JUDGMENT G.C. Bharuka, J. 1. In this writ application Raj A. N. M. School, Muzaffarpur, (hereinafter 'the school' only) is the petitioner. The prayer made herein is to quash the decision dated 3.8.1992 as contained in Annexure-15. In this writ petition of the Examination Committee constituted by the Bihar Nurses Registration Council (hereinafter 'the State Council' only) by which it was, infer alia, decided that no private A.N.M. School running in the State should be issued application forms for appearing at the examination and the fees and forms submitted by the petitioner-school be returned. It has further been prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding upon the respondents to allow its students to appear at the ensuing A.N.M. examination. 2. The facts as set out in the writ application may be stated in short. The petitioner-school is claimed to have been established in the year 1988 at Muzaffarpur to impart training to auxiliary Nurses and Midwives. By letter dated 1.12.1988 the school applied for recognition to the Government whereupon by its letter dated 29.3.1989 (Annexure - 2) the Joint Secretary to the Government communicated to the Secretary of the school that the Government appreciates the efforts of the petitioner and recommends for its recognition but for this purpose it should contact the Bihar Nurses Registration Council and the Indian Nursing Council (hereinafter to be referred. to as the Central Council). It appears that thereupon the petitioner flied an application dated 1.8.89 to the State Council requesting for grant of recognition and permitting its students to appear at the A.N.M. examination to be held in October, 1989. In response of the said application, the Examination Committee in its meeting held on 16.9.89 (Annexure-3) resolved that inspection be held and in the meantime permission was accorded to allow the students of the school to appear at the examination. Subsequently the State Council again in its general council meeting held on 18.3.1990 (Annexure-4) resolved that the result of the candidates who were allowed to appear at the 1989 examination on the recommendations of the Government and the Examination Committee will be published but the school management is directed not to take any further admission. It was also resolved that the State Council should not give or recommend grant of recognition to any private A.N.M, C.N.M. or L.H.V. School. It was also resolved that the State Council should not give or recommend grant of recognition to any private A.N.M, C.N.M. or L.H.V. School. Inspite of the said resolution of the Council meeting, the Additional Director, Health Services, Bihar, by his memo no. 338 (6) dated 5.4.1990 (Annexure-5) directed the Registrar of the State Council to allow 101 students of the school to appear at the examination to be held in April, 1990, and an order to the same effect was issued by the Director in Chief, Health Services, Bihar, under its memo no. 354 (6) dated 12.4.1990 (Annexure 6). The said directions were duly complied with by the State Council. It also appears that the Registrar of the State Council constituted various Committees for inspection of the school with a view to accord recognition as is evident from Annexure - 7 series to the writ application, dating 12.6.89 to 10.1.90. Thereafter by letter dated 31.7.90 (Annexure 8) issued by the Registrar of the State Council, it was communicated that the inspection reports in respect of the school has been sent to the Central Council for necessary action and till that is completed no permanent recognition can be granted to the petitioner. It was further advised that Rs. 1000/- be sent to the Central Council as fees for inspection and till the inspection is completed the petitioner was accorded temporary recognition. It seems that the respondent - Director in Chief by his letter dated 20th September, 1990, (Annexure 9) issued permission to allow the students of the school to appear at the examination to be held in October, 1990. 3. In the above factual back-ground the petitioner filed Title Suit no. 138/90 and T.S. No. 141/90 in the Court or Munsif, Patna City, and obtained orders in its favour dated 5.12,90 and 1.12.90 (Annexures 10 and 11) by which the respondents were restrained from interfering with the process of admission in the school and the State Council was directed to publish the result of its students. This Court also in C.W.J.C. No. 3624 or 1991 disposed of on 7.7.92 directed the State Government to consider the students of the petitioner school for absorption in the Government service vide Annexure-12. 4. This Court also in C.W.J.C. No. 3624 or 1991 disposed of on 7.7.92 directed the State Government to consider the students of the petitioner school for absorption in the Government service vide Annexure-12. 4. Now by the impugned decision as contained in Annexure 15 to the writ application, the Examination Committee of the State Council has decided not to allow the students of the private A. N. M. Schools to appear at the examination, which is being challenged as arbitrary and illegal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that since by letter dated 31.7.90 the respondent State Council has accorded temporary recognition to the petitioner then the Examination Committee has no authority to refuse to allow the students of the petitioner - school to appear at the examination. Moreover, the temporary recognition as granted to the petitioner should be deemed as permanent for all intent and purposes because the authority to grant recognition lies with the State Council and the Central Council has no role to play in the matter. