Writ Petition No. 3582 of 2022 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5779 WP No. 3582 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.3582 OF 2022 (EDN-RES) BETWEEN: MOHAMAMED KHUDRATHULLA S/O. MOHAMMED SIBGHATHULLA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT SCHOOL OF NURSING, DISTRICT HOSPITAL, CHAMARAJANAGAR-571313. (BY SRI G.K. BHAT, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SUDHA D., ADVOCATE) AND: RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE KARNATAKA, 4TH ‘T’ BLOCK, JAYANAGARA, BENGALURU-560 041 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. (BY SRI SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE LETTER DATED 16.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-J; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE LETTERS DATED 20.12.2021 AND 13.01.2022 ANNEXURE-K AND L AND ALLOW THE PETITIONER TO PURSUE PH.D NURSING COURSE UNDER THE GUIDE DR.G.NAGARATHNAMMA. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR DICTATION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5779 WP No. 3582 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER Petitioner is seeking for the following prayers: “a) Issue writ of Certiorari by quashing the Letter dtd:16.12.2021 in No.RGUHS/AR/Ph.D/N- 08/2021-22 issued by the Respondent at Annexure-J. b) Issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent to consider the letters dtd:20.12.2021 and 13.01.2022 Annexure-K & L and allow the Petitioner to pursue Ph.D Nursing Course under the guide Dr. G.Nagarathnamma. c) Grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Authority deems fit to grant in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, by allowing the above Appeal, in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. The petitioner is employed as the Principal at the Government School of Nursing, District Hospital, Chamarajanagar. Under notification dated 17.02.2021, respondent invited application for entrance test for admission to Ph.D Course to Nursing, the petitioner qualified himself under the entrance test and petitioner - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5779 WP No. 3582 of 2022 took one ‘Dr. Nagarathnamma .G‘ Professor and HOD in the Department of Community Health Nursing at Government College of Nursing, BMCRI, Bengaluru’ as a guide and issued a declaration on 15.07.2021. Respondent had extended the date of submission of the preliminary synopsis till 16.08.2021 and the petitioner, having cleared the Ph.D entrance examination with an impressive score of 85.45 percentile, submitted his preliminary synopsis to the respondent on 06.08.2021. The respondent issued a revised ordinance concerning the enrollment of candidates for Ph.D research in Nursing 2021 stating that the candidates with Medical Surgical Nursing / M.Phil in nursing awarded by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences or any university recognised by Indian National Council are eligible for enrollment in the in Ph.D course in nursing. According to the petitioner, this Clause made the petitioner eligible for pursuing Ph.D in Medical Surgical Nursing. Several representations were made by the petitioner for reconsideration of his candidature, in response, the respondent addressed the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5779 WP No. 3582 of 2022 letter to the petitioner stating that the petitioner has chosen his guide under Community Health Nursing Specialty, which is a different specialty and thereby, made the petitioner ineligible to pursue the Ph.D in Nursing under her guidance. Several requests of the petitioner requesting for reconsideration of the petitioner’s candidature under the guidance of Dr. Nagarathnamma was not responded and the refusal of the respondent to permit the petitioner to pursue the Ph.D in nursing course under Dr. Nagarathnamma has made the petitioner to approach this Court. 3. The respondent filed statement of objections, inter alia, contending that the Ordinance governing Enrollment of Candidates for Research leading to Ph.D mandates that a Post Graduate student who intends to enroll himself for Ph.D is eligible for enrollment in the concerned subject only and he/she should opt for a guide in the concerned specialty empanelled by the university. It is stated that Clauses 6 and 7 of the Ordinance - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5779 WP No. 3582 of 2022 exhaustively covers the aspects of eligibility criteria for the Ph.D enrollment and the age and qualifications of a guide, any infraction of these norms results in lowering the standards of education and even if there were to be a infraction of the norms in an earlier occasion, it does not empower the authorities to perpetuate the mistake forever. It is submitted that the petitioner was informed about the decision and suggested to come with the proposal under the guidance of an eligible guide and sufficient time has been given. It is stated that in the letter directing the petitioner to get an eligible guide is in light of the Ordinance and under no circumstances, the petitioner can be registered under the guidance of Dr. Nagarathanamma and that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the respondent’s refusal to allow the petitioner to pursue the Ph.D in nursing course under the guide from a different specialty violates the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5779 WP No. 3582 of 2022 fundamental right as guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution and the decision is arbitrary, capricious and discriminatory. Learned senior counsel drawing the attention of this Court to the guidelines issued by the Indian Nursing Council submits that the eligibility criteria for the research guide is clearly indicated at Clause Nos.6 and 7, which clearly indicates that Dr. Nagarathnamma’s guidance is justified to be taken by the petitioner as a specialty which the petitioner intends to take under the Ph.D program is Nagarathnamma, as she is a Ph.D holder in Community Health Nursing. The petitioner proposed research being a general field of nursing education that can be supervised by a guide from any relevant specialty, as nursing education is a core subject common among specialties. It is submitted that the Clause does not mandate that the candidature must choose a guide from the same specialty. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner though is eligible to - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5779 WP No. 3582 of 2022 pursue the Ph.D, the guide taken from a different specialty cannot be recognized as a Ph.D guide as Dr. Nagarathnamma, who is though recognized Ph.D guide, she is specialty in Community Health nursing and the petitioner’s proposal for research falls under a different domain, that is, Medical Surgical Nursing and according to the revised Ordinance and established norms, a candidate must select a guide within the same specialty.
