AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.A. Bobde, J.—Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.
The petitioner seeks admission to Post Graduate Nursing Course with the respondent No. 3 - Institute of Nursing Education, Mumbai.
The main contention of the petitioner is that the requirement imposed by respondent No. 2 that the candidate must have 5 years'' experience in Government service after passing of any of the examination of basic B.Sc. Nursing is illegal, being contrary to Regulations prescribed by The Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947. We find variance between the Regulations placed by the Indian Nursing Council which provides minimum one year of work experience after Basic B.Sc. Nursing and minimum one year of work experience prior or after Post Basic B.Sc. Nursing and the requirement by respondent No. 2 which is five years'' experience. Section 16(g) and (h) of The Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947 reads as follows-
16(g) prescribing the standard curricula for the training of nurses, midwives and health visitors, for training courses for teachers of nurses, midwives and health visitors, and for training in nursing administration;
(h) prescribing the conditions for admission to courses of training as aforesaid;
The Regulations which prescribe the requirement of one year are framed under the powers conferred on the Council u/s 16 and have statutory force. In the circumstances, the requirement of five years imposed by respondent No. 2 must be set aside and is accordingly set aside.
The petitioner has applied for admission for the year 2009-10. However, the petitioner''s candidature was rejected on account of the illegal requirement imposed by respondent No. 2. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the petitioner, who is qualified, must be admitted to the course for which she had applied. However, for this purpose, the petitioner shall make fresh application for admission which shall be considered on its own merit.
Another aspect of this matter is the age criteria, which the petitioner has incurred due to the illegal denial of admission for the year 2009-10. There is no dispute that the petitioner would have qualified in terms of the age to be considered for admission since she had not reached the age of 50, which is the limit. She has crossed that age only because of the time that has passed due to the illegal rejection of her candidature. We are therefore of the view that the petitioner''s case should be considered for admission without the age limit, and if otherwise eligible. Order accordingly. Rule is made absolute and we quash the communication dated 16.12.2009 (Annexure-L) issued by Respondent No. 2/Director. We direct that petitioner''s candidature shall be considered for the academic session 2010-11 on its own merit.