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the ultimate decision with regard to grant of recognition to the institution like that of the petitioner has to be taken by the Central Council and unless such a decision is taken in favour of the petitioner no permanent recognition can be granted. It was further submitted that till any such permanent recognition is granted after due satisfaction by the Central Council that the petitioner school fulfils all the requisite conditions for imparting proper training to the students of the institution, such institution can not be allowed to appear at the examination since otherwise entire regulatory provisions made in this regard by the Legislature will be frustrated. 6. 6. The facts as emerging" in the present writ application and the rival contentions raised at the Bar impels us for-in-depth study with regard to the powers and functions of the State Council established under Section 3 of the Bihar and Orissa Nurses Registration Act, 1935 (B & O Act 1 of 1935) (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'State Act' only as also that of the Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947 (Act No. XLVII of 1947) (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Central Act' only) in relation to grant of recognition to the institutions imparting training to Nurses and Midwives, holding of examination in that regard and their registration. 7. I would first like to deal with the respective provisions contained under the State Act in relation to the powers of the State Council regarding the courses of training, examination of nurses, midwife, etc. and their registration. The provisions may be quoted first : 2 (e) "midwife" means a person who has been granted a diploma of midwifery recognised by the Council or who has been registered under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 10. 2 (f) "nurse" means a person who holds a certificate in nursing from any institution recognised in this behalf by the State Govt. 2 (g) "prescribed” means prescribed by rules or regulations or by-laws made under this act. Sec. 10. 2 (f) "nurse" means a person who holds a certificate in nursing from any institution recognised in this behalf by the State Govt. 2 (g) "prescribed” means prescribed by rules or regulations or by-laws made under this act. Sec. 10. Registration of nurses, health visitors, midwives, trained dais and dais - (1) Any person who complies with such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed by the Council and who - (a) has undergone the course of training or passed the examination, if any, prescribed for nurses, health visitors, midwives or trained dais, or (b) is registered as a nurse or midwife by any association which is recognised by the State Government, or (c) is able to satisfy the Council that he has anywhere in India undergone a course of training or passed an examination similar to the course of training and examination referred to in clause (a) and recognised by State Government, or (d) is, on the date on which by any by-laws or notification made or issued under section 14 comes into force employed or practising in Bihar as a dai or doing the same work as a nurse, health visitor, midwife or trained dai, in the area to which such by-laws or notification apply, may apply to the Registrar to have his name registered : Provided that an application from a person who claim to be registered under clause (d) shall not be entertained unles it is received within one year from the date on which the by-laws or the notification, as the case may be, came into force. Sec. 17. Power of Government to make rules. - (1) The State Government may, after previous publication make rules to carry out the purposes of this Act. (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, the State Government may make rules - (a) ........................... (aa) 10 prescribe the courses of training and examination for nurses, health visitors, midwives or trained dais and the qualifications for their registration; and to provide for the recognition of institutions competent to give such training under section 10. 8. (aa) 10 prescribe the courses of training and examination for nurses, health visitors, midwives or trained dais and the qualifications for their registration; and to provide for the recognition of institutions competent to give such training under section 10. 8. In the present case, the petitioner has impugned the decision and actions of the State Council and its Examination Committee having a bearing on grant of recognition to the institution, holding of examination, declaration of result and consequently registration of the successful candidates under Section 10 as registered nurses and midwives entitling them to practice in those capacities and entering into various Government and other services. A close reading of section 10 (1) (a) clearly establishes that the persons falling under this category can be registered only if they have atleast undergone the course of training or passed the examination, if any, prescribed for the nurses, health visitors, midwife and trained dais in accordance with the rules framed by the State Government in this regard as provided under Section 17 (2) (aa). As a corollary, if the State Government does not make the required rules then anybody, even if he has undertaken any course of training or passed any examination prescribed by any other authority, may be the State Councilor University nr any other person, can not entitle the person undertaking such training or passing such examination to get himself/herself registered as a nurse etc. under section 10 of the State Act. No provision under the State Act authorises the State Council to deal with such matters like prescribing of courses of studies, courses of training and examination of nurses, midwives etc. except in accordance with the rules to be framed by the State Government. 