1. Heard on I.A.No.1117/2020, an application for amendment in the wake of not granting recognition to petitioner institution.

By way of the above application, amendment in the memo of petition including relief cause has been sought.

However, in the opinion of this Court, such an amendment would entirely change the nature of petition as the same has been moved seeking grant of recognition as well permission to its students to appear in the examination for GNM course. Hence, the same cannot be countenanced and is, accordingly, rejected.

2. With consent, the matter is heard finally.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the non grant of recognition/renewal for the academic session 2018-2019 for GNM course and direction has been sought to allow the students of the petitioner-Institution to participate in the examinations for the aforesaid course scheduled in the month of January, 2020 for the academic session 2018-2019.

4. Case of the petitioner-Institution is that it is a Society registered under the M.P. Societies Registration Act, 1973 running Nursing Institute/College in the name and style of Hayward Institute of Nursing and Science, Ratwai, Morar, Gwalior. Petitioner-Institution is having the recognition for last couple of years. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, in essence, is that online process of submitting fee could not be completed due to inoperability of the web-portal and other technical glitches. The fees was sent through demand draft. However, respondent no.2 returned the demand draft stating that only online fees was acceptable. It is further contended that reminders were sent and in anticipation of renewal/extension, petitioner-Institution gave admissions to the students for academic session 2018-2019. It is submitted that because of non grant of recognition by the respondent/ Authorities, future of bright students of the College is jeopardized. In identical cases, the Apex Court, as well as, this Court has granted interim relief by permitting the students to fill-up the examination forms and appear in the examinations. On these contentions, petitioner-Institute seeks directions to the respondents/Authorities to grant recognition/extension for the aforesaid Courses for academic session 2018-2019.

5. Counsel for the Respondent No.2- Madhya Pradesh Nurses Registration Council has submitted that the petitioner/college has not brought on record the details of students to whom admission has been granted for the academic session 2018-19. It is submitted that the State of Madhya Pradesh in exercise of its powers conferred by Section 24 read with Section 33(1) of Madhya Pradesh Upcharika, Prasavika, Sahai Upcharika-Prasavika Swasthya Paridarshak Registration Adhiniyam, 1972 has framed Rules, viz, Madhya Pradesh Nursing Shikshan Sanstha Manyata Niyam, 2018 (for short "Rules of 2018"), brought in vogue vide Notification No.F-5- 22/2018/55-2, dated 16/10/2018 published in Madhya Pradesh Gazette (Extraordinary), dated 16/10/2018 w.e.f. 01/12/2018. It is urged that under the Rules of 2018 every institution running Nursing and GNM Course were required to submit application on-line for renewal under Rule 5 thereof. It is contended that as the Rules of 2018 were brought in vogue for the first time the last date for on line application was extended upto 22/12/2018.

It is further contended that public notice was also issued by the Council on 16/11/2018 as to the schedule for on-line registration from 17/11/2018 to 07/12/2018, inspection by MPNRC from 15/12/2018, start of session from 01/01/2019. It is contended that since the petitioner did not apply under the Rules of 2018 and admitted the students, it is not entitled for any relief.

It is further contended that the Indian Nursing Council has no legal right to grant recognition as has been held by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.12759-12761 of 2017 The Karnataka State Association of the Management of Nursing and Allied Heath Science Institutions and others Vs. Indian Nursing Council and others, wherein it has been held that "the Indian Nursing council has no authority to grant recognition to the institutions imparting nursing courses." Further, an intimation dt.20.04.2018 was sent by the Indian Nursing Council in the nature of guidelines and minimum requirements, which reads thus :

"3. The eligible Organizations/Establishments should obtain Essentially Certificate/No objection Certificate from the concerned State Government where the GNM School of Nursing is sought to be established. The particulars of the name of the School/Nursing Institution alongwith the name of the Trust / Society [as mentioned in Trust Deed or Memorandum of Association] as also full address shall be mentioned in No Objection Certificate/Essentiality Certificate.

4. After receipt of the Essentiality Certificate/ No objection Certificate, the eligible institution shall get recognition from the concerned State Nursing Council for the GNM programme for the particular Academic Year, which is a mandatory requirement."

Learned counsel has drawn attention of this court to Circular dt.16.07.2018 issued by the Director Medical Education, wherein it has been categorically mentioned that the process of amendment of rules for opening the new nursing institution and increasing the seats is underway and therefore at present no proposal of any institution for nursing course would be accepted and that further information would be displayed on the website.

It is further contended by learned counsel appearing for respondent/MPNRC that petitioner-Institution had been reminded from time to time that they should not admit students till the recognition was granted to them.

