C. M. Nayar ( 1 ) THE petitioners have filed this revision petition against the orders dated September 17,1993 and September 21,1993, respectively passed by Shri J. K. Pali, Senior Sub Judge, Delhi. The learned Judge allowed the appeal filed by the respondent against the order dated August 25, 1993, of Shri D. S. Punia, Sub Judge,delhi, by which the application of the respondent under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been dismissed and the respondent was refused the relief to continue her Nursing Studies/training in the Institute of the petitioners. The respondent was allowed to appear in the examination provisionally by the Lower Appellate Court and necessary directions were issued to the petitioners by order dated September 20, 1993. The Review Petition filed by the petitioners was disposed of on September 21,1993 with further directions. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-School of Nursing is being run by New Delhi Holy Family Hospital Society, which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, and is a Charitable Society. It is stated that the said Society is running the Hospital on "no profit No loss" basis and is providing medical facilities to the patients at large. The School of Nursing is a part of the functions of the New Delhi Holy Family Hospital Society and In the said School the students are invited and they are trained as Nurses. The course of Nursing is a Diploma Course and the School of Nursing is affiliated with the Punjab Nursing Registration Council, Chandigarh. The examinations are yearly conducted by the said Council and the Diplomas are granted after successful completion of three Years Course. The petitioners further contend that Nurses play a major role in the activities of the Hospital and any negligent act on their part can prove fatal, either for the patient or for the Hospital or for the Nurse herself. Nurse has to be very disciplined and full of patience. The respondent, Miss Jacquline Nisha joined the School of Nursing and was a regular second year student of Nursing and Midwifery Programme. It is not denied that she had completed the First Year Course successfully and was pursuing her study for the Second Year when the unfortunate incident took place. Nurse has to be very disciplined and full of patience. The respondent, Miss Jacquline Nisha joined the School of Nursing and was a regular second year student of Nursing and Midwifery Programme. It is not denied that she had completed the First Year Course successfully and was pursuing her study for the Second Year when the unfortunate incident took place. ( 3 ) THE petitioners all the same reiterate that the respondent faired poorly in the internal examination which was conducted by petitioner no. 1 and the attitude and conduct of the respondent was totally in violation of the Rules and Regulations of the School. During her stay in the Hospital, complaints were received against her from time to time by the petitioners as well as the classmates of the respondent. She was duly warned by the Director, petitioner no. 1 herein, and was asked to bring her parents so as to solve the problem and guide her and advise her to leave the Hospital as she was not fit to be a Nurse. The respondent, it is averred, failed to bring her parents and the parents also did not bother to take care of the respondent. A complaint was received from Home Sister against the respondent that she had quarrelled with her room-mate, namely. Miss Anita Yash over the space in the same room on April 29, 1993, and the fight between the two resulted into man-handling physically. The matter was reported to the Home Sister and the Principal Tutor. Even during the Inquiry being conducted by the Home Sister, the respondent kept on fighting with Miss Anita Yash and signs of physical assault were also found and noticed by the Home Sister. During the Inquiry, it was found by the Home Sister that she was a source of nuisance and used to trouble not only her room- mates but also the other students. The petitioners contend that as a consequence of this background, respondent herein was suspended along with Miss. Anit Yash for one month from 1. 6. 1993 to 30. 6. 1993. ( 4 ) THE respondent on May 14, 1993, as alleged, was brought to the Hospital in an unconscious state and she was treated by Dr. The petitioners contend that as a consequence of this background, respondent herein was suspended along with Miss. Anit Yash for one month from 1. 6. 1993 to 30. 6. 1993. ( 4 ) THE respondent on May 14, 1993, as alleged, was brought to the Hospital in an unconscious state and she was treated by Dr. E. S. Krishnan, who was Doctor-in-charge and it was revealed after investigation that the respondent had taken as many as 20 tablets of Barbiturates- a drug as a result of which she had become unconscious. She regained the consciousness after treatment and it is mentioned that the respondent confessed before the said Doctor E. S. Krishnan that she had taken the drugs in heavy quantity so as to commit suicide; as she was totally frustrated in life. She remained in hospital for 11 days and thereafter she was discharged, The learned counsel for both the parties have, however, admitted that no police case was lodged against the respondent and no investigation in this regard took place to proceed against the respondent in accordance with law. The petitioners have taken the plea that the matter was not reported to the police on the advise of Dr. E. S. Krishnan and M. L. C. was not prepared as it could prove fatal to the future career of the respondent. ( 5 ) THE petitioners held an inquiry and came to the conclusion that the tendency of taking drugs, when an individual is upset, shows that such a person is not fit to become a Nurse and it was in this background the Management of petitioner no. 1 decided that the training of the respondent should be discontinued, as she was unfit to become a Nurse. The order dated June 23,1993, was passed and the respondent was informed that her training was discontinued and she was directed to have the clearance on July 1, 1993. Thereafter, the respondent filed a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction against the petitioners for revocation of the order of suspension and for restraining the petitioners from suspending the respondent on the alleged petty issues. The respondent also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C. P. C. for ad-interim relief for allowing her to continue her remaining study for the Diploma Course and for permission to appear in the Second Year Examination. The respondent also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C. P. C. for ad-interim relief for allowing her to continue her remaining study for the Diploma Course and for permission to appear in the Second Year Examination. ( 6 ) THE present revision petition only relates to this part of the relief, which