Saraswathy Medical and EducationalCharitable Trust v. Latha, 36 E Kuruvikaran Salai, Madurai-9, Madurai Diostrict

Saraswathy Medical and EducationalCharitable Trust, rep by itsChairman, A. Ramasamy,Shenbagha Illam,No. 10/3 VOC New ColonyFirst Street, Annaagar East,Chennai -600 102.....Petitioner in WP. 27063/07Eves Seed Trust,Rep by its Managing Trustee,Mr. V. Latha, 36E Kuruvikaran Salai, Madurai-9, Madurai Diostrict.....Petitioner in WP. 28181/07Sri Ramakrishnan Vivekananda Eduicational and Charitable Trust,rep by its Managing TrusteeS. Vasantha Rani,New.No. 4/35, Paravasudevar Street,Sri Ram Colony,Dharmapuri Dsitrict.636 701.....Petitioner in WP. 27191/07Arvinth Charitable Trust,rep by its Managing Trustee,Dr. K Mani,S/o Kumaraswamy,No.17 Rangar Sannathi Street,Namakkal Town, Namakkal District.....Petitioner in WP. 27685/07Pimasugan, Educational Trust,rep by its Chairman, Mr.Ramaraja,Door.No.15, Ramasamy Raja Nagar,Kumaraswamy Raja Nagar Post,Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar District.....Petitioner in WP. 27738/07Doctors Educational and Charitable Trust,rep by its Managing Trustee,Dr. K. Subbaraman, Harvey Complex,103/214, South 4th Street,'Pudukottai 622 001.....Petitioner in WP. 27788/2007vs.Indian Nursing Councilrepresented by SecretaryCombined Councils BuildingKotla Road, Temple LaneNew Delhi – 110002.....Respondent in WP.Nos 25931,25934, 25935, 26051, 26961, 27063 and R2 WP. 28181/07,27738/07 & 27788/07. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The State of Tamilnadurepresented by its SecretaryHealth and Family Welfare Department, Fort St. George,Chennai-9.... First Respondent in W.P.28181/2007, 27738/2007 and 27788/07Prayer in W.P. No.25931 of 2007:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiafor issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to inspect theB.Sc. Nursing College set up by the petitioner in Coimbatore District, inWP.No 25931/07, Thiruvannamalai District in WP 25934/07, CoimbatoreDistrict in WP. 25935/07, Thirvallur District in WP. 26051/07,ThiruvallurDistrict in WP. 27063/07, Madurai District in WP. 28181/07, DharmapuriDistrict in WP. 27191/07, Namakkal District in WP 27685/07, Rajapalayam,Virudhunagar District in WP. 27738/07 and Pudukottai District in WP27788/07 respectively State of Tamil Nadu forthwith and grant recognitionbefore the end of August 2007 under Section 10 of the Indian NursingCouncil Act, 1947 to the B.Sc. Nursing degree course to be conducted bythe petitioner starting from the academic year 2007-2008. 2. Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to depute aninspection team to inspect the institutional and infrastructuralfacilities of the Petitioner institution and to consider and pass ordersin the application submitted by the petitioner on 11.6.2007 for grant ofrecognition to their Nursing College and to start the degree course in BscNursing Basic) commencing from the academic year 2007-2008 within the timeto be granted by this Honourble Court.3. Consequently direct the first respondent to request the secondrespondent to expeditiously approve the proposal of the Petitioner tostart the B.Sc Nursing Course for the Academic Year 2007-2008(W.P.28181/2007, 27738/2007 and 27788/2007)4. to inspect the B.Sc Nursing College and School of Nursing set upby the petitioner and B.Sc Nursing Degree Counsel and Diploma course to beconducted by the Petitioner (W.P.27191/2007) (W.P.25934/07, W.P.25935/07,W.P.27685/07, 26051/07)For petitionerMrs. Nalini Chidambaram, S.C.in W.P. No.25931/2007for M/s. Gladys Daniel & UmaWP. 26961/2007 : Mr. K. Raja Srinivas W.P. 27685/2007 : Mr. S.T. Murthi. For respondentMr. V.S.R. Krishna from Supreme Courtfor Mr. M.T. Arunan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ COMMON ORDERSince the relief sought in all these eleven writ petitions isidentical, these petitions are decided by this common order.2.The case of the petitioners, in a nutshell, is as under:The petitioners which are Charitable and EducationalTrusts, with the intention of starting Nursing Colleges/NursingSchools, applied to the Health & Family Welfare Department ofGovernment of Tamil Nadu and opened Joint Fixed Deposit accountswith the Directorate of Medical Education, Chennai (DME,Chennai). The petitioners' Nursing Colleges/Schools wereinspected by the DME, Chennai and Inspection Report was sent bythe DME, Chennai to the State Government for grant of NoObjection Certificate to the petitioners to start College/Schoolof Nursing. The State Government too passed orders, inaccordance with the regulations fixed by the Indian NursingCouncil, to the effect of granting No Objection Certificate tothe petitioners to start College/School of Nursing. One of theconditions stipulated therein is that the petitioners shouldobtain recognition/suitability/affiliation from the Tamil NaduNurses and Midwives Council, Chennai and Indian Nursing Council,New Delhi and Dr. MGR Medical University before admittingstudents. On receipt of Government Orders passed to the aboveeffect, the petitioners wrote to the respondent to send itsInspection Committee to inspect their respective institutions.Having come to know that the cut-off date for the receipt ofcomplete proposals by the respondent is 31.01.2007, thepetitioners requested the respondent to exempt them from thecut-off date and honour their applications. In addition toapplying to the