It is thus submitted that the nursing colleges were well made aware not only by the INC but also by the MPNRC that they should desist from admitting students for the academic session 2018-19 until recognition is granted to them under the new rules. In this regard, attention has been drawn to public notice dated 1/4/2019 issued by Registrar, M.P. Nurses Registration Council to all the Principals/Directors, Nursing Institutions, Madhhya Pradesh, which reads thus:-

6. This Court, vide order dated 20/1/2020, by way of interim relief, allowed the students of B.Sc Nursing, Post Basic B.Sc Nursing and M.Sc Nursing to appear in the examinations. However, no interim relief was granted to the students of GNM Course. The aforesaid interim relief was granted on the basis of order dated 13/1/2020 passed by the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 406/2020, wherein the Apex Court had allowed the students to participate in the examinations which were being conducted. The said order of the Apex Court is as under:-

"UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

      Applications for impleadment are allowed.

      Issue notice.

      Meanwhile, the students may be allowed to appear in the examination which is being conducted.

(NIDHI AHUJA)

(PARVEEN KUMARI PASRICHA)

COURT MASTER (SH)

BRANCH OFFICER"

Thereafter, the Apex Court, vide order dated 4/2/2020, dismissed the SLP by the following order:-

"SLP (C) No. 406/2020

     On 13th January, 2020, this Court allowed the applications for impleadment and issued notice in the matter. Interim relief was also granted in the form of students being allowed to appear in the examination which is being conducted. We have been informed that a number of persons have availed of this benefit. We have also been told that as a result of this order, not only a number of Interlocutory Applications have been filed in this Court but a large number of writ petitions have also been filed in the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior, piggybacking on this order.

     Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, what is clear, on a perusal of the special leave petition before this Court and the counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 2-3 before us, which includes the Madhya Pradesh Nurses Registration Council (hereinafter referred to as 'MPNRC'), it is clear that a show cause notice had been issued to the institution in question on 11.04.2019 after which, on 20.05.2019, the MPNRC cancelled the recognition granted to the institution on various grounds. Neither of these documents is either adverted to in the list of dates or in the special leave petition that has been filed long after viz., on 06.01.2020. This would, obviously, amount to suppression of material facts. This being the case, and having regard to the fact that today, having obtained interim orders before this Court, the petitioner now seeks to withdraw the special leave petition, we make it clear that the interlocutory application for withdrawal is dismissed. Given the above, the special leave petition itself is dismissed with Rs.2 lakhs as costs to be given to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks from today.

(NIDHI AHUJA)    (NISHA TRIPATHI)
AR-cum-PS    BRANCH OFFICER"
While granting interim relief, this Court had made it very clear that the aforesaid interim order would not create any equity in favour of the petitioner and shall be subject to outcome of the present petition, as well as, orders passed by the Apex Court in similar cases wherein SLPs have been preferred. It was further made clear that petitioner-Institution shall file an affidavit informing this Court that they have informed each and every student individually within ten days therefrom.

7. Shri Vivek Khedkar, Advocate appearing for M.P. Nurses Registration Council further submitted that admittedly the Institution did not have the recognition for the academic session 2018-2019. Unfortunately, petitioner-Institution violated the norms with adamantine audacity and sought indulgence of the Court either in the name of mercy or sympathy for the students or financial constraint of the Institution and also on the ground of inappropriate treatment by the statutory regulatory bodies for not taking any decision in respect of grant of recognition and thereby compelled this Court to pass interim order contending that future of the students would be jeopardized. As such, he sought dismissal of the writ petition with heavy cost.

8. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.

9. Coming back to the main issue. Rule 5 of the Rules 2018 lays down the procedure for recognition/ renewal, it stipulates:

10. It is further noticed that besides public notice dated 16/11/2018; corrigendum was issued on 04/12/2018 by the Council stating therein:

11. In Abhyudya Sanstha Vs. Union of India and others, (2011) 6 SCC 145 it is observed by their Lordships:

"22. .......However, with a view to make business and earn profit in the name of education, the appellants successfully manipulated the judicial process for allocation of the students. Therefore, there is no valid ground much less justification to confer legitimacy upon the admission made by the appellants in a clandestine manner. Any such order by the Court will be detrimental to the national interest. The students who may have taken admission and completed the course from an institution, which had not been granted recognition, will not be able to impart value based education to the future generation of the country. Rather, they may train young minds as to how one can succeed in life by manipulations. Therefore, we do not consider it proper to issue direction for regularising the admissions made by the appellants on the strength of the interim orders passed by this Court.

25. The appellants are directed to pay Rs.1 lakh to each of the students by way of compensation in lieu of the injury inflicted upon them by way of misrepresentation about their entitlement to admit the students to D.Ed. course."

12. In Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya and Ors. Vs. Subhash Rahangdale and Ors., (2012) AIR SC 1097, it is held:

"33.(ix) Once the recognition is withdrawn under Section 17(1), the concerned institution is required to discontinue the course or training in teacher education and the examining body is obliged to cancel the affiliation. The effect of withdrawal of the recognition is that the qualification in teacher education obtained pursuant to the course or training undertaken at such institution is not to be treated as valid qualification for the purpose of employment under the Central Government, any State Government or University or in any educational body aided by the Central or the State Government.

