Karnataka High Court
Ocean 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.16975-17015/2012 (EDN-AD)
BETWEEN :
1. OCEAN SCHOOL OF NURSING
No.5, N.M/C COMPLEX
NEAR CLUSTER'S, RMV 2ND STAGE,
DEVINAGAR, BANGALORE
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SMT. RETNA.
2. AMAR SINGH
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
S/O BHAG CHAND MEENA
3. AMAR SINGH BAIRWA
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
S/O BABU LAL BAIRAWA
4. MR. BHAG CHAND CHOUDHARY
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
S/O RAMDEV CHOUDHARY
5. BAJRANG LAL CHOUDHARY
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
S/O RAMDHAN CHOUDHARY
6. BRIJESH KUMAR SHARMA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS
S/O KALU RAM SHARMA
7. DHARMENDRA KUMAR MEENA
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS
S/O KAJOD MAL MEENA
8. DEEPAK KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
S/O SURESH KUMAR
2
9. HARISH KUMAR SISODIAY
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
S/O GOVARDHAN SISODIA
10. HEERA RAM
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
S/O KANJI RAM
11. IRFAN KHAN
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
S/O CHHUTAN KHAN
12. JITENDRA GURJAR
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
S/O JAYARAM GURJAR
13. KANHAIYA LAL SAINI
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
S/O PRAHALAD SAINI
14. KALU RAM MEENA
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
S/O FELU RAM MEENA
15. KRISHNAM SINGHAL
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
S/O GIRIRAJ PRASAD SIGHAL
16. LOKESH KUMAR VERMA
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
S/O MAHAVEER PRASAD VERMA
17. MAHENDRA KUMAR PRAJAPAT
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
S/O KAJOR LAL PRAJAPAT
18. MUKESH KUMAR MEENA
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS
S/O KANHAIYA LAL MEENA
19. NITESH KUMAR SHARMA
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
S/O MAHAVEER PRASAD SHARMA
20. OM PRAKASH SAINI
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
S/O LALLU PRASAD SAINI
3
21. RAM LAKHAN MEENA
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
S/O ROOPPA NARAYAN MEENA
22. RAJENDRA PRASAD GURJAR
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
S/O UMMED SINGH
23. REKHA RANI
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
D/O BANWARI
24. RAM BABU SAINI
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
S/O LAKSHMINARAYAN SAINI
25. RAVI KUMAR SHARMA
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
S/O NAVAL KISHORE SHARMA
26. RAJESH MEENA
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
S/O JAIRAM MEENA
27. RAM LAKHAN MEENA
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS
S/O RAMESH MEENA
28. RAM KILADI MEENA
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS
S/O SATYANARAYAN MEENA
29. RAVEENA PATIDAR
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
S/O OMPRAKASH PATIDAR
30. ROHITASH MEENA
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
S/O RAMRAJ MEENA
31. RINKI KUMARI
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
D/O RANVIR SINGH
32. SANJAY KUMAR SHARMA
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS
S/O SHAMBABU DAYAL SHARMA
4
33. SANJAY KUMAR MEENA
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
S/O MADHOLAL MEENA
34. SANWAR MAL SAINI
AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS
S/O DALIRAM MALI
35. SNEHLATA
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
D/O JAGADISH
36. SURENDAR SINGH GURJAR
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
S/O KANJILAL GURJAR
37. THANDHI RAM MEENA
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
S/O HAR - SAHAY MEENA
38. UPENDRA SINGH
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS
S/O PURAN SINGH
39. UTTAM KUMAR MEENA
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
S/O RAMESH CHAND MEENA
40. VINOD KUMAR GURJAR
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
S/O HARGOVIND GUJAR
41. VIPIN PAHADEYA
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
S/O KAILASH CHAND PAHADEYA
PETITIONER NOS.2 TO 41 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)
5
AND :
1. KARNATAKA STATE NURSING COUNCIL
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR
GANDHINAGAR
BANGALORE-560009
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
THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO APPROVE THE ADMISSIONS OF THE
PETITIONERS2-41 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 41 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 6 imparting the GNM Course. The petitioner Nos.2 to 41 claim that they have all the eligibility to get admitted to the said Course. The admission list is sent to the first respondent on 5.5.2012. 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 bonafide reason. He submits that the admissions of the petitioner Nos.2 to 41 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 5.5.2012, 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:
7
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 41 meet the eligibility criteria in all other respects for being admitted to the GNM Course.
iii) The respondent No.1 shall also examine whether 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 41 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 41. 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.40,000/- to 8 the first respondent. It is made clear that the said amount shall not be collected from the petitioner Nos.2 to 41. 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 41 meeting the eligibility criteria, if the respondent No.1 approves the admissions of the petitioner Nos.2 to 41, 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