respondent, the petitioners, as stipulated bythe respective Government Orders, applied for approval from theTamil Nadu Nurses & Midwives Council and got recognition toconduct the respective programmes on condition that they shouldobtain affiliation from the Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR MedicalUniversity/suitability order from Indian Nursing Council for theacademic year 2007-2008 before admission of students. Further,the petitioners applied to the Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR MedicalUniversity as well for Certificate of Registration for theiraffiliation to the University pursuant to which inspection wasconducted by the University and the University, to grantprovisional affiliation, awaits registration of the petitionerswith the respondent. This being the position, the Health &Family Welfare Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu,recognising the need to have more number of NursingColleges/Nursing Schools, requested the respondent to extend thelast date for submission of proposal for the academic year 2007-2008 stating a specific reason that there are a number of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ requests from various institutions pending with it at variouslevels, but in vain.3.Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent in conductinginspection on the petitioner institutions and considering the proposals ofthe petitioners to start Colleges/Schools of Nursing, the present writpetitions. 4.In the counter filed by the respondent, it has been mainlycontended that when admittedly, the petitioners did not submit theircomplete proposals for starting College/School of Nursing before the cut-off date in spite of wide publicity given in prominent newspapers all overthe country giving the last date for receipt of complete proposals, therespondent cannot consider the petitioners' case for the academic year2007-2008. It is further contended that the respondent has not at allconsidered any proposal from any institution after the due date, asalleged by the petitioners. 5.Heard Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, learned Senior Counsel and Mr.Raja Srinivas and Mr. S.T.S. Murthi, learned counsels appearing for thepetitioners and Mr. V.S.R. Krishna, learned counsel appearing for therespondent.6.The learned counsels for the petitioners have strenuouslycontended that the cut-off date for receipt of proposals to startCollege/School of Nursing is not statutory but only for the convenience ofthe respondent and in special cases, the respondent has relaxed the saidguideline and inspected Colleges even in cases where proposals werereceived beyond the due dates. Yet another main contention of the learnedcounsels is that, having obtained approval from the Tamil Nadu Nurses andMidwives Council which is limited only for the academic year 2007-2008, ifthe petitioners do not start the courses in the academic year 2007-2008,the said approval will lapse and they have to redo the entire exercise.It is further contended by the learned counsels that even if thepetitioners start the course for the academic year 2007-2008 withoutapproval from the respondent, it will be of no use since the courseoffered without recognition by the respondent will carry no merit outsidethe State of Tamil Nadu. The learned counsels for the petitioners havefurther contended that considering the fact that the petitioners haveinvested huge sums of money in setting up Nursing Colleges/Schools andhave been paying the staff with the fond hope of getting recognition fromthe respondent and there is also an excellent employment potential fornurses in India and abroad as well, the writ petitions may be allowed bydirecting the respondent to inspect the Nursing Colleges/Schools set up bythe petitioners and to grant its recognition from the academic year 2007-2008. Finally, the learned counsels for the petitioners have contendedthat the last date for admission to any medical course is 30th Septemberof every year. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7.Mr. V.S.R. Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the respondenthas contended that when the respondent has published in prominentnewspapers across the country, the calendar of events and schedules asregards proposals for opening of Nursing Colleges and Schools, themandamus as sought by the petitioners cannot be granted, when admittedly,they have not submitted their complete proposals within the prescribedperiod i.e. 31.01.2007 which was subsequently extended to 16.02.2007. Thereason assigned by the learned counsel for the respondent for followingthe schedule of events and calendar prescribed is that, it invariablytakes about four months for completing the inspection process and inalmost all the cases, several deficiencies are found out and theinstitutions concerned are given an opportunity to rectify thosedeficiencies enabling the respondent to conduct a re-inspection. Oneanother important reason cited by the counsel for the respondent forinsisting upon the need to keep up the time schedule is that there willnot be any room for any allegation of arbitrariness / favoritism /discrimination against the respondent. It is further contended by thelearned counsel for the respondent that as against the last date of31.01.2007 for receipt of complete proposals by the respondent, thepetitioners have obtained No