Karnataka High Court
Sri Vagdevi School Of Nursing vs Karnataka State Nursing Council on 1 June, 2012
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
Bench: Ashok B. Hinchigeri
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI
WRIT PETITION Nos.17016-17076/2012 (EDN-AD)
BETWEEN :
1. SRI VAGDEVI SCHOOL OF NURSING
NO.63/A, GNANABHARATHI ROAD,
MARIYAPPANAPALYA,
BANGALORE UNIVERSITY POST,
BANGALORE
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SMT. JOBY GEORGE
2. AASHIS
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
S/O RAADHE SHYAM
3. AMRIT SOLANKI
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
S/O BHANWAR LAL
4. ANIL KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
S/O JEEVAN RAM
5. AFZAL NAQVI
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
S/O SAYED ALLADIA NAQUVI
6. AQUEEL AHMAD
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
S/O ABDUL RASHID
7. AKRAM PARVEZ
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
S/O ABDUL AZEEM
8. ARUN KUMAR JANGID
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
S/O NAND KISHOR JANGID
2
9. BASANTHI
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
D/O KHATARIYA
10. CHAUHAN SAHUL BHAI KANTILAL
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
S/O KANTILAL
11. DHARMENDRA PAREEKH
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
S/O SHAM SUNDAR PAREEKH
12. DHAPU RATHORE
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
S/O KARULAL RATHORE
13. GHAN SHYAM MEENA
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
S/O RAMACHANDRA MEENA
14. GAYATHRI TANK
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
D/O ONKARLAL TANK
15. GHAN SHYAM PATIDAR
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
D/O DHRI KANWALAL PATIDAR
16. GANESH GURJAR
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
D/O GOPAL LAL GURJAR
17. GOVINDRAM PATIDAR
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
S/O BABULAL PATIDAR
18. GEETHA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
D/O YADRAM
19. HIMMAT SINGH
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
S/O SRI KANWARLAL
20. HANUMAN CHAUDHARY
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
S/O RAMPRASAD CHAUDHARY
3
21. INTAJ MOHAMMED
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
S/O ABDUL HAMID
22. JUMMA KHAN
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
S/O MAJID KHAN DESHWARI
23. JOSHI BHAIRAVI ANILKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
D/O ANIL KUMAR
24. KAPIL DANGI
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
S/O MOHAN LAL VAISHNAV
25. KAMALESH VAISHNAV
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
S/O MOHAN LAL VAISHNAV
26. KAMLESH KUMAR MALI
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
S/O SRIRAM PRASAD MALI
27. MAKVAN MOULI KUMAR VINOD BHAI
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
S/O VINOD BHAI
28. MUKESH
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
S/O LALJI
29. MUKESH KUMAR SAINI
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
S/O NATHU LAL SAINI
30. MISS AKTA KANWAR
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
D/O DURGA SINGH
31. MISS VANDANA JANGID
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
D/O RAMAKRISHNA JANGID
32. MISS RUKSHAR MANSURI
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
D/O ISTIYAK AHMED
4
33. MUBEEN AHMED
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
S/O MOHAMMED ISMAIL
34. MOHAMMAD SALMAN
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
S/O MOHAMMED ISMAIL
35. MOHAMMED JUNED AHMED
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
S/O ABDUL QUYYUM
36. MOHAMMAD SHAHID
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
S/O SYED MUKHTAR ALI
37. MOHAMMED KAZIM
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
S/O ABDUL MATIN
38. MEHABOOB MOHAMMED
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
S/O JAMALUDDIN
39. NIRMAL KUMAR MAHUR
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
S/O REDHEY SHYAM MAHUR
40. PANDAR SABIHA SULEMAN
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
S/O SULEMAN DAUD PANDAR
41. PINKEY DHANOTIYA
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
D/O NARAYAN DHANOTIAYA
42. PATEL DAXABEN RAMABHAI
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
S/O RAMABHAI
43. VEENA VERMA
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
D/O GOVEDHANLAL VERMA
44. RAISH MOHAMMED
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
S/O SHARADU-DEEN
5
45. RANA GALGUNI GIDIOINBHAI
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
D/O GIDIOINBHAI
46. SONU BHABOR
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
D/O DULE SINGH BHABOR
47. SURENDRA BHARGAV
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
S/O RAMSWAROOP BHARGAV
48. SIYARAM JANGID
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
S/O RAMSWAROOP JANGID
49. SOHAIL KHAN
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
S/O MOHAMMED ZAKIR
50. SADDAM HUSSAIN
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
S/O ABDUL SATTAR KHAN DESWALI
51. SYED YASIR NAQVI
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
S/O AKTURUNNISA
