AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—The Petitioner is the Chairman of Austin MemorialCharitable and Educational Trust, Kuzhithurai andAnnammal Hospital. The Petitioner Trust filed the presentwrit petition, seeking to challenge an order dated11.01.2010 passed by the 5th Respondent Tamil NaduDr.M.G.R. Medical University in refusing to register theadmission of 10 additional students made in thePetitioner college as per the list annexed and aftersetting side the same seeks for a direction to the Medical University to register those 10 additional students and allow them to take periodical examinations.
When the writ petition came up on 24.03.2010,this Court directed private notice to be served on theRespondents. Pending the writ petition, in M.P.(Md)Nos.2and 3 of 2010, this Court permitted 9 students to writeexamination commencing from 02.08.2010 for the academicyear 2009-2010, but however, the results were directed tobe withheld pending final orders on the writ petition.
Thereafter, the Petitioner filed M.P.(Md) No. 4 of2010 seeking permission to amend the prayer, to set asidethe order dated 11.01.2020 and the subsequent order ofthe University dated 13.08.2010 for not grantingpermission for the academic year 2009-2010 and aftersetting aside the same, to register the 9 additionalstudents and allow them to take periodical examinations. No order was passed in this application.
It is the case of the Petitioner Trust that theyare running cluster of hospitals as well as group ofcolleges which includes Annammal School of Nursing andAnnammal College of Nursing. The College of Nursingoffers 4 1/2 B. Sc (Nursing) Degree Course from the academic year 2007 -2008 and it has all the infrastructure. TheTamil Nadu Nurses and Midwives Council had framed regulations for grant of approval to offer courses in Nursing, Midwifery etc. The candidates who take suchcourse of instruction will be eligible to take theexamination conducted by the affiliating University forthe purpose of award of Degrees, Diplomas and Certificatein Nursing, Midwifery etc.
In so far as these courses are concerned, theaffiliating University is the 5th Respondent University. For getting approval, the Petitioner applied to the StateNursing Council, the third Respondent on 13.09.2007. TheState Government had issued a No Objection Certificatefrom the academic year 2007-2008 with an annual intake of50 students by G.O. Ms. No. 336 (Health and Family Welfare)Department dated 13.09.2007. The State Nursing Councilcaused an inspection of the college on 15.09.2007 andgranted recognition/approval to conduct the first yearDegree programme in B.SC (Nursing) in the academic year2007-2008 on 18.09.2007.
The Petitioner, simultaneously, had submitted anapplication to the 5th Respondent for grant of affiliationfrom the academic year 2007-2008. The university on 18.09.2007 caused an inspection of the college on19.09.2007. The University granted affiliation to thecollege from the academic year 2008 -2009 with an annualintake of 40 students by proceedings dated 31.07.2008. Inthe meanwhile, the second Respondent Indian Nursingcouncil permitted the Petitioner to conduct B. Sc Nursingprogramme with annual intake of 40 students videproceedings dated 16.04.2008 but failed to notify theacademic year for which permission was granted. Subsequently, a rectification order dated 24.07.2008 wasgranted for conducting B. Sc (Nursing) programme from theacademic year 2007-2008.
Since the college has facilities to run classesfor 50 students from the academic year 2009-2010, aspermitted by the State Government, the Petitionersubmitted a further application to the Indian NursingCouncil (R2) on 30.05.2008. The Indian Nursing Councilexpressed their intention to conduct an inspection. Theyby a notice dated on 26.10.2009 informed them about theproposed inspection of the college on 02.11.2009 and 03.11.2009. Thereafter, the second Respondent had passedan order dated 21.12.2009 permitting the intake of 50students. It was confirmed by a further order dated07.01.2010. Copies of the said order was also marked. Since already the Government had permitted 50 studentsand the Indian Nursing Council also being satisfied withthe infrastructure and had granted approval for theacademic year 2009-2010, the Petitioner admitted 10 morestudents subject to the approval of the Indian NursingCouncil as well as the Tamil Nadu State Nursing council. Those students were informed that their admissiondepended upon the approval by the authorities.
It was claimed by the Petitioner college that theadmission was made before 30.09.2009 itself and list of40 students admitted on regular basis were sent to theUniversity on 03.11.2009. After getting permission ofIndian Nursing Council, the entire list of 50 studentsincluding the names of 10 additional students were sentto the University. Even the third Respondent had revisedhis order including additional capacity. However the 5th Respondent University by an order dated 11.01.2010refused to register the additional students as the cut�off date for admission was over as early as 30.09.2009. Challenging the same, the writ petition came to be filed.