Objection/Essentiality Certificate from theState Government and also recognition from the Tamil Nadu Nurses andMidwives Council well after the said cut-off date and as such, thepetitioners are estopped from seeking the mandamus on the ground that therecognition granted by the Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midwives Council is onlyfor the academic year 2007-2008 and if the respondent's recognition is notgranted for the academic year 2007-2008, they will be required to redo theentire exercise of getting recognition from the Tamil Nadu Nurses andMidwives Council.8.While contending that the respondent has been scrupulouslyadhering to the schedules and calendar of events and rebutting thecontention made by the learned counsels for the petitioners that therespondent has relaxed the norms on many an occasion, the learned counselfor the respondent has contended that proposals of hundreds of collegeshave been rejected on the ground that they have submitted their proposalsafter the due date and accommodating the petitioners would only result inopening of floodgates of litigation. Assailing the contention of thelearned counsels for the petitioners that the respondent has not extendedthe last date for receipt of proposal despite request made by the StateGovernment, the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that therespondent has sent a categorical reply dated 16.08.2007 stating that thelast date has already been extended to 16.02.2007 and that there arealready 75 Colleges and 136 Schools of Nursing in the State and as such,there will not be acute shortage of nurses in the State and even if therespondent grants recognition immediately, the shortage of nurses couldnot be met immediately since the course of B.Sc. Nursing is of four yearsduration. Lastly, the learned counsel for the respondent has contendedthat the role of the respondent is to regulate the nursing profession inthe whole of India and approval to Nursing Schools and Colleges will be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ granted by the respondent only upon making inspection and that too, onlyafter receipt of complete proposals including the No Objection Certificateand Essentiality Certificate submitted within the time-frame.9.With regard to his contention that the cut off date stipulatedby the respondent has to be scrupulously followed, the learned counsel forthe respondent has relied on:i.a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1996 VII AD S.C. 679in the matter of U.G.C. vs. Sadhana Chaudhary & Others and the relevantpara reads as under: (para 20)"We find considerable force in the aforesaidsubmission of Shri Banerjee. It is settled law thatthe choice of a date as a basis for classificationcannot always be doubted as arbitrary even if noparticular reason is forthcoming for the choice unlessit is shown to be capricious or whimsical in thecircumstances. When it is seen that a line or a point,there must be and there is no mathematical or logicalway of fixing it precisely, the decision of thelegislature or its delegatee must be accepted unless itcan be said that it is very wide of the reasonablemark. . . . In the present case, the date, December31, 1993, as fixed by notification dated June 21,1995, in the matter of grant of exemption from theeligibility test for appointment on the post oflecturer has a reasonable basis keeping in view thetime taken in submitting the Ph.D. Thesis or obtainingM.Phil. degree by candidates who had undertaken thestudy for Ph.D. or M.Phil. degree prior to the issuanceof the 1991 Regulations and the date, December 31,1993, cannot be held to be capricious or whimsical orwide of the reasonable mark. The High Court of Punjaband Haryana has proceeded on the basis that the cut offdate for the purpose of granting exemption fromeligibility test should have nexus with the date of theadvertisement inviting applications for appointment onthe post of lecturers. The High Court was in error intaking this view. The exemption from eligibility testthat has been granted under paragraph 5 of theadvertisement dated January 23, 1995 is relatable tothe introduction of the requirement of eligibility testin the 1991 Regulations. The object underlying thegrant of exemption is to mitigate the resultanthardship to candidates who had registered for Ph.D.Degree or had joined the course for M.Phil. degree onthe basis of the minimum qualifications prescribedunder the 1982 Regulations. . . " https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ii.another judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2005) 6 SCC754 in the case of State of Punjab and others vs. Amar Nath Goyal andothers (para 27)"Even by OM dated 19.10.1993, all that happened was that aportion of the dearness allowance linked to Average ConsumerPrice Index of 729.91 obtaining as on 01.03.1988 (i.e. 20% of thebasic pay) was treated as dearness pay. This would count only forreckoning the emoluments for the purpose of calculatingretirement-cum-death gratuity under the applicable rules and forno other purpose. This change was brought into effect from16.09.1993."iii.yet another judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2002) 9SCC 541 in the case of Y. Chandrahas Reddy vs. Government of India andanother.10.The aspects that:(a)the cut off date for receipt of completeproposals by the respondent for starting NursingSchools and