has been claimed by the respondent. ( 7 ) THE application for Interim relief was heard by the learned Sub Judge and it was rejected on August 25,1993 primarily on the ground that the acceptance of the request of the respondent will amount to an interference in the administrative matters of the Educational Institutions, which is not called for. The interest of the respondent is less important than the larger interest of the Hospital. Moreover, the respondent was given an opportunity to explain her case and her parents had gone to the authorities and their request had already been turned down by Communication dated June 23, 1993. The learned Judge further concluded that in case the respondent was allowed to sit in the examination and remain in the hostel, it will set a bad precedent and other Nurses in the Hospital shall start behaving in the manner of the respondent, which will not be in the interest of the Institution. The respondent felt aggrieved by this order and filed an appeal which was heard by the court of the Senior Sub Judge, Delhi. This Court came to the conclusion that the learned Trial Court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction properly. The relevant paragraph 10 of the Impugned order reads as follows: TAKING into consideration the respective contentions for learned counsel for the parties and the perusal of the impugned order of learned trial court, I am of the opinion that the learned trial court has failed to exercise its jurisdiction properly while considering three well settled principles for deciding the application for ad-interim injunction. The trial court has to see only the prima facie case at this stage, but the deep controversies cannot be decided by discussing the material evidence placed on record which is still unproved. The trial court has to see only the prima facie case at this stage, but the deep controversies cannot be decided by discussing the material evidence placed on record which is still unproved. The trial court has committed an irregularity on the basis of the record while holding that he is not inclined to accept the request of the plaintiff as it will amount to an interference in the administrative matters of an educational institution which is not called for and that the interest of the plaintiff is less important than the larger interest of the hospital, which is of much importance. Learned trial court has failed to apprehend that the relationship between the appellant and the respondent is not that of master and servant, but it is a relationship between teacher and taught because the appellant is a second year student who has paid the entire fee for the entire academic year and she has to appear only in the examination. Therefore, it cannot be held that the appellant if allowed to appear in the examination will in any way cause to an interference in the administrative matters of an educational institution. "the learned Judge further held that the Trial Court misdirected itself by observing that if the respondent is allowed to sit in the examination and remain in the hostel then it will set a bad precedent and other Nurses in the hospital shall start behaving in the manner of the respondent, which will not be in the interest of the Institution. The petitioners have already allowed one student in the similar circumstances to continue her studies. The expulsion of the respondent at this stage, without taking proper proceedings and without giving an opportunity will be arbitrary and discriminatory and such an action cannot be sustained. The appeal of the respondent, accordingly, wasallowed and a direction was issued to the petitioner to permit her to appear in the ensuing examination and to continue her studies provisionally till the decision of the suit on merits. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel have stated that the petitioner has already cleared the First Year Examination and she has taken the theoretical papers of the Second Year Examination and she has only to take the practical examination to complete her Second Year Course of studies. ( 9 ) THE counsel for the petitioner, Mr. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel have stated that the petitioner has already cleared the First Year Examination and she has taken the theoretical papers of the Second Year Examination and she has only to take the practical examination to complete her Second Year Course of studies. ( 9 ) THE counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sethi has contended that the First Appellate Court fell in error to say that the two cases of the petitioner and one Anita Yash are similar and the expulsion of the respondent alone amounted to arbitrary and discriminatory action on the part of the petitioners. He has reiterated that there is no discrimination as two cases were based on different facts. The other student did not attempt suicide whereas the respondent took this drastic step and the matter has been duly considered at the highest level and it has been categorically held that the respondent is not a fit person to continue her course of Nursing. ( 10 ) MR. Sethi has next argued that this Court is not empowered to interfere in the matters of Academic discipline concerning the educational Institutions and such matters are best left to the professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day to day working of educational Institutions and the Departments controlling them. He has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another v. Paritoseh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and others (1984) 4 Supreme Court Cases 27 and referred me to paragraph 29 which reads as follows: Far from advancing public Interest and fair play to the other candidates in general, any such interpretation of the legal position would be wholly defensive of the same. As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the Court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be propounded. It is equally important that the Court should also, as far as possible, avoid any decision or interpretation of a statutory provision, rule or bye-law which would bring about the result of rendering the system unworkable in practice. It is unfortunate that this principle has not been adequately kept in mind by the High Court while deciding the instant case. " Similar reference is made to the judgment of the Supreme Court In Mr. Bhushan Uttam Khare v The Dean, B. J. Medical College and. others JT 1992 (1) S. C. 583 wherein it has been held that keeping in mind the well accepted principle that in deciding the matters relating to orders passed by the Authorities of the Educational Institutions, the Court should normally be very slow to pass orders in its jurisdiction because matters falling within the jurisdiction of educational authorities should normally be left to their decision and the Court should interfere with them only