9. Learned Advocate General appearing for the State of Bihar has admitted before us, after seeking full instructions that for some reason or the other, no rule in this regard has been framed. 10. Faced with this situation, reliance was sought to be placed on certain provisions of the Central Act. Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Central Act reads as under: "Provincial Nursing Councils have been established in all provinces and maintain registers of qualified nurses, health visitors and midwives. 10. Faced with this situation, reliance was sought to be placed on certain provisions of the Central Act. Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Central Act reads as under: "Provincial Nursing Councils have been established in all provinces and maintain registers of qualified nurses, health visitors and midwives. Increasing difficulties have been experienced by the nursing profession and by employing authorities owing to the diversity in the standards of preliminary education of candidates entering training schools of nursing, the varying standards of training and examination for nursing certificates and the lack of inter-provincial reciprocity in the registration of nurses. To remedy these difficulties it is proposed to enact legislation for the purpose of setting up an Indian Nursing Council which will prescribe uniform minimum standards of education and training for nurses, midwives and health visitors, supervise examinations, and maintain a schedule of qualifications, recognised for registration throughout India." 11. Sections 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 16, of the Central Act are relevant for the questions involved in the writ application. Section 4 provides for incorporation of the Council. Section 10 deals with recognition of qualification. Section 11 provides for effect of recognition. Section 12 empowers the Central Council to require information as to courses of study and training and examinations. Section 13 deals with inspections of all recognised institutions and Section 14 empowers for withdrawal of recognition. Section 16 is power to make regulations. 12. The provisions relevant for the present purposes may be quoted below: 10. Recognition of qualifications. - (1) For the purposes of this Act, the qualifications included in part I of the Schedule shall be recognised qualifications, and the qualifications included in part II of the schedule shall be recognised higher qualifications. (2) Any authority within the States which, being recognised by the State Government in consultation with the State Council, if any, for the purpose of granting any qualification, grants a qualification in general nursing, midwifery, auxillary nursing mid-wifery health visiting or public health nursing, not included in the Schedule may apply to the Council to have such qualification, or such qualification only when granted after a specified date shall be a recognised qualification for the purposes of this Act. 12. 12. Power to require information as to courses of' study and training and examinations.- Every authority in any State which grants a recognised qualification or a recognised higher qualification shall furnish such information as the Council may, from time to time, require as to the courses of study and training and examinations to be undergone in order to obtain such qualification, as to the ages at which such courses of study and examinations are required to be undergone and such qualifications conferred and generally as to the requisites for obtaining such qualification. 13. Inspections. - (1) The Executive Committee may appoint such number of Inspectors whether from among members of the Councilor otherwise as it deems necessary to inspect any institution recognised as a training institution, and to attend examinations held for the purpose of granting any recognised qualification or recognised higher qualification. (2) …… (3) . ….. 14. Withdrawal of recognition.-(1) When, upon report by the Executive Committee, it appears to the Council- (a) that the courses of study and training and the examinations to be gone through in order to obtain a recognised qualification from any authority in any State, or the conditions or admission to such courses or the standards of proficiency required from the candidates at such, examinations are not in conformity", with the regulations made under this Act or fall short of the standards required thereby, or (b) that an institution recognised by a State Council for the training or nurses, midwives, auxiliary nurse-midwives or health visitors docs not satisfy the requirements or the Council, the Council may send to the Government of the State in which the authority or institution, as the case may be, is situated a statement to such effect