52. SHADAT ALI
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
S/O NISSA AHMED
53. SANJAY SINGH RATHORE
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
S/O CHARAN SINGH RATHORE
54. SYED MOHAMMED ARIF
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
S/O MUNWWAR ALI
55. TAUSEEF AHMAD MANSOORI
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
S/O ABDUL SHAFEEQ MANSOORI
56. TAHSIR AHMED
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
S/O NOUSHAD ALI
6
57. TAILOR JACKLIN JAYANANDBHAI
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
D/O JAYANANDBHAI
58. USMAN ARIF
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
S/O MOHAMMED YASIN
59. VIKAS SONI
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
S/O ANANDI LAL
60. VIKRAM SINGH SISODIA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
S/O SRI RAGHUBIR SINGH SISODIA
61. YASHODA
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
D/O SHIVARAM
PETITIONER NOS.2 TO 61 ARE
STUDENTS OF I YEAR GNM COURSE OF
OCEAN SCHOOL OF NURSING
NO.5, N.M./C .COMPLEX,
NEAR CLUSTER'S, RMV 2ND STAGE,
DEVINAGAR, BANGALORE
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI K.N.MOHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KARNATAKA STATE NURSING COUNCIL
REP BY ITS REGISTRAR
GANDHINAGAR
BANGALORE-09
2. THE SECRETARY
MEDICAL EDUCATION
VIKAS SOUDHA
BANGALORE ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVARUDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1,
SRI N.B.VISHWANATH, AGA FOR R-2)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT
7
THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO APPROVE THE ADMISSIONS OF THE
PETITIONERS 2-61 TO THE I YEAR GNM COURSE.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the first respondent to approve the admissions of the students to GNM Course for the academic year 2011-12.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the first petitioner is the Institute and the petitioner Nos.2 to 61 are the students admitted to GNM Course in the year 2011 at the first petitioner Institute. The petitioners claim that the first petitioner has all the necessary clearances from the Karnataka State Nursing Council and Karnataka Government for imparting the GNM Course. The petitioner Nos.2 to 61 claim that they have all the eligibility to get admitted to the said Course. The admission list is sent to the first respondent on 4.5.2012. The first respondent is not entertaining the admission list, as it is submitted belatedly. It ought to have been submitted before 23.4.2012 as per the circular issued.
3. Sri K.N.Mohan, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the delay in submitting the admission list is for 8 bonafide reason. He submits that the admissions of the petitioner Nos.2 to 61 are made within the last date only. The delay is only in submitting the list of the students admitted.
4. Sri Shivarudra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that as the admission list is submitted on 4.5.2012, though it ought to have been submitted before 23.4.2012, the respondent No.1 has not entertained the admission list.
5. Sri N.B.Vishwanath, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No.2 submits that reasons for delay in submitting the list are not stated by the petitioners.
6. On hearing the learned advocates, I pass the following order:
i) The respondent No.1 shall examine whether the first petitioner has all the statutory clearances to run the GNM Course.
ii) The respondent No.1 shall also examine whether the petitioner Nos.2 to 61 meet the eligibility criteria in all other respects for being admitted to the GNM Course.
iii) The respondent No.1 shall also examine whether 9 the admission has taken place within the prescribed last date.
iv) If the respondent No.1 is satisfied that the petitioner No.1 has all the statutory clearances and the petitioner Nos.2 to 61 have all the eligibility and if the admissions are made before the prescribed last date, the respondent No.1 is directed to accord approval to the admissions of the petitioner Nos.2 to 61. It shall not reject the approval only on the ground of delay in submitting the admission list.
v) For not adhering to time schedule in the matter of submission of admission list, the first petitioner is directed to pay the late fees/penalty at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per student. It shall pay Rs.60,000/- to the first respondent. It is made clear that the said amount shall not be collected from the petitioner Nos.2 to 61. The amount of penalty has to be borne by the first petitioner alone.
vi) On the petitioner No.1 paying the penal amounts and on the respondent No.1 satisfying itself of the first petitioner's entitlement to admit the students and the petitioner Nos.2 to 61 meeting the 10 eligibility criteria, if the respondent No.1 approves the admissions of the petitioner Nos.2 to 61, the same shall be intimated to the respondent No.2 immediately so as to enable the petitioning students to appear for the forthcoming GNM Examination.
7. These petitions are accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE MD