Private Nursing Schools And Colleges Management Association vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.

(PER - JITENDRA JAIN, J.) :-

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, taken up for final hearing and disposal.

By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, an association of private nursing schools and colleges, have challenged a circular dated 8^th July 2026, whereby admissions to the nursing diploma courses, namely, Auxiliary Nurse Midwifery (ANM) and General Nursing and Midwifery (GNM), for the academic year 2026-2027 are proposed to be carried out through the Common Admission Process (CAP) by respondent No. 2 – CET Cell. The petition further challenges a circular dated 4^th September 2026, concerning list of affiliation and non-affiliation of colleges. Both these circulars have been issued by respondent No. 3 – Board.

The members of the petitioner association are conducting nursing courses by offering diploma, degree and postgraduate courses. Insofar as the degree course is concerned, CET has been conducted by respondent No. 2 from the academic year 2022-2023 onwards, and there is no grievance insofar as this admission process is concerned. However, with respect to diploma courses, viz. ANM and GNM, there was no requirement of CET or CAP till the impugned communication was issued.

The Indian Nursing Council (INC), which is the apex body governing nursing education, issued a circular dated 29^th April, 2013 prescribing eligibility criteria for admission to ANM and GNM courses, including 10+2 qualification.

On 27^th January 2026, the INC issued Notification No. 4 of 2026 notifying admissions to nursing programmes for the academic year 2026-2027. It states that the academic session would commence from 1^st August 2026 and the last date for admission would be 30^th September 2026.

The petitioners have challenged the impugned circulars dated 8^th July 2026 and 4^th September 2026, whereby the CAP round has been made compulsory for admission to ANM and GNM diploma courses by the former circular and by the later circular concerns the list of affiliated and non-affiliated colleges.

Mr. Hon, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that, after the notification was issued by the INC on 27^th January 2026, notifying the dates of admission, respondent No. 3 has issued the impugned circular making admission to diploma courses through the CAP process. He submitted that after the admission process had started, respondent No. 3 could not have issued such a circular. He further submitted that the members of the association have already admitted more than 28,000 students prior to 8^th September 2026, on which day this Court had protected the admissions of these students by an interim order.

He submitted that the classes have already started and the students have made arrangements for accommodation in hostels, etc., and now it would be unfair to cancel their admissions and direct the students to undergo the CAP. He submitted that from 13^th July 2026, the association had made various representations to respondent No. 3, objecting to the CAP being introduced for admission to diploma courses.

He submitted that it was only on 21^st July 2026 that the Board responded to the said representation, wherein the position on admissions through CAP was reiterated. He submitted that by circular dated 7^th July 2026, the CET has been introduced from the academic year 2027-2028 for admission to these courses.

He submitted that no CET has been prescribed for the academic year 2026-2027 and there cannot be a CAP in absence of CET. The learned Senior Counsel relied upon Sections 24(2) and 26 of the 2013 Act and submitted that the circular issued by respondent No. 3 is contrary to the provisions of the Maharashtra State Board of Nursing and Paramedical Education Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”). He submitted that respondent No. 3 issued the prospectus for the diploma courses only on 18^th September 2026, i.e., after the admission process had started as per the notification dated 27^th January 2026.

The learned Senior Counsel relied upon the following decisions in support of his submissions and prayed that the impugned circulars be quashed and set aside:

Mr. Dixit, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 – Board, at the outset, submitted that insofar as the challenge to the circular dated 4^th September 2026 is concerned, the association has no locus standi to challenge the affiliation/non-affiliation of its members i.e. individual colleges.

He submitted that it would depend upon the facts of each case and the association cannot raise a grievance. He, therefore, submitted that insofar as the challenge to the circular dated 4^th September 2026 is concerned, there is no cause of action for the petitioners and the same should be dismissed on account of misjoinder.

The learned Counsel further submitted that under Section 24(1)(e) of the 2013 Act, the Board has the power to regulate the standard of the course and the admission process, and it is in exercise of this power that the circular has been issued for admission through the CAP.

