RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

                    Rajasthan Vikas Sansthan, Jodhpur

                    Vs.

                    State of Rajasthan

                    Civil Writ Petn. No. 2732 of 2000
                             (V.G. Palshikar, J.)

                    01.09.2000

                    ORDER

V.G. Palshikar, J.

1. By this petition the petitioner which runs Vyas Nursing Institute in Jodhpur city has
challenged the Circular issued by the Govt. of Rajasthan on 12 -5-2000 on several
grounds mentioned in the petition.

2. Facts giving rise to the present petition stated briefly are that the petitioner is a
Society propagating education in Rajasthan. This establishment is a development
Society for Rajasthan. The Institute called Vyas Nursing Institute was established by
the petitioner Society to provide instruction to the people of Rajasthan, who desire to
take up nursing as a career. This establishment of the school was in pursuance of the
policy laid down by the Govt. of Rajasthan to permit establishment of Nursing
Training Institutions in private sector in the State of Rajasthan . It had issued certain
guidelines on 1-6-1998 which were later on modified on 9-7-1999.

3. Annexure 1 to the petition is a copy of the guidelines issued on 1-6-1998 wherein it
has been stated that Nursing Training Course is governed by the provisions of the
Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1947') and the
Rajasthan Nurses, Midwives, Health Visitors and Auxiliary Nurse Midwives
Registration Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1964'). Under the Act of
1964, Rajasthan Nursing Council is established and it is in consultation with the
Indian Nursing Council that the power to recognize Nursing Training Institute within
the State of Rajasthan even to private sector is vested in the Rajasthan Nursing
Council. It is then stated in this Circular that the Govt. has decided to prescribe the
following guidelines, which may be followed before recommending case to Rajasthan
Nursing Council. It is then stated that these guidelines may be strictly followed for
recommending cases for registration/recognition of any private institution for
imparting instruction in Nursing. These were later on amended on 9-7-1999 and
certain additions were made particularly in relation to grant of applications to these
private institutions.

4. It was thereafter that the petitioner Society applied for No Objection Certificate for
opening a new General Nursing School under the name and style 'Vyas Nursing
Institute, Jodhpur'. The application for grant of No Objection was considered by the
Govt. of Rajasthan and vide its order dated 6-12-1999, it was ordered that No
Objection Certificate for opening new school under the name and style 'Vyas Nursing
Institute' is granted subject to certain conditions mentioned therein. The first condition
was that the Institution will not start a school or give admission to the prospective
students till a clear permission to that effect has been issued by Rajasthan Nursing
Council. There were other conditions also. The petitioner has filed as Annexure 3 to
the petition a copy of this permission. It will thus be seen that when the permission
was granted on 6-12-1999, it was with the stipulation that the Institution will not start
the Institution or school or give admission to prospective students till clear permission
is obtained from the Rajasthan Nursing Council .

5. This permission from the Rajasthan Nursing council came immediately thereafter
on 8-12-1999. In this permission or recognition, it was observed as under :-

       "Now in the light of the above referred NOC, permission of the State Nursing
       Council is hereby accorded in respect of Vyas Nursing Institute. Ist 'A'
       Sardarpura. Jodhpur 342 001 for opening of a school of Nursing with intake
       capacity of 100 (One Hundred) students, on the following terms and conditions
       :-"

(Emphasis supplied)

It will thus be seen that even on 8-12-1999, the school was not opened and the
Institute was granted permission to open the school of Nursing on that day. The
manner in which admissions shall be done was also prescribed both by the State Govt.
as also by the Nursing Council.
6. In this letter of recognition of permission issued by the Rajasthan Nursing Council,
it was further stated that the Institute will issue an advertisement in leading
newspapers with respect to invitation of application strictly in accordance with the
rules framed by the State Govt. for giving admission to three years General Nursing
training course. The admissions, therefore, were to be made after publication of an
advertisement in leading newspaper. Admissions, by very nature of things, could not,
therefore, be confirmed till the process contemplated by these letters was undertaken
and completed.

7. Thereafter, on 23-12-1999, the petitioner issued an advertisement in Rajasthan
Patrika inviting admission to the Institution. In the advertisement itself, they have
declared that they will give admission to Rajasthan's first 100 seats for training in
Vyas Nursing Institute. Obviously, therefore, no admissions were made till 23-12-
1999. Probably immediately thereafter a communication dated 20-12-1999 was
received to the Society requiring it to immediately stop the process of admission.

8. Thereafter on 1-2-2000 that the matter has been carefully considered by the Govt.
of Rajasthan and in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in
the matter of Unni Krishnan, J. P. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1 guidelines which were
issued earlier merely reaffirmed and that submissions made in this communication
dated 1-2-2000, the Institutions were permitted to make admissions. This
communication it should be noted is by the Govt. of Rajasthan to the Registrar,
Rajasthan Nursing Council, Jaipur. In this communication, it is then stated that all the
conditions mentioned in the communication dated 17-12-1999 shall continue to be
applicable and admission be made after 1-4-2000 in accordance with the guidelines
prescribed by the State Govt.