Nursing Colleges is 31.01.2007;(b)the petitioners have belatedly submittedtheir proposals to the respondent;(c)the petitioners have obtained No ObjectionCertificate from the State Government and recognitionfrom the Tamil Nadu and Nurses and Midwives Councilafter the cut-off date for receipt of completeproposals;(d)the State Government has written to therespondent to extend the last date for receipt ofcomplete proposals and in response, the respondent hasalso written to the State Government explaining that itis not possible to extend the cut-off date any furtherand(e)the respondent has not caused inspection onthe petitioner institutions are not disputed.11.Before proceeding to deal with the matter, some useful referencecould be made to Sections 10 and 13 of the Indian Nursing Council Act,1947, and also Regulation 63 which read as follows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Section 10 - Recognition of qualifications:1For the purpose of this Act, the qualifications includedin Part I of the Schedule shall be recognised qualifications, andthe qualifications included in Part II of the Schedule shall berecognised higher qualifications.2Any authority within the States which, being recognisedby the State Government in consultation with State Council, ifany, for the purpose of granting any qualification, grants, aqualification in general nursing, midwifery, auxiliary nursing-midwifery, health visiting or public health nursing, not includedin the Schedule may apply to the Council to have suchqualification recognised; and the Council may declare that suchqualification, or such qualification only when granted after aspecified date, shall be a recognised qualification for thepurposes of this Act.3The Council may enter into negotiations with anyauthority in any territory of India to which this Act does notextend or foreign country which by the law of such territory orcountry is entrusted with the maintenance of a register of nurses,midwives or health visitors, for the setting of a scheme ofreciprocity for the recognition of qualifications and in pursuanceof any such scheme the Council May declare that a qualificationgranted by any authority in any such territory or country, or suchqualification only granted after a specified date, shall be arecognised qualification for the purposes of this Act:Provided that no declaration shall be made under this sub-sectionin respect of any qualification unless by the Law and Practice ofthe foreign country in which the qualification is granted personsdomiciled or originating in India and holding qualificationsrecognised under this Act are permitted to enter and practise thenursing profession in that country:Provided further that:iany reciprocal arrangements subsisting at the dateof the commencement of this Act between a State Council andany authority outside India for the recognition ofqualifications shall, unless the Council decides otherwise,continue in force andiiany qualification granted by an authority in aterritory of India to wh ich this Act did not extend at thedate of its commencement and recognised on the said date bythe State Council of the State to which this Act then https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ extended, shall continue to be a recognised qualification forthe purpose of registration in that State.4The provision of sub-sections (2) and (3) and of Sections14 and 15 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the declaration by theCouncil of a qualification granted in respect of post-certificatenursing training as recognised higher qualification.Section 13 - Inspections:1The Executive Committee may appoint such number ofinspectors whether from among members of the Council orotherwise, as it deems necessary to inspect any institutionrecognised as a training institution, and to attend examinationsheld for the purpose of granting any recognised qualification orrecognised higher qualification.2Inspectors appointed under this Section shall reportto the Executive Committee on the suitability of the institutionfor the purposes of training and on the adequacy of the trainingtherein, or as the case may be on the sufficiency of theexaminations.3The Executive Committee shall forward a copy of suchreport to the authority or institution concerned, and shall alsoforward copies with the remarks, if any, of the authority orinstitution concerned thereon, to the Central Government and tothe State Government and State Council of the State in which theauthority or institution is situated.Regulation 63The inspection of examinations under Section 13(1) of theIndian Nursing Council Act shall be carried out in accordancewith the following regulations:-1The Executive Committee of the Council shall appointnot less than two inspectors, whether from among members of theCouncil or otherwise, to attend at qualifying and otherexaminations and to inspect Training Institutions.2Any inspector shall have taught previously studentsin one or other of the subjects of the final examination or incognate subjects for five years and shall have acted asexaminer in such subjects.3.. . . https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4An inspector shall on receipt of a formal Commissionin writing from the President under the Seal of the Council,attend and examinations held for the purpose of granting anyrecognised qualification or recognised higher qualification