AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Devan Ramachandran, J
I begin this judgment being fully aware of the limitations of this Court in granting relief to the petitioner.
This is because, the Regulations and applicable Circulars of the Indian Nursing Council (INC) perhaps stand in the way of the petitioner, because she had already obtained and availed of two ‘Mercy Chances’ to clear the final year examination of B.Sc. Nursing course, which she was pursuing from the year 2010.
Going by the notifications of the INC, every candidate has to complete the course within double the period of duration of the course; and two chances are given in case a candidate is unable to do so as ‘Mercy Chances’.
In the afore background, the petitioner joined the course in the year 2010 and ought to have completed the same by 2014 – it being a four year course – however, she did not do so, and double the period of duration of the course was completed by the year 2018.
However, the petitioner says that, while so, in the year 2017, she got married, which unfortunately ended in a horrible set of circumstances, that compelled her to obtain a divorce; and therefore, that she was unable to concentrate on her studies. She explains that unfortunately, she, under the hope of a better life, married again in the year 2020, but that turned out to be a far more gruesome experience for her – she being subjected to physical and mental agony; thus being constrained to seek divorce, as also to invoke her remedies under the Criminal Law, against her husband and family.
The petitioner has produced Ext.P6 in substantiation of the afore and says that, on account of all these factors in her life, she has been left rudderless and without any hope in future; and hence that she wanted to complete the course and make a career for herself. She says that she, therefore, applied to the 1st respondent - Kerala University of Health Sciences (KUHS), for a ‘Mercy Chance’, which was given to her in the year 2020, but that on account of the ongoing litigation, consequent to her second marriage, including her appearances in the Criminal Court and such other, she was unable to clear it; and that even when she was given a second chance in the year 2021, her state of mind was such that she could not clear it in the manner as required.
The petitioner says that, therefore, the life situation has created a scenario for her where she does not have even a glimmer of hope for future and that unless she is able to complete the course and make a career for herself, she will face ruin. She thus prays that she be given a third ‘Mercy Chance’.
In fact, hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner – Sri.Adhil P. on 27.09.2022, when this matter was earlier listed, I passed the following order:
Dr.Abraham Meachinkara – learned counsel appearing for the Indian Nursing Council (INC), submitted that, going by the applicable Regulations, petitioner cannot be given a further ‘Mercy Chance’ to write the examinations.
Though this Court has already found approval with the Regulations of the INC in a different Writ Petition, namely WP(C)No.17088/2022, I am inclined to entertain this Writ Petition only because the petitioner appears to have gone through extremely harsh life situation, including on account of violent, broken marriages, at the time when she wrote the examinations.
I am, therefore, of the prima facie view that the petitioner is deserving latitude – without making it a precedent – but this can be done only if the INC considers her case with empathy.
I, therefore, adjourn this matter to be called on 10.10.2022; within which time, the INC will inform this Court whether the petitioner can be, solely as an indulgence, given an opportunity to write the examinations.
Since the next examinations by the Kerala University of Health Sciences (KUHS) are stated to be scheduled on 13.10.2022, I expect the INC to inform this Court of the afore, without seeking any further time.
However, today, Dr.Abraham P. Meachinkara – learned counsel for the INC, takes the stand that no concessions or exemptions can be given to the petitioner, since it is likely to be used as a precedent by various other students. However, he fairly conceded that his client does not have any comment to make on the life realities that the petitioner had gone through, but that they are not in a position to make any concessions at this stage on account of the afore reason.
Sri.P.Sreekumar – learned Standing Counsel for the KUHS, submitted that his client is willing to abide by any directions of this Court, but that they are constrained by the Circulars and instructions by the INC, in affording any relief to the petitioner.
The afore submissions of Sri.P.Sreekumar was also adopted by Sri.P.M.Saneer – learned counsel for the College.
When I consider and evaluate the afore submissions, as I have said in the exordial paragraphs of this judgment, this is perhaps a case where this Court must come to the aid of the petitioner, at least as a special case, because otherwise, she would have nothing left in life or for her future. She is a woman who has suffered a lot and cannot be now subjected to further prejudice and detriment, lest her options are shut and she mulls over actions which are unthinkable.
I am, therefore, of the firm view that even though the Regulations and Circulars of the INC creates a hurdle in front of the petitioner, she should be given the benefit of empathy, which this Court can certainly do, while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as a special case and making it clear that it cannot operate as a precedent – these directions being issued only in the specific factual circumstances presented and in no other.
Resultantly, I order this Writ Petition and direct the 1st respondent – KUHS to grant one more chance to the petitioner to clear the examination of the fourth year; however, making it clear that she will not be afforded any further in future and that these directions are exclusively meant to operate in her favour and no one else, even in analogous circumstances.