He submitted that the requirement of 10+2 qualification is not disturbed by the said circular and the process of admission through CAP would not be contrary to the provisions of the Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947. He submitted that the petitioners have suppressed the circulars dated 29^th June 2026 and 7^th July 2026, by which they were informed well in advance that admission for the academic year 2026-2027 would be through CAP. He submitted that in the representation dated 13^th July 2026 itself, there is a reference to the circular dated 7^th July 2026, demonstrating that the petitioners were aware in July 2026 about the CAP round for admission to diploma courses.

He submitted that the petitioners have not challenged the circulars dated 7^th July 2026 and 29^th June 2026. He submitted that admissions made contrary to the circulars are illegal and void, and the petitioners cannot, on the ground of equity, seek protection of the admissions already granted. He submitted that there are many colleges which are not members of the association but have not challenged the CAP and, therefore, the petition cannot be allowed since it would result in the admission process being carried out by two different methods, namely, through CAP and by direct admission.

He submitted that the provisions of Sections 29(6) and 30 of the 2013 Act expressly prohibit admission of students without there being an affiliation. He submitted that these provisions are to protect the students. He, therefore, submitted that any admission contrary to the provisions of the 2013 Act and the circulars has to be held to be bad in law.

He distinguished the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners on the ground that the issue before the Court was different from the issue which is raised in the present petition. He submitted that because the diploma courses were treated as professional courses, the Board decided to regulate the admission process through CAP. He submitted that if all the students are permitted to take admission through the CAP, then no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners, but on the contrary, it would be in the interest of the students so that they can exercise their choice of college.

He further submitted that no student has challenged the impugned circular. He submitted that the admissions have been made by the members of the petitioners' association without following reservation policy, in spite of their being aware in July itself that admissions had to be through the CAP.

He further submitted that, as per his information available, only around 3,500 to 4,000 students have taken admission and not 28000, as informed by the members of the association.

The learned AGP adopted the arguments of respondent No. 3 and further submitted that it would be in the interest of all the students that admissions are conducted through the CAP.

Mr. Narwadkar, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 – CET Cell, submits that respondent No. 2 is only an implementing agency. He further submitted that, based on the orders passed by this Court, this Court should direct respondent No. 3 to extend the time for completing the admission process.

The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the submission made on account of affiliation had not been raised in the reply nor in the impugned circular and, therefore, respondent No. 3 cannot raise the plea.

He further submitted that respondent No. 3 took substantial time to grant affiliation and, therefore, in many times affiliation is granted after the completion of the academic year. He reiterated that CET is prescribed only for degree courses and not for diploma courses and, therefore, the requirement of CAP is bad in law. He, therefore, prayed for allowing the petition.

We have heard Mr. Hon, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Dixit, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3, learned AGP for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Narwadkar, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2. We have also perused the documents brought to our attention and placed on record by the parties.

After hearing the parties undisputedly following facts emerged :

Again by another communication it was prayed that the stay be granted that for the year 2026-2027. Admissions be not through CAP and it should be made only for 2026-2027. The petitioner thus had the knowledge of the circulars and the policy that from this year itself the authorities are intending to give the admission through CAP round. The petitioner relied upon the communication dated 31.07.2026 issued by the President of respondent No. 3 to the Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department. However, this Court has seen that there is no recommendation in the said communication not to give admissions through CAP round and tried to be posed by the petitioner by the said communication that it was only intimated to the Secretary that the association wants that admissions through CAP be made only from the next year.

In spite of all the above facts, writ petition was filed on 22.09.2026 and now a statement is made that, by that time, 28,000 students were admitted. This figure is not substantiated by any of the documents. On the contrary, only through rejoinder now they have given the figure. It is not clear as to what made the petitioner to approach this Court only after making the admissions of these many students.

Learned Counsel Mr. Dixit, in his submission, submits that prior to filing of the petition, as per the information received by his clients, only 3350 students were admitted and after filing of the writ petition the number of students admitted were informed to be 1513.

This Court by order dated 23.09.2026 had made it clear that, no further admission shall be given to any of the students. Thus, in no case the students who are admitted after that, no institution will get any benefit in the cases of the students who are admitted after 23.09.2026.