and the State Government shall forward it, along with such remarks as it may think fit to the authority or institution concerned and, in a case referred to in clause (b) to the State Council also, with an intimation or the period within which the authority or institution may submit its explanation to the State Government. (2) On the receipt or the explanation or, where no explanation is submitted within the period fixed, then on the expiry of the period, the State Government shall make its recommendations to the Council. (2) On the receipt or the explanation or, where no explanation is submitted within the period fixed, then on the expiry of the period, the State Government shall make its recommendations to the Council. (3) The Council, after such further enquiry, if any, as it may think fit to make, and in a case referred to in clause (b) or sub-section (1), after considering any remarks which the State Council may have addressed to it, may declare - (a) in a case referred to in clause or that sub-section, that the qualifications granted by the authority concerned shall be recognised qualifications only when granted before a specified date, or (b) in a case referred to in the said, clause (b) that with effect from a date specified in the declaration any person holding a recognised qualification whose period of training and study preparatory to the grant to him of the qualification was passed at the institution concerned shall be entitled to be registered only in the State in which the institution is situated. (4) The Council may declare that any recognised qualification granted outside the State shall be a recognised qualification only if granted before a specified date. 16. Power to make regulations. - (1) The Council may make regulations not inconsistent with this Act generally to carry out the provisions of this Act, and in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such regulations may provide for': x x x x x x (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; (i) prescribing the standards of examination and other requirements to be satisfied to secure qualifications for recognition under this Act; 13. In the Schedule to the Central Act (Part I) Certificates, Diplomas or Degrees in nursing, midwifery and auxiliary nursing-midwifery, awarded by, amongst others, Bihar Nurses Registration Council has been enumerated as a recognised qualification for the purposes of Sections 10 and 11 of the Central Act. 14. In the Schedule to the Central Act (Part I) Certificates, Diplomas or Degrees in nursing, midwifery and auxiliary nursing-midwifery, awarded by, amongst others, Bihar Nurses Registration Council has been enumerated as a recognised qualification for the purposes of Sections 10 and 11 of the Central Act. 14. Now keeping in view the prayer made in the present writ application, the question 'that falls for consideration is as to whether the petitioner can be deemed to be an institution recognised for the purposes of imparting training in relation to the courses in question and the students purported to have been so trained can be allowed to appear at the examination held by the State Council for grant of recognised qualification. In this. connection it has first to be ascertained as to whether there is any provision for grant of any such recognition to the institution and If there is any, subject to what terms and conditions and by whom such recognition can be granted. 15. So far as the Central Act is concerned section 13 thereof provides for inspection of institution recognised as training institution and section 14 empowers the Central Council to withdraw such recognition in the manner and to the extent indicated therein. Section 14 (b) takes note of "an institution recognised by a State Council for the training of nurses course in question." But beyond this the Central Act has, not made any provision with regard in grant of such recognition. 16. Then turning to the State Act, Section 10 (1) (b) inter' alia provides that any person, who is registered as nurse or midwife by any association which is recogniscd by the State Government may apply to the Registrar to have his name registered. This provision talks of recognition by the State Government of an association which has been authorised to itself register persons as nurses or midwife and not an institution which can be recognised for purpose of giving training of the prescribed courses in nursing. 16A. It has to be specifically noticed that the conditions laid down under both the clauses (a) and (b) of section 10(1) of the State Act, are mutually exclusive and deal with different situations. Under clause (a) persons who have undergone the courses of training or passed the examination relating to nursing as prescribed by the State Government become entitled for their registration under both' the Acts. Under clause (a) persons who have undergone the courses of training or passed the examination relating to nursing as prescribed by the State Government become entitled for their registration under both' the Acts. But under clause (b) the mere registration of such person as nurse or midwife with the recognised association authorise him/her it to get such registration. Persons qualifying under clause (b) does not seem to be required to undergo the course of training or pass any examination referred to in clause (a). 