(xiv) If any institution admits any student in violation of the Norms and Standards laid down by the NCTE, then the Regional Committee shall initiate action for withdrawal of the recognition of such institution and pass appropriate order after complying with the rules of natural justice.

(xv) The students admitted by unrecognised institution and institutions which are not affiliated to any examining body are not entitled to appear in the examination conducted by the examining body or any other authorised agency."

13. The Apex Court in the case of National Council For teacher Education and another Vs. Venus Public Education Society and others, (2013) 1 SCC 223 as under:-

"33. Now, to the last plank of submission of the learned counsel for the respondent. It is urged by him that NCTE had procrastinated its decision at every stage and such delay was deliberate and, therefore, the Society was compelled to admit the students and impart education, regard being had to the fact that there were really no deficiencies. As has been laid down in many a pronouncement of this Court that without recognition from NCTE and affiliation from the university/examining body, the educational institution cannot admit the students. An educational institution is expected to be aware of the law. The students who take admission are not young in age. They are graduates. They are expected to enquire whether the institution has recognition and affiliation. If we allow ourselves to say so, the institution had given admission in a nonchalant manner. Possibly, its functionaries harboured the idea that they had incomparable fertile mind. The students who had taken admission possibly immersed with the idea that ignorance is a bliss. It is also necessary to state that the institution had the anxious enthusiasm to commercialise education and earn money forgetting the factum that such an attitude leads to a disaster. The students exhibited tremendous anxiety to get a degree without bothering for a moment whether their error, if any, had sanctity of law. Such attitudes only bring nemesis. It would not be wrong to say that this is not a case which put the institution or the students to choose between Scylla and Charybdis. On the contrary, both of them were expected to be Argus-eyed. The basic motto should have been "transparency". Unfortunately, the institution betrayed the trust of the students and the students, in a way, atrophied their intelligence. The institution decidedly exhibited characteristics of carelessness. It seems that they had forgotten that they are accountable to law. The students, while thinking "vision of hope" chose to play possum. The law does not countenance either of the ideas. Hence, the plea propounded with anxiety, vehemence and desperation on behalf of the respondent is not acceptable and, accordingly we unhesitatingly repel the same."

14. The Apex court in the case of Pt. Bateswari Dayal Mishr Shiksha Samiti Vs.Madhya Pradesh Nurses Registration Council and Others, (2019) 5 SCC 379 has held as under:-

"10. Though it may be true that the appellant institution had been granted affiliation for running B.Sc (Nursing) course since 2006, but from the record it is clear that for the academic session 2018-19, there was no permission accorded by the Madhya Pradesh Nurses Registration Council for running the B.Sc (Nursing) or M.Sc (Nursing) courses. The prayer made in the appeal is not clear as to whether the appellant Institution is seeking permission for running B.Sc (Nursing) course or M.Sc (Nursing) course. A copy of writ petition has also not been enclosed and as such it is not possible to know as to what prayers had been made in the writ petition filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The same is not even clear from the impugned judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 13-11-2018.

11. The specific case of respondent 1 is that the appellant institution had filed incomplete form for registration of the course for academic session 2018-2019 and that no documents to support its claim had been filed. Further, the last date for filing online form for registration for the academic session 2018-2019 was 22-12-2018. Admittedly the consent for affiliation by the University concerned was given only on 2-2-2019 for M.Sc (Nursing) course. As such, the said consent of the affiliation was not even available with the appellant institution prior to the last date of filing of the application form. Thus, the question of granting permission to run the M.Sc (Nursing) course for the academic session 2018-2019 would not arise, as admittedly the form filled by the appellant cannot be said to be complete, with all details and supporting documents."

15. Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner-Institution was not having recognition for the academic session 2018-2019 till the last date of filling of examination forms, yet they have admitted the students. In view of decision in the case of Venus Public Education Society (Supra), no admission could have been granted. It cannot be lost sight of that the College, without having recognition and without fulfilling necessary conditions for recognition, has gone on to admit students putting the future of students at stake. The said action of the petitioner-Institution, in the light of above settled legal position, cannot be countenanced. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, petitioner-Institution is liable to pay cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only), 50% of which be deposited with the Principal Registrar of this Court for being utilized for upliftment of the dispensary situated in the High Court premises, Gwalior and the remaining 50% be deposited with the Prime Minister's Citizen Assistance and Relief in Emergency Situations Fund (PM CARES Fund), within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

The petition, accordingly, stands dismissed for now.

However, in case the aforesaid cost is not deposited within the period stipulated above, coercive action shall be initiated against the petitioner-Institution for recovering the cost, for which the Registry shall place this petition before this Court for further directions.

Needless to say that the petitioner shall be at liberty to take recourse to appropriate proceedings in the wake of subsequent cause of action or if occasion so arises, in accordance with law.