Learned Counsel Mr. Dixit during the course of argument also argued that the petitioner association does not have any locus to challenge the petition on behalf of the institutions. Some of the institutions do not have even affiliation and they are totally out of frame.

This Court thus finds substance in the arguments of learned Counsel Mr. Dixit that the association has not approached this Court with clean hands. So far as arguments of learned senior Counsel Mr. Hon that the Board had no authority to take decision to admit the students through CAP round is concerned, learned Counsel Mr. Dixit rightly relied upon section 24 sub-section (1)(e) of the 2013 Act which reads as under :

Clause (v) of the said sub-section reads as under :

This Court thus finds substance in the arguments of learned Counsel Mr. Dixit that the Board has the power to prescribe the conditions governing admission of regular candidates etc. Considering clause (v) also it is clear that the Board can carry out all the acts necessary to achieve the objects of the Act. The decision to give admission through CAP cannot be said to be contrary to the Act i.e. 2013 Act. The basic qualification is not changed. The said Board has to maintain the minimum standard as per the INC. It can prescribe even further standard while giving the admissions. It is now common knowledge that through CAP round if the admissions are made there is a chance given to meritorious students to take admission in the college of their choice. Through CAP round they get the information about the vacancy position of each of the colleges, whereas at the institutional level there is no assurance of merit based admissions. All these 28,000 students which are submitted to have been admitted have thus lost the opportunity. There is no substance in the argument that 28,000 admissions are made on the basis of merit. Nothing is shown before this Court to show that while giving admissions merit was seen. There is not even an averment. It is also not clear as to whether the reservation policy was followed while giving the admissions.

Learned Counsel Mr. Dixit has further shown sub-section (6) of Section 29 of 2013 Act which reads as under :

It is seen that, the petitioner had also admitted students in some of the institutions. The affiliation process is still pending and some of the members of the association had obtained the affiliation for this year. The document placed on record by the respondent Board shows that there are 410 colleges which are still not affiliated. It is not clear as to how many of such colleges are members of the petitioner association. However, the fact remains that the admissions are done in haste even without obtaining the affiliation by some of the colleges. This Court finds that no eligibility criteria of the admission is changed. The judgment in the case of Alapati Jyotsna and Others (supra) is thus not applicable. Other two judgments are on the same lines and are not applicable. It is not shown that the rules of the game are changed after the admission process started. In fact, admission process itself is not started through CAP. An Institutional level admissions are made without adhering to the circulars issued by the Board. After violating the circulars now it is not open for the petitioner to stay that the rules of the game have been changed after it has started.

Even from the judgment in Writ Petition No. 11077 of 2022 in the case of Private Nursing Schools and Colleges Management Association Through its President And Another (supra) it is clear that the members of the association have flouted the procedure and the circulars and have made admissions in haste contrary to the circulars.

Now the argument made that the students will suffer the hardship. This arguments cannot be accepted as none of the students has approached this Court. Now allowing the institutions to retain students would create one more complication that some students are admitted without following CAP round whereas, other students will be admitted though CAP and two categories of the students would be created. To avoid this it is necessary to give even the students who are admitted in the institutions a chance to register themselves for CAP round so that they will get better opportunities if they are desirous. The students, if are not desirous of going through CAP round are free to retain the admission as it is. However, it is necessary to put certain conditions for following the procedure.

While disposing the petition the Court also must note the conduct of the authorities at the same time. In the month of January itself INC has given the schedule of the course stating that the course would start from 01.08.2026. It is only on 18.09.2026 the Board published the information brochure. This is after more than one and half month after the institutions were supposed to start conducting the course. This is also in view that the Higher and Secondary School Examination’s result were out in the month of May itself. The colleges cannot be totally blamed for starting the admission process as it was the practice till last year. The authorities cannot always expect the institutions to wait for such a long time.

Considering all above, following order :

At this stage, the learned AGP submits that the colleges be directed to inform the students who have already secured admission in their respective colleges that they would still have the option to participate in the Centralised Admission Process (CAP) round by cancelling their existing admissions, so as to enable such students to exercise the option made available under this judgment.

Considering the aforesaid submission, we deem it appropriate to add the following direction to the operative part of the judgment :-