17. For grant of recognition to the institutions entitled to give training in the prescribed course in nursing, rules were required to be framed by the State Government under Section 17 (2) (aa) of the State Act, which have admittedly not been framed so far. But the learned Advocate General by placing reliance on certain regulations said to be framed under. Section 16 of the Central Act by the Central Council providing the minimum requirements for recognition of nursing schools and the syllabus in general nursing, submitted that these should be deemed to be binding legal provisions even for the purposes of the State Act for the recognition of the institution as well as conduct of examinations. In my, Opinion, acceptance of such submission may provide workable adjustment but can not be said to be statutorily permissible. No established rule of interpretation provides for such adjustment to cover up the inactions and laches on the part of legislative machineries. Apart from this the Central regulations have been framed for maintaining certain mininum standards which, if not maintained, may lead to penal consequences as contemplated under Section 16 of the Central Act and nothing beyond this. There is no provision under either of the two Acts expressly or by necessary implications providing therein that the aforesaid regulations can stand for rules to be prescribed under the State Act. These legalistic views apart, what has remained completely unanswered is the fact that under no provisions of the two Acts or the aforesaid' regulations, there is even a whisper as to who, in law, will be competent to grant recognition to the institutions in question and by following what procedures. There appears to be a complete chaos in this regard. These legalistic views apart, what has remained completely unanswered is the fact that under no provisions of the two Acts or the aforesaid' regulations, there is even a whisper as to who, in law, will be competent to grant recognition to the institutions in question and by following what procedures. There appears to be a complete chaos in this regard. The facts of the present case demonstrate that not only the two Councils but also the State Government and its Director in Chief Health Services, appear to be claiming the said authority. Such confusing state of affairs even in an important area of regulation like the present one is only deplorable and the responsibility has to be shared by the State Government alone. In my opinion, either the State should refrain from making regulatory provisions or if made, then, these should be clear, unambiguous and possible of compliance by persons of ordinary prudence without being learned in law. 18. For the reasons aforesaid, I am of the view that that neither the State Government nor the State Council or for that sake any other authority or even the Central Council, is competent to grant any recognition to any institution of the nature in question. As a corollary it follows that no person said to have undergone any training in any institution like the petitioner, can be allowed, to appear in any examination pertaining to the grant of any qualification recognised in terms of section to of the Central Act. 19. It need not be over-stressed that recognition of institutions is statutorily insisted upon to ensure that such institutions' art: possessed of suitable infrastructure and facilities for imparting the desired training and instructions to maintain the educational excellence. Therefore, keeping the social interest at the forefront and on realisation of menace of mushroom growth of fake and ill equipped institutions, claiming to impart professional or specialised education, of late the Courts in the country have been dealing severely with this social evil by keeping themselves unaffected by the considerations of sympathy or apparent equity, which, for sometime in the past, had its play in the arena of judicial Considerations. In the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. In the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Vikas Sahobrao Roundale and others reported in (1992) 4 Supreme Court Cases, 435 the Supreme Court of India while dealing with an institution said to be meant for training of teachers has held at para 12. "The qualitative training in the training Colleges or schools would inspire and motivate them into action to the benefit of the students. For equipping such trainee students in a school or a college, all facilities and equipments are absolutely necessary and institutions bereft thereof have no place to exist nor entitled to recognition. In that behalf compliance of the statutory requirements is insisted upon. Slackening the standard and judicial fiat to control the mode of education and examining system are detrimental to the efficient management of the education. The directions to the appellants to disobey the law is subversive of the rule of law, a breeding ground for corruption and feeding source for indiscipline. The High Court therefore, committed manifest error in law, in exercising its prerogative power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution, directing the appellants to permit the students to appear for the examination etc." 20. I feel pursuaded to hold that what has been fallen from the apex Court in relation to exercise or discretion by the High Court in the facts or the above referred case, applies more strongly in relation to the actions of the respondent - Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Bihar, and the State Council, who are supposed to be experts in relation to imparting of training in question. It is high time when they should forbear from permitting the students or the unrecognised institutions to appear at the examinations or granting recognition to ill-equipped" institutions, which do not possess the standards laid down for such recognition except under and in accordance with the rules prescribed in this regard. 