College Of Nursing, Modern Medical Institute vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Heard Mr. Anurag Dayal Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for respondents No. 1 & 2 and Mr. Ajay Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel, appearing for respondents No. 3 & 5.

This appeal is directed against an order dated 15.03.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (C) No. 627 of 2022. By the aforesaid order, another writ petition, being Writ Petition (C) No. 4667 of 2021, was also disposed of.

The appellant is running B.Sc. (Nursing) course with intake capacity of 70. According to the appellant, the State Government had granted permission for running B.Sc. (Nursing) course with intake capacity of 100. The appellant sought for recognition for a higher intake capacity of 100. However, by an order dated 17.09.2021 issued by the University/respondent No. 3, while granting affiliation, intake capacity was shown as 70. It is in that background that the petitioner had approached this Court earlier by filing a writ petition, registered as Writ Petition (C) No. 5541 of 2021, wherein the appellant had also placed on record a letter dated 21.10.2021 by which, Chhattisgarh Nurses Registration Council (for short, ‘CGNRC’) had approved intake capacity of 100 in respect of the appellant institution.

A Single Judge of this Court, by an order dated 04.01.2022, disposed of the said writ petition, as follows:

“4. Given the submission by the counsel for the respondents, the present writ petition at this juncture is disposed of directing the petitioner to make a suitable representation to the respondent No. 3 at the earliest so far as the enhanced intake capacity is concerned and the respondent No. 3 in-turn shall consider and decide the representation of the petitioner keeping in view the order of recognition granted by the Chhattisgarh Nurses registration Council dated 21.10.2021 showing the intake capacity of the petitioner-establishment to be 100. Let an appropriate decision be taken by the respondent No. 3 on the representation of the petitioner-establishment within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of the representation by the petitioner.”

Pursuant thereto, an order dated 20.01.2022 came to be passed by the respondent No. 3/University, declining the request with an observation that seat enhancement would be considered in the academic session 2022-23. This order came to be challenged in the writ petition, numbered as Writ Petition (C) No. 627 of 2022, out of which this appeal arises.

Mr. Shrivastava submits that the learned Single Judge committed an error apparent on the face of the record in coming to the conclusion that session 2021-22 is nearly ending, though materials on record in the writ petition demonstrated that the last date of admission for the academic session 2021-22 was 31st of March, 2022. Mr. Shrivastava further submits that the last date now has been extended to 08.04.2022. It is submitted that because of such error apparent on the face of the record, the impugned order came to be passed.

When the case of the appellant is that there was an error apparent on the face of the record in the order of the learned Single, we dispose of the appeal giving liberty to the appellant to file appropriate application before the learned Single Judge and in the event such an application is filed, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. Needless to say, the respondents will be entitled to take all such pleas as may be available in law as well as on facts.