AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Honourable Mr. Justice K. Chandru
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to challenge an order dated 09.05.2012, wherein and by which the petitioner was informed
that her qualification is not in commensurate with the qualification prescribed and hence, she cannot be considered for promotion to the post of
Maternal and Child Health Officer (MCHO). The said order came to be passed on the petitioner moving this court on an earlier occasion, i.e., in
W.P. No. 380 of 2009 and batch cases, which was disposed of by a division bench by a common order dated 31.01.2012. The petitioner along
with three others filed W.P. No. 380 of 2008 seeking to consider their case for promotion to the post of MCHO. The division bench while
dismissing the other writ petitions, insofar as the writ petition filed by the petitioner was concerned, in paragraphs 43 and 44 had observed as
follows :
In W.P. No. 380 of 2008, the respondent Corporation has not chosen to file counter affidavit. The petitioners have also not produced the
relevant service rules. In these circumstances, we are not able to adjudicate the issue. Furthermore, the prayer in the said writ petition is only to
consider the claim of the petitioners. The writ petition in W.P. No. 380 of 2008 could, therefore, be disposed of, directing the Chennai
Corporation to consider the claim of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Maternity Child Health Officer and to pass an appropriate order,
and if promotion is declined, the respondent Corporation is directed to give reasons therefore.
In the result,
(a) W.P. No. 380 of 2008 is disposed of directing the Chennai Corporation to consider the claim of the petitioners for promotion to the post of
Maternity Child Health Officers and pass an appropriate order, and if promotion is declined, the respondent Corporation is directed to give
reasons therefore, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
It is pursuant to the direction, the impugned order came to be passed. As per the bylaws framed to the post of MCHO by the Corporation of
the year 2009, the qualification prescribed for promotion reads as follows :
Sl.No. Category of Method of Minimum qualification Scale of pay
post Recruitment
1 Maternal & 1.By promotion i.B.Sc., Nursing from Re-revised Revised
Child Health from the holder of recognised University or Rs.5900- Rs.9300-34,800
Officer the post of Staff Diploma in Public Health 200-9900 + GP 4500/-
(MCHO) Nurse or Lady Nursing in any institution
Health Visitor recognized by Government of
Tamilnadu.
ii)Must have successfully
undergone 10 months Diploma
Course in Public Health
Nursing.
iii)Must have registered with the
Nurse and Midwives Council.
By direct 1.B.Sc., (Nursing) from
recruitment recognised University &
ii)Must have registered with the
Nurse and Midwives Council.
According to the petitioner, the impugned order is erroneous, because so far as the petitioner is concerned, she had already registered with the
Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midwives Council as early as in the year 1989. She had undergone a training in the Government Stanley hospital from
1.1.1986 to 31.12.1988 and had passed the examination for nurses conducted by the Board of Examination in General Nursing. She had also
obtained a Midwifery Certificate from the Board of Examiners in Midwifery, which qualification was also recorded by the Council as far as the
registration for Midwives is concerned. Therefore, it was contended by Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned
order insofar as stating that she has not registered with the Nurses and Midwives Council was erroneous.
With reference to the other contentions, i.e., B.Sc.(Nursing) from the recognised university is concerned, it is the case of the petitioner that she
had gone through the course under the Open University system with the Indira Gandhi National Open University through correspondence. She was
awarded with the degree by the university in B.Sc. (Nursing) vide certificate dated 18.3.2005. It was stated that the said University is recognised
by the University Grants Commission. Therefore, she is having twin qualification prescribed. With reference to the qualification obtained from the
recognised university, the petitioner placed reliance upon a judgment of the Delhi High Court in Bessy Edison and another Vs. Indira Gandhi
National Open University and others in W.P.(C) No. 5604 of 2010, dated 26.10.2010. The learned Judge of the Delhi High Court in the said
judgment had held that the degree given by the IGNOU is an approved degree and it should be taken as the recognised degree for the purpose of
joining the M.Sc.(Nursing) course, which was the subject matter of the writ petition before the Delhi High Court.
Notwithstanding the same, it was contended by Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned counsel that since the UGC has recognised the IGNOU, the
degree granted by them should be accepted as a recognised degree and that the State Government cannot go behind the same.
In answer to the same, a counter affidavit was filed by the respondent Commissioner of Chennai Corporation stating that the degree obtained by
the petitioner was not approved by the Government. The registration of the additional qualification has to be done with the Tamil Nadu Nurses and
Widwives Council, which is a pre-requisite for promotional post of MCHO. As the State Government has not recognised the degree and even that
additional qualification was not registered, the question of the petitioner having required qualification does not arise. It was further stated that the
Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midwives Council are not entitled to register candidates educated through distance mode and they are not entitled to
obtain licence for their qualification as per the rules and the Act of the Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midwives Council. A copy of the communication
sent by the Registrar of the Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midwives Council, Chennai, dated 15.12.2008 was produced. In that letter, in the last
paragraph, it was stated as follows :
However, additional qualification of Post Basic B.Sc. Nursing degree registration in Tamilnadu Nurses and Midwives Council is mandatory to
work par with the qualification in accordance with the nomenclature. Those courses which is not recognized by the Tamilnadu Nurses and
Midwives Council are not entitled to register under Tamilnadu Nurses and Midwives Council. Subsequently, the candidates educated through
distance mode are not eligible to obtain license for their qualification as per the existing Rules and Acts of Tamilnadu Nurses and Midwives
Council.
The Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947 clearly stipulates that u/s 10(2), the State council alone has power to recognise and if any such
qualification is not included in the schedule, then they can apply to the council to have such qualification recognised. It is open to the council to
declare that such qualification, only when granted after specified date, shall be recognised as a qualification for the purpose of the Act. The
schedule contains two parts. It contains recognised qualification in Part -I and in Part-II, the recognised higher qualification has been prescribed. In
the schedule, there is no reference to the qualification obtained by the petitioner. Hence the contention raised by Mr. V. Raghavachari, learned
counsel must necessarily fail.
The two qualifications prescribed for the post of MCHO cannot be separated. Firstly, the person is concerned, he must have a degree, which
must be recognised by the council and that such higher qualification must be registered with the council. In the present case, neither the State
Government has recognised the degree nor the petitioner was able to register the additional qualification with the council as the council has already
taken a stand that this was not in favour of the recognised degree obtained through correspondence mode. In the light of the factual position and
the legal issue involved, this court is in opinion that the petitioner has not made out any case to challenge the impugned order. Hence the writ
petition will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.