21. Having enunciated the law regarding nurses training, recognition or institutions and holding or examination we can not lose sight or the fact that the State Act is operative in the State since 1935 and the institutions are imparting training and preparing its students to appear at the nurses examination under the authority of some or other Governmental or statutory authorities. The students from far and near places, who had intended to opt for nursing as their career, consumed their time, energy and money in undertaking the desired training and instructions. The students from far and near places, who had intended to opt for nursing as their career, consumed their time, energy and money in undertaking the desired training and instructions. The institutions imparting such instructions and training may be genuine or fake as has been noticed even by the apex Court (See case or Managing Committee of Bhagwan Budh Primary Teachers Training College vs. State or Bihar, 1990 (Supp.) S.C.C. 722). 22. In the background or the aforesaid facts, it is essential to invoke and apply principle or special equity based on the doctrine of factum valet quod fieri non debuit which literally means that what ought to be done is valid when done. It is akin to and is circumscribed by the same considerations and limitations as the doctrine or De facto, prospective over-ruling end prospective invalidation or statutes. The application or the last doctrine can be round in the recent judgment or the Supreme Court in the case or India Cement Ltd. and others Vs. State or Tamil Nadu, reported in (1990) 1 S.C.C. 12 at page 31 wherein their Lordships though satisfied that Section 115 of the Madras Panchayats Act. 1958, relating to cess was constitutionally ultra vires, still declared the "levy or the said cess to be ultra vires the powers or the State legislature prospectively only". Application or such special equity has already been firmly accepted in dispute relating to family arrangements provided those are round to have been entered into bona fide and the terms thereof are fair talking into consideration the circumstances of the case, (See case or K.V. Narayanan Vs. K.V. Ranganathan, (1976) 3 S.C.R. 637 . 23. Keeping in view or the said fact particularly that the genuine students or genuine institutions may not irreparably suffer for the laches on the part or the Government and at the same time the prime object or maintaining the prescribed standard or teaching and training may not get sacrificed and swayed away by the oft pleaded considerations based on so called humanitarian grounds, a balance has to be struck between competing legal, social and equitable requirements. 24. 24. Under these circumstances, according to me the best solution is that the consequences of the examinations already held should not, in any way, be adversely affected by our this judgment, since subsequent to the degree or diplomas granted to the respective candidates, they must have started their career as such, which should not now be destroyed. I hold the same view in respect of the examinees, who have already appeared at the examinations and the results are being awaited. 25. As regards the students, who claim to have completed their courses of studies and training in the different institutions and are awaiting their appearance at the ensuing A.N.M. Examination, to ensure justice and equity to them, the proper course would be that the Central Council having ample authority under Sections 13 and 14 of the Central Act to hold inspection of such institutions and take suitable actions, should satisfy itself that the said institutions were having suitable infrastructures for imparting teaching and training; to the students for the courses in quest inn during the session in which such courses are claimed to have been undertaken and if it feels satisfied that it was befitting to the standards prescribed by it, then, it may so certify and require the State Council In allow the students of such institutions to undertake the examination held by it. 26. Health Department of the State Government should immediately furnish the details of all such institutions to the Central Council and the Central Council within three months from the date of receipt of the said list of institutions, should after holding inspection, communicate to the State Council its findings and decisions with respect to the institutions and immediately thereafter the State Council should proceed to hold examination in accordance with law. 27. In the above view of the matter, in my opinion, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present case at this stage. As such, subject to the above observations and directions, the writ application is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs. S.B. Sinha, J. - I agree with the order proposed to be passed by my learned brother, but I would like to add a few words of mine. 28. My learned brother has held that the Council has no jurisdiction to grant recognition to any institution. S.B. Sinha, J. - I agree with the order proposed to be passed by my learned brother, but I would like to add a few words of mine. 28. My learned brother has held that the Council has no jurisdiction to grant recognition to any institution. In this connection, it is relevant to notice that so far as 'Midwives' are concerned the diploma of midwifery can be recognised by the Council but 'Nurse' must be a person who holds a certificate in nursing from any institution recognised by the State Government. 