Legal Reasoning
6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the point that arises for consideration is : “Whether the respondent was justified in issuing and declaring that the petitioner is ineligible to pursue their Ph.D Nursing Course under the different Specialty guide in the present facts and circumstances of this case?” 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is eligible for candidature for the ensuing Ph.D nursing course. The dispute raised by the respondent is that the proposed guide, Dr. Nagarathnamma, who is working as a professor and HOD in the Department of Community Health Nursing - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:5779 WP No. 3582 of 2022 at Government College, who has consented to be the guide of the petitioner, cannot be a guide of the petitioner on the ground that the specialty which the petitioner is seeking is in the Medical Surgical Nursing and the guide, Dr. Nagarathnamma, is from the Community Health Nursing. It is also not in dispute that the Ph.D nursing under the national consortium and Rajiv Gandhi University of Health and Science had accorded the guide to one Dr. Ramu who wanted specialty under Medical Surgical Nursing had opted one N.V. Muniranayanappa from Nimhans who was specialty in Mental Health Nursing Psychiatric, when this was permitted by the respondent, the denial for the petitioner that Dr. Nagarathnamma her specialty is Community Health Nursing and not Medical Surgical Nursing and she cannot be entitled to be the guide of the petitioner, is contrary to the eligible criteria which is fixed under the notification of Indian Nursing Council guidelines, the Clause Nos.6 and 7 of the guidelines read as under: - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:5779 WP No. 3582 of 2022 “6. RESEARCH GUIDE • Guides can select two scholars only every year but not more than 6 scholars at any given period of time • Scholars can have co-guide from nursing or other disciplines if necessary • The Ph.D. doctoral holders who are within health care disciplines can be appointed as co- guides. • In Deemed University the guide should be from the same University. • In State University, the guide can be from any college within the same University 7. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR RESEARCH GUIDE • Ph.D. degree in nursing with 5 years Post Graduate teaching experience with minimum 5 scientific publications in National/International Journals. • • Maximum age to be a guide shall be 65 years. Guide cannot have more than 6 candidates (including being Co-Guide) at any given point of time. • Candidate can have Co-Guide from nursing or other discipline, if necessary. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:5779 WP No. 3582 of 2022 • The Ph.D. doctorate holders who are not formal teachers can be appointed as Co-Guides.” 8. The petitioner having met all the eligibility criteria for Ph.D admission as per the revised ordinance and his research area is aligned to the general field of nursing, the choice of guide of Dr. Nagarathanamma is qualified to be a specialty research in nursing even though her specialty is Community Health Nursing and not Medical Surgical Nursing. The refusal by the respondent to permit the petitioner to pursue the Ph.D nursing program under Dr. Nagarathanamma is arbitrary, unreasonable and violates the revised ordinance issued by the Indian Nursing Council, the petitioner has already lost a considerable time and if the petitioner is again directed to approach the respondent for reconsideration or for consideration of the representation, it would be a futile exercise. In the said circumstances, this Court directs the respondent to reconsider the petitioner’s grievance and allow the petitioner to pursue his Ph.D nursing program under his chosen guide with Dr. Nagarathanamma. In the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:5779 WP No. 3582 of 2022 circumstances, the point framed for consideration is answered accordingly and this Court pass the following:
Decision
ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed. ii. Impugned order dated 16.12.2021 issued by respondent at Annexure-J is hereby quashed. iii. Respondent to allow the petitioner to pursue the Ph.D programme under the chosen guide, as it does not change the Ph.D program under which the petitioner seeks to be a specialty. Sd/- ________________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 108