9. On 2-2-2000 a communication was addressed to the petitioner Vyas Nursing
Institute by the Registrar, Rajasthan Nursing Council, Jaipur, partially amending the
recognition/permission granted to it vide letter dated 18-12-1999 and stated that the
Institution will be able to give admission from this Academic Session .It will thus be
seen that permission to give admissions as stipulated by the State Govt. was granted
by the Rajasthan Nursing Council to the petitioner Institution only on 2-2-2000 in the
present Academic Session.
10. It will thus be seen that clear permission to admit students to the Nursing School
was granted on 2-2-2000 with a stipulation that the admission may be made in this
Academic Session. Academic Session as is understood in the education circle, usually
begins after the end of the summer every year. However, it may be possible that the
Academic Session in the Vyas Nursing Institute commenced on completion of
admissions in Feb. 2000. The Vyas Nursing Institute has admitted 100 students and I
will assume that the admissions have been made in accordance with the guidelines
issued by the State for the first Academic Session. This Academic Session is not over.
It is not pleaded anywhere that this Academic Session is over. It is going on.
Consequently, the next Academic Session could start only in Feb. 2001 and not before
that.

11. It is possible, however, for an institution to start additional course of additional
sections by enlarging its admission capacity and which session could not be started in
July, 2000. However, the Academic Session for the 100 students already admitted to
the Vyas Nursing Institute, it can be assumed to have commenced from Feb. 2000 and
has not come to an end. It is in these circumstances that the Circular dated 12-5-2000
has to be seen, which is impugned in this petition. The Circular gives certain further
requirement or guidelines to be followed by private Nursing School while making any
future admissions. Certain requirements as availability of 150 bed hospital attached to
the Institution for providing training to the students. It is then stipulated by this letter
that no admission after the Circular would be made unless the feasibility report from
the Indian Nursing Council is received and fresh permission is granted by the
Rajasthan Nursing Council. The stipulation or condition No. 20 (4) may be considered
verbatim, which runs as under :-

       It is this condition, which according to the petitioner is liable to be quashed on
       the grounds submitted during the course of arguments as also in the petition,
       Mr. M.S. Singhvi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has
       contended the following grounds :-
       (i) that the Nursing Council of India has no authority to grant recognition and it
       is to be done by the Rajasthan Nursing Council. The learned counsel took me
       through the provisions of the Act of 1947 and the Act of 1964 and claimed that
       if is for the Indian Nursing Council to recommend qualifications necessary to
       become a qualified Nursing candidate and grant of recognition to an Institution
       for giving training in Nursing is governed by the Act of 1964 only and the
       power to grant recognition is vested in the Rajasthan Nursing Council only. The
       requirement of getting recognition of the Indian Nursing Council as envisaged
       by the Circular dated 12-5-2000 is, therefore, illegal.
       (ii) Even if it is so held, the guidelines of the Indian Nursing Council requiring
       this recognition are prospective and, therefore, cannot be applied in relation to
       the permission granted prior to January, 2000.
       (iii) The State of Rajasthan and other respondents are estopped from denying to
       the petitioner to admit the students.
12. These submissions were stoutly opposed by Mr. Arun Bhansali, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the State. He submits that the petition itself is misconceived.
The petitioner has not understood the import of Annex. 10 Circular dated 12-5-2000
and the State Govt. by that Circular, according to the learned counsel for the
respondents, has only directed to obtain a feasibility study report from the Indian
Nursing Council and not the recognition from the Indian Nursing Council. According
to him, therefore, the entire basis in the writ petition is non-existent and consequently
the petition is liable to be dismissed. He also relied on provisions of the Act of 1964,
canvassed before me that the Rajasthan Nursing Council has also power to issue
guidelines to private Institutions imparting instruction in Nursing Course. It is these
rival considerations, therefore, fall for my adjudication.