29. In view of the definition of 'Nurse' as contained in Section 2 (f) read with the definition of midwifery as contained in Section 2 (a) of the State Act, the distinction becomes clear. Although an interpretation clause is not a positive enactment but if the same is read conjointly with clause (aa) of Section 17 of the State Act, there cannot be any doubt that it is only the State who could prescribe the courses of training and examination for nurses, health visitors, midwives or trained dais and the qualification for their registration; and to provide for the recognition of the institution competent in give such training under Section 10. 30. Section 10 (1) (a) of the State Act "mandates that only such persons shall be registered as nurses, health visitors, midwives, trained dais and dais who inter alia have undergone the courses of training or passed the examination, if any, prescribed for nurses, health visitors, midwives or trained dais. 31. It is, therefore, evident, that nurses, midwives etc. can only be registered as such who have passed the prescribed examination in terms of the Rules framed under Section 17 (aa) of the said Act, from the institutions recognised by the State Government, wherefor also rules were necessary to be prescribed. 32. Section 2 (g) of the State Act defines 'prescribed' as meaning 'prescribed by rules, regulations or by-laws made under this Act." 33. If the statute provides that the matters relating the courses of training and recognition of the institution competent to give such training have to be made by rules, the same has to be done in the manner prescribed or not at all. 34. If the statute provides that the matters relating the courses of training and recognition of the institution competent to give such training have to be made by rules, the same has to be done in the manner prescribed or not at all. 34. Provisions in such matters have to be laid down by rules and not in any other manner whatsoever, as it is well known that the statutory authority must perform their duties in the manner laid down by the statute or not at all. It is further well known that a statutory Authority must act within the four corners of the statute. 35. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Council has inter alia submitted that after coming into force of the Central Act, the State Act would be deemed to have been impliedly repealed as there is conflict between the provisions of the two Acts. 36. The learned counsel in support of this contention has relied upon Attorney General vs. H.R.H. Prince Earnest Augustus reported in 1957 (1) All England Law Reports 49, M/s Philips India Limited v. Labour Court reported in AIR 1985 S.C. 1034 , Osmania University Teachers Association v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 1987 S.C. 2034 and M/s Good year India Ltd. vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1990 S.C. 781 . None of the aforementioned decisions are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 37. In Prince August's case (Supra) it has been held as follows : "My Lords, the contention of the Attorney General was, in the first place, met by the held general proposition that, where the enacting part of a statute is clear and unambiguous, it cannot be cut down by the hearing of this case occupied was spent in discussing authorities which were said to support that proposition. I wish, at the outset, to express my dissent from it, if it means that I cannot obtain assistance from the preamble in ascertaining the meaning of the relevant enacting part. For words, and particularly general words, cannot be read in isolation; their Colour and content are derived from their context. I wish, at the outset, to express my dissent from it, if it means that I cannot obtain assistance from the preamble in ascertaining the meaning of the relevant enacting part. For words, and particularly general words, cannot be read in isolation; their Colour and content are derived from their context. So it is that I conceive it to be my right and duty to examine every word of a statute in its context, and I use context in its widest sense which I have already indicated as including not only other enacting provisions of the same statute, but its preamble, the existing state of the law, other statutes in pari materia, and the mischief which I can, by those and other legitimate means, discern that the statute was intended to remedy. Since a large and ever increasing amount of the time of the courts has, during the last three hundred years, been spent in the interpretation and exposition of statutes, it is natural enough that, in a matter so complex, the guiding principles should be stated in different language and with such varying emphasis on different aspects of the problem that support of high authority may be found for general and apparently irreconcilable propositions. I shall endeavour not to add to their number, though I must admit to a consciousness of inadequacy if I am invited to interpret any part of any statute without a knowledge of its context in the fullest sense of that word." 38. In Maharastra Tubes Ltd, Vs. State Industrial & Investment Corporation of Maharastra Ltd. reported in 1993 (2) S.C.C. page 144 it has been held that marginal notes cannot be used for construing the section. 