andinspect such recognised training institutions, as the Presidentor the Executive Committee may direct, and thereafter shallreport to the Executive Committee on the sufficiency of theexaminations or on the suitability of the institutions for thepurposes of training and on the adequacy of the trainingtherein.5It shall be the duty of the inspector:-a. . .bTo attend personally every examination which he/sheis required to inspect, but not to interfere with the conductthereof.cTo report to the Executive Committee his/her opinionas to the sufficiency of each examination and the suitabilityof each institution inspected by him/her.dTo report relevant particulars about the questionsasked in the written, oral and practical parts of eachexamination inspected by him/her, the equipment provided forclinical and practical examinations, the arrangements made forinvigilation, the method and scales of marking the standard ofknowledge shown by successful candidates, and generally allsuch details as may be required for adjudicating on the scopeand character of the examination.eTo report on the adequacy of the teaching programmein the institutions inspected with particular reference toclass and demonstration rooms, teaching equipment, number ofnursing tutors, facilities for practical experience in thehospital and public health field, supervision of practicalwork during day and night, hours of duty, arrangements forliving and recreation, and the student health service.f. . .gTo report on the extent to which the recommendationsof the Council have been carried out in the case of eachexamination and institution inspected by him/her and also towhat extent the resolutions of the Council on nursingeducation have been given effect to in the education of thestudents. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

12.In this context, it would also be relevant to refer to thevarious Government Orders by which the petitioners were accordedpermission to start Nursing Colleges/Schools with certain conditions suchas (i) the petitioners should obtain recognition/suitability/affiliationfrom the Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midwives Council, Chennai, Indian NursingCouncil, New Delhi and Dr. MGR Medical University, Chennai, (ii) admissionshould be made as per the rules fixed by the Government from time to time,(iii) tuitiion fees including Special Fees should be collected at the samerates as prescribed by the Government from time to time and the Managementshould give separate undertaking stating that no Capitation Fee or anyother fund in the name of building fund, etc. will be collected from thestudents seeking admission, etc.13.I have given careful thought and consideration to the argumentsadvanced by the learned counsel on either side, the judgments relied on bythe learned counsel for the respondent and the relevant provisions of theIndian Nursing Council Act and Regulations and also the respectiveGovernment Orders according permission to the petitioners to start NursingColleges/Schools.14.At the threshold, I am of the view that the judgments relied onby the learned counsel for the respondent in support of his contention onthe aspect of scrupulously following the cut-off date cannot be madeapplicable to the facts of the case on hand as they fall under analtogether different footing and as such, the same are brushed asideexcept the decision in Sadhana Chaudhary case where there must be andthere is no mathematical or logical way of fixing it precisely, thedecision of the legislature or its delegatee must be accepted unless itcan be said that it is very wide of the reasonable mark. In the instantcase, there is no specific provision in respect of cut-off to be adheredto scrupulously either in the Indian Nursing Council Act or Regulationsand at the best, it is only a matter of procedural aspect followed by therespondent. Thus, the procedural aspect is a matter well within the ambitand purview of the appropriate authority to decide accordingly, takingnote of the logical reasons and nexus in the process of approval of thepetitioners' proposals to start Colleges/Schools of Nursing.15.From a perusal of the records, it is seen that the StateGovernment, considering the pendency of proposals to start NursingColleges/Schools by various institutions and to meet the acute shortage ofnursing personnel in Tamil Nadu, has addressed to the respondent forextension of cut off date for receipt of completed proposals and therelevant portion of the said letter reads as under:"I am directed to invite attention to the reference citedand to state that this Government have issued orders permittingthe Trust/Society to open new Schools and Colleges of Nursingfor the academic year 2007-2008, to increase the manpower in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ field of Nursing to meet the shortage of nursing personnel inTamil Nadu. Nearly 30 proposals seeking Government permissionto start Nursing Schools/Colleges in Tamil Nadu are underprocess.The last date of submission of new proposal from theInstitute is 31 January, 2007. I am to request you to extendthe last date for submission of proposal to INC, New Delhi tostart School and College of Nursing for the academic years 2007-2008, as number of requests made by the Trusts in this regardare pending in Government at various levels.The decision of the Council may be intimated at theearliest."Thus, the interest evinced by the State Government to make good thepaucity of nurses in Tamil Nadu cannot be ignored, bearing in mind thelarger perspective and it certainly requires some favourable considerationby the respondent. Whereas, the respondent, in its reply to the StateGovernment has stated that the latter has also not taken adequate measuresto issue the Essentiality Certificates at the appropriate time, though itwas duly cautioned and informed by the Council in its letter dated18.09.2006. It is also stated in the reply that the delay may haveoccurred due to the completion of necessary formalities by the StateGovernment but by the same logic it is not in public interest to do awaywith the requisite guidelines issued by Indian Nursing Council. 