocate SR NO 11839.W.A.No.619 & 620 of 2006 & Connected Miscellaneous PetitionsNG(CO)RVL, GP, 23.05.2006
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Tamil NaduNurses and Midwives Act; Pondicherry University Act, 1985; Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947 — ss. 10, 11.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Madras High Court, on 23 May 2006. The bench was RAMA PRABHU.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.