39. It is now well known that where the provisions of the statute are absolutely clear and unambiguous, question of taking recourse to the preamble or any other provision does not arise. The question of interpretation of statute by taking recourse to the preamble or the provision of other Acts which are in pari-materia will arise only in a case where the Act is required to be interpreted or not otherwise. Reference in this connection may be made to 1991 (4) S.C.C. page 467, Mohan Kumar Singhania Vs. Union or India reported in AIR 1992 S.C. 1 and Union of India vs. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal reported in AIR 1992 S.C. 96 at page 101. 40. Reference in this connection may be made to 1991 (4) S.C.C. page 467, Mohan Kumar Singhania Vs. Union or India reported in AIR 1992 S.C. 1 and Union of India vs. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal reported in AIR 1992 S.C. 96 at page 101. 40. In M/s Philips India Ltd. v. Labour Court, Madras reported in AIR 1985 S.C. 1034 , the Supreme Court was considering the meaning or expression 'overtime'. In Osmania University Teachers Association v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 1987 S.C. 2034 the Supreme Court was considering the vires of the Andhra Pradesh Commissionerate of Higher Education Act. The Supreme Court held that as U.G.C. falls under Entry 66 or List I of Seventh Schedule, the State could not pass a parallel enactment under Entry 25 of List III thereof. Such is not the position here. 41. The Central Act and the State Act in this case do not operate in exactly the same field. Many of the duties and functions of the Central Council and State Council are different. Even if some provisions overlap, they have to be considered harmoniously. 42. The provisions of the State Act are not repugnant to the provisions of the Central Act. In the Central Act no provision has been made for recognition of an institution and in fact in terms of the schedule appended to the Central Act (Part-I) diplomas and degree, nursing, midwifery, auxiliary nursing midwifery awarded by Bihar Nurses Registration Council amongst others has been enumerated as a recognised qualification for the purposes of Sections 10 and 11 of the Central Act. 43. Even assuming that the contention of Mr. Roy is correct, the same would itself be destructive of the case of the State Council as it is not its case or the case of the petitioner that the institutions in question have been recognised by the Central Council in terms of the provisions or the Central Act. Thus, evidently neither any legal recognition has been granted under the State Act nor any recognition has been granted by the Central Act. 44. It is now well known that no person has a right to appear at the examination if the institution is not recognised by the State or the University. Reference in this connection may be made In Bihar Pradesh Secondary Teachers Association Vs. State of Bihar reported in 1993 (1) PLJR 352 . 44A. 44. It is now well known that no person has a right to appear at the examination if the institution is not recognised by the State or the University. Reference in this connection may be made In Bihar Pradesh Secondary Teachers Association Vs. State of Bihar reported in 1993 (1) PLJR 352 . 44A. So far as the cases or those students who have already obtained diploma and already appeared at the examination are concerned, I feel that it would be wholly unjust in cancel the diplomas already granted and not to publish the result or such candidates who have already appeared in their examination. 45. In Gokaraju Rangarain Vs. the State of A.P. reported in AIR 1981 S.C. 1437, the Supreme Court applying 'de facto' doctrine held that when the appointment of the Sessions Judge subsequently declared as invalid on the ground that his appointment was in violation or Article 233 of the Constitution nr India, held that the judgments delivered by him are valid. The aforementioned decision or the Supreme Court has been followed by a Division Bench of this court in K.P. Verma Vs. State of Bihar reported in 1988 PLJR 1036 of 1065. 46. The words 'factum valet' means the fact which cannot be altered. 47. In view or the fact that hundreds nr nurses have already obtained diplomas, or have obtained services, their diplomas cannot be cancelled at this stage. So far as the matter relating to publication or the result is concerned, we direct that the same be done on purely equitable consideration. 48. It may be pointed out that the Supreme court or India in Union of India Vs. Mohd. Ramjan Mian reported in 1991 (1) S.C.C. ) 588 laid down the law relating to supply of copy or the enquiry report prospectively and not retrospectively. Reference in this connection may also be made to Union of India Vs. A.K. Chatterjee reported in 1993 (2) SCC 191 . 49. The Supreme Court recently in C.B. Gautam Vs. Union of India and others reported in (1993) 1 S.C.C. 78 has given limited retrospectively in the judgment in the ends of justice. 50. This writ application is, therefore, dismissed subject to the observations made hereinbefore but without any order as to costs.