16.From the above, it can be easily seen that according to therespondent, the delay is attributable to the action of the StateGovernment and the cumbersome formalities undertaken by the respondent.But, the only question that requires to be answered now is that whetherthis kind of delay can be put against the interest of the petitionerinstitutes which are languishing to provide education in the field ofNursing in order to meet the paucity of nurses in the State. Themechanism devised by the respondent in granting recognition to the NursingColleges/Schools is undoubtedly a constituting process. However, therespondent cannot be a body without having such a power and mechanism togive proper consideration to the proposals and cause inspection on thepetitioner institutes which can be done even within the available time-frame also, taking note of the overall interest of the State and therequirement of personnel in the field of nursing. It is to be noted thatin its reply to the State Government, the respondent has also acceptedthat it would, on its part, be more willing to assist the State Governmentin filling up the gap of nurses if asked for. Accordingly, it is all themore important that this assurance be implemented in both letter andspirit. As such, the respondent cannot rest contended by making good theshortage of nurses alone. It is also equally necessary that the localneeds of the State should be met. When institutions such as thepetitioners come forward with proposals to provide education in the field https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of nursing and that too, after investing huge sums of money in thecreation of required infrastructure and payment to staff members, it isthe duty of the respondent to consider such proposals, bearing in mind thelarger public interest involved. That apart, in view of the undisputedfact that besides the local market, the Indian nurses have a great demandin foreign countries, in my considered view, equity requires that therespondent has to devise certain effective mechanism in considering theproposals within the available time by conducting inspection and grantingrecognition. Of course, now, the academic year has already begun; yet,time is available to the respondent to consider the case of thepetitioners. Though this Court is not inclined to force the respondent toconsider the case of the petitioners, even then, it is a matter of factthat, if there is a proper consideration of proposals, the last date foradmission would be 30th September of every academic year. If really themechanism is intended to consider the proposals with proper vision andmission, it may not be out of place for the respondent to do the same evenwithin the available time. However, the petitioners cannot claimconsideration of their proposals by the respondent as a matter of right.As such, this Court feels that in the interest of the State and thenursing community in particular and also the claim of the petitioners thatthe time-frame prescribed by the respondent is only procedural and notstatutory in nature, the proposals of the petitioner institutes may beconsidered taking particular note of the fact that the recognition grantedby the Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midwives Council to the petitioner institutesis only for the academic year 2007-2008 and the benefit has to be availedby the petitioners during this academic year itself. 17.Accordingly, the respondent is directed to (i) consider the caseof the petitioners within its powers / feasibility and pass orders,particularly in the light of the provisions of the Act, Regulations andthe permission accorded in this regard by the State Government, asotherwise, the petitioners will be required to redo the entire exercise ofapplying for recognition and also the recognition granted by the TamilNadu Nurses and Midwives Council will lapse and (ii) on any event, notreturn the petitioners' proposals and instead, process the same.With the above directions, this batch of writ petitions is disposedof. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.cadSd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1.The SecretaryIndian Nursing CouncilCombined Councils BuildingKotla Road, Temple LaneNew Delhi – 110 0022. The secretaryState of Tamilnadu, Health and family Welfare Department,Fort St George,Chennai-9.+ One cc to M/s. Gladyus Daniel, Advocate sR 54695+ One cc to Mr. S.T.S. Murthi, Advocate sR 54704+ Two CC to Mr. M.T. Arunan, ACGSC SR 54802VC (co)sg, KK, 4/9/07 order inW.P. Nos.25931, 25934, 25935, 26051,26961, 27063, 28181, 27191,27685, 27738 and 27788 of 200703.09.2007