Subsequently, the University by an order dated13.08.2010 approved the intake of students in the B. Sc(Nursing) Degree course for the academic year 2010-2011, which also is now sought to be challenged. If theUniversity''s stand of approval for the subsequent year isaccepted, those 10 students who are admitted by thePetitioner college will be left in the lurch.
In the counter affidavit filed by the 5th Respondent, it was contended that provisional affiliationfor the academic year 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 were issuedonly for annual intake of 40 students. The secondRespondent Indian Nursing Council permitted the intake of50 students with the condition that Institution shouldobtain permission from the State Nursing counsel andUniversity. Thereafter, the Petitioner requested theUniversity only in December 2o09 long after the cut offdate fixed for admission to various under graduatecourses including B. Sc (Nursing) Degree course. Thecollege cannot admit students without affiliation by theUniversity. The Indian Nursing council themselves hadconducted inspection only on 02.11.2009 and 03.11.2009and it granted permission for 50 students on 21.12.2009and such permission cannot take retrospective effect soas to get over the time schedule fixed by University.
In the typed set filed by the 5th Respondent, theinstruction to candidates provided by the University clearly shows that application will be entertained on orbefore 1st January but before the cut off date foradmission of the course and Eligibility Certificate willhave to be obtained in respect of the candidates. It isalso made clear that Eligibility Certificate will not beissued after the prescribed cutoff date for admission toall UG and PG Degree courses. The College was grantedprovisional affiliation for the year 2009-2010 only for40 seats and therefore, the Petitioner cannot admitstudents without affiliation. The inspection reportitself had recgonised only intake of 40 students. It isonly when subsequent inspection was made, the Universitythought it fit to grant additional intake of 10 seats.
A copy of the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. MedicalUniversity (Affiliation of Nursing Colleges) Statutes wasalso produced. It is stated in paragraph 5 thataffiliation application shall be submitted to theRegistrar within 1st July and 31st October of the academicyear preceding to which affiliation is sought for. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the DivisionBench in Dharma Medical and Research Charitable Trust v. Government of India, Rep. By Secretary to Government reported in 2006-2-L.W.346.
Mr. Karthik, learned Standing counsel for the 5th Respondent University also referred to the followingjudgments of the Supreme Court, Full Bench and theDivision Bench of this Court.
Medical Council of India Vs. Madhu Singh and Others,
Medical Council of India v. Naina Verma and Ors. (2005) 12 SCC 626
Mahatma Gandhi University and Anr. v. Gis Jose and Ors. (2008 (4) CTC 741)
Minor Sunil Oraon Tr. Guardian and Ors. v. C.B.S.E. and Ors. (2007 4 LW 97)
Guru Nanak Dev University Vs. Parminder Kr. Bansal and another,
Regional Officer, C.B.S.E. Vs. Ku. Sheena Peethambaran and Others,
Rukmani College of Education v. State of Tamil Nadu (2008) 1 MLJ 1217
The University of Madras v. Loordhu Ammal Educational Trust and Anr. (2005 W.L.R. 395)
9.T. Shyla and Ors. v. Secretary to Government, Collegiate Education (2008) 6 MLJ 257
All these judgments are cited only for the proposition that without affiliation, no students can be admitted andthe affiliation conditions of the University isstatutory. They cannot be bypassed and the court cannotissue a direction de hors the statutory regulations.
In the present case, though Mr. Isacc Mohanlal,learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon theapproval granted by Indian Nursing Council and the StateNursing council but those approvals were grantedsubsequent to the cut-off date prescribed by theUniversity for the grant of affiliation and hence, they cannot override the University Regulations. Theuniversity had rightly took note of those approval ordersand granted affiliation for the year 2010-2011 in respectof the additional intake. It is the high handedness ofthe Petitioner who had admitted students on their ownthough it was indicated to the students that theiradmission will be subject to the outcome of the orders tobe passed by the University. The mere fact that by aninterim order they have obtained permission to writeexaminations will not enure to them the benefit ofretrospective affiliation. This Court is not inclined toaccept the stand of the Petitioner. For the illegal stepstaken by them, they will have to suffer and they cannotuse court orders to get over statutory provisions made by the university.
In the light of the above factual matrix and thelegal precedents, this Court is not inclined to entertainthe writ petition. Hence, the writ petition standsdismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Since this Court dismissed the relief claimed by thePetitioner, it is unnecessary whether the prayer isamended or not. Hence all the miscellaneous petitions areclosed.