13. In my considered opinion, the petition is misconceived and is liable to be
dismissed on that ground. I have pointed out in extensor in the foregoing paragraphs
that the process of recognition was complete only on 8-12-1999. The process of
admission began on 23-12-1999 immediately after it was so started. It was stayed by
the State of Rajasthan and ultimately, admissions were permitted to be given from this
Academic Session and thus arise the claim of the petitioner Society that it is entitled to
continue the admission even in the second session because admission of 100 students
in pursuance of the advertisement dated 23-12-1999 are over. It is pertinent to note
here that from the Annexures given to the petition by the petitioner themselves that
everyone concerned with the commencement of Nursing Training Course always
insisted that the Course began from 1-7-2000 and not earlier. The petitioner has
annexed to the petition as Annex. 18 at the page 66 an advertisement dated 4-4-2000
issued by the Govt. of Rajasthan inviting applications for admission to General
Nursing Training Course commencing from Sept. 2000 in various Institutions run by
Secretariat, Medical, Health and Family Planning Services, Rajasthan Jaipur for that
purpose. The guidelines of different Institutions, reference of which has been made
earlier, are applicable with equal force and vigour to the Govt. Institutions also. The
Govt. has issued an advertisement inviting applications for the course of Sept. 2000.
The last date was 15-5-2000 and so far as the Govt. Institutions are concerned,
therefore, the process is still going on. The process is liable to be going on in the
Course of the petitioner Society also. Assuming that the admission process in so far as
the petitioner Society is concerned was complete in Feb. 2000 itself. The Academic
Session could start in the petitioner Society from Dec. 2000 for which they have
already completed admission. They cannot start second session or second Academic
Session and give admission there to within four months to the first course going on.
Without adjudicating on the issue as to whether that can be done or not, under the
present guidelines, it is obvious that if they desire to do so they will have to make
compliance of requirements of the Circular dated 12-5-1000. The Circular is obviously
prospective in nature. It does not in any manner affect the right of the Institution to go
on with the Course in relation to students already admitted by it. It only requires that
fresh admissions, if any, are to be undertaken by the petitioner Institution, it should be
so after following the Circular dated 12-5-2000. In this view of the matter, there is no
question of estoppel working against the respondents No step has been taken by the
petitioner Society on the basis of the promise made by the respondents looking to
which the principle of estoppel would be made applicable. Permission to establish an
institution was granted. Permission to admit students to the extent of 100 was granted
and admission of 100 students has been made. What has been pointed out by the
Circular dated 12-5-2000 is that future admission to be made by the Institution for the
second Academic Session or additional Academic Session, as the case may be, has to
be made after following the conditions mentioned in the Circular. The question of such
estoppel promissory or otherwise does not arise. Thus, the contention raised by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, is ill founded.

14. In my view, therefore, the entire petition is misconceived. The Circular dated 12-
5-2000 being prospective in nature and it requires only obtaining of a feasibility report
from the Nursing Council of India for making future admissions. The petitioner
Institution cannot undertake future admissions within four months of the first
admission being made unless it satisfies the respondents that it fulfils all the
requirements of the Circular dated 12-5-2000 as also earlier guidelines issued by the
Rajasthan Nursing Council and the Govt. of Rajasthan. The Institution will have to
obtain a feasibility study report from the Indian Nursing Council. The requirement for
that purpose by the Circular dated 12-5-2000 is not only legal and proper but also
necessary for imparting proper instruction and education to the persons who in future
would become qualified Nursing staff. Such an Institution must have teaching staff,
physical facilities, clinical facilities i.e. hospital field practices area and admission
criteria and process. It is, therefore, required that any Institution applying for
recognition should have a hospital of 150 beds. It goes without saying that it should
have adequate teaching staff, it should have well trained staff and whether they have
all this or not, is something for the Nursing Council to decide. There is nothing
unreasonable in this Circular dated 12-5-2000 as I have already held and I repeat that
the Circular dated 12-5-2000 is prospective in nature. There is no illegality in the
issuance thereof. The petition must, therefore, fail.

15. I emphasis at this stage that the admission to the Vyas Nursing Institute have been
completed fro fresh students only in Feb. 2000. Entries for that Academic Session in
the Vyas Nursing Institute are, therefore, already over. Students admitted prior to issue
of the Circular dated 12-5-2000 will not be affected by the said Circular. All that is
required is that in future, when they make admission, feasibility report should be
there. The Vyas Nursing Institute in a given situation may want additional session for
more students than those to which admissions have been made in Feb. 2000. If it so
desires to do, it must obey all the guidelines issued from time to time by the Govt. of
Rajasthan and the Rajasthan Nursing Council. If it wants to open an additional
sessions, it can do so only after establishing that they have 150 bed hospital attached
to it, that they have adequate number of staff to teach, they should obtain a feasibility
report. Obtaining of feasibility report is, therefore, necessary in all the circumstances.
It will be seen by security of the entire petition that it is nowhere stated either by the
petitioner that the Vyas Nursing Institute has started imparting instruction to the
candidates admitted in Feb. 2000. I will assume that it has so started still no right is
created in claiming additional admissions than the number (100) fixed by the
communication dated 8-12-1999. The entire petition is, therefore, misconceived and
deserves to be dismissed.

16. It is the misconception on the part of the petitioner that the admissions offered by
them in Feb. 2000 are for the Academic Session 1999-2000. It is factually impossible
in these cases. Such admissions may be possible in an institution already existing and
functioning e.g. admissions to Medical Colleges which are established in Rajasthan
could be made for the Academic year of 1999-2000 in the year 2000 as those
institutions are already existing and catering to the needs of the Society for last several
years. They have the equipments and measures to start the course. Whether such
situation exists or not is something, which has to be seen and for which, a feasibility
report is necessary. In the absence of any clear cut averment in the petition that the
admissions were made for the Academic Session 1999-2000, the factual situation
clearly demonstrates that the admissions were for the year 2000-2001 only and
consequently obtaining of feasibility report for admission for the year 2001-2002 is
easily possible.

17. In the result, the petition is dismissed with costs, which is quantified at Rs. 750/-
(seven hundred fifty). Interim orders, if any, are vacated forthwith.

Petition dismissed.

Cases Referred.

1. (1993 (1) SCC 645: AIR 1993 SC 2178