when it thinks it must do so in the interest of justice. ( 11 ) RELIANCE is next placed on the proposition that the relief at the interlocutory stage should not be granted if it will amount to deciding the main suit and such relief is only available at disposal of the proceedings. Reference is made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in U. P. Junior Doctors action Committee and others v. Dr. B. Sheetal Nandwani and others 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 680. Reference is made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in U. P. Junior Doctors action Committee and others v. Dr. B. Sheetal Nandwani and others 1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 680. Paragraph 8 reads as follows: IT is a well known rule of practice and procedure that at interlocutory stage a relief which is asked for and is available at the disposal of the matter is not granted. The writ petitioners wanted admission into post-graduate course as the main relief in the writ petition. To have it granted at the threshold creates a lot of difficulties. In a case where the petitioner ultimately loses in a case of this type a very embarrassing situation crops up. If he has by then read for two to three years, there is a claim of equity raised on the plea that one cannot reverse the course of time. In a case of this type equities should not be claimed or granted. Taking an overall picture of the matter we are of the view that unless there is any special reason to be indicated in clear terms in an interlocutory order as a rule no provisional admission should be granted and more so into technical courses. " ( 12 ) THE present order passed by the Lower Appellate Court, which has been impugned, has accordingly the effect of disposing of the suit and, therefore, it should not have been passed. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Gujarat Water Resources Development Corporation Ltd. , v. Pravin Kumar and N. Makwana and another AIR 1993 Supreme Court 1611 is also cited in this regard. ( 13 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, has then contended that the Supreme Court has clearly held that it will not be appropriate for the High Court for directing admission to the Institution when such interim orders foreclose the entire case. He has cited the judgment as reported in Home Secretary, U. T. of Chandigarh and another v. Darshjit Singh Grewal and. others JT 1993 (4) S. C. 387 and referred me to paragraph 28, which reads as follows: FOR the above reasons the judgment of the High Court is set aside. He has cited the judgment as reported in Home Secretary, U. T. of Chandigarh and another v. Darshjit Singh Grewal and. others JT 1993 (4) S. C. 387 and referred me to paragraph 28, which reads as follows: FOR the above reasons the judgment of the High Court is set aside. But in view of the fact that respondents 1 to 4 have been admitted to Chandigarh Engineering College as far back as September 1992 and have been studying since then, that they have given up their admission in Guru Nanak Dev Engineering College and further in view of the fact that the appellants had not chosen to question the interim orders made by the High Court in the writ petitions filed by the respondents 1 to 4 at the proper juncture, we are not inclined to send the respondents 1 to 4 back to Guru Nanak College. At the same time we are constrained to add that it would have been more appropriate if the High Court had not directed the Respondents to be admitted in Chandigarh College byway of interim orders; it could have made these orders more appropriately at the final stage. Such interim orders, it is obvious, foreclose the options at the final hearing. Even if the W. P. fails, the mischief of the interim orders can not be rectified in view of the change in situation, coupled with lapse of time. This is precisely the situation confronting us. We are, therefore, compelled to say that the High Court should not pass such orders except in those rare cases where the non-passing of such order would cause such injury as could not be repaired later. These were not such cases. The respondents have been studying in the Guru Nanak Dev College, or such other college as the case may be, for a period of one year or more. They had obtained admission therein, in the management quota, with their eyes open. They could have been and ought to have been asked to wait till the final disposal of the writ petitions, which could be and, indeed, were expeditiouslyheard. We are obliged to make these observations in view of the fact that we have come across several such orders passed by High Courts. Such mandatory orders ought not to be made at an interlocutory stage, except in rare cases, as emphasised hereinabove. We are obliged to make these observations in view of the fact that we have come across several such orders passed by High Courts. Such mandatory orders ought not to be made at an interlocutory stage, except in rare cases, as emphasised hereinabove. " ( 14 ) THE learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has vehemently contended that this Court has limited powers in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Such jurisdiction should only be exercised within the provisions of the Section. It has not been shown in the present case that the Lower Appellate Court has exercised jurisdiction which is not vested in it by law or such jurisdiction is exercised illegally or with material Irregularity. The grant of relief at the interlocutory stage is no bar when the final relief in the main suit is similar. The respondent has already completed her First Year and is on the verge of completing the Second Year for the Three Years Course. The Lower Appellate Court has exercised its discretion in fair and just manner and this need not be disturbed. The respondent has not been granted any opportunity to explain and there has been gross violation of the principles of natural justice. ( 15 ) I have carefully considered the arguments made by both the counsel. It has been highlighted by the petitioners that the conduct and behaviour of the respondent is of a very serious nature and has rendered her unfit to continue her Nursing profession. The only point, which has been set against the respondent is the alleged attempt on her life In a moment of depression or frustration, which has yet to be finally discussed and determined by the Trial Court in the main suit. The legal contentions raised by the petitioners are well settled, particularly, that the Courts should be slow in interfering in the matters of academic discipline of the educational institutions, as such matters are better left to the expertise of the persons in the field. The legal contentions raised by the petitioners are well settled, particularly, that the Courts should be slow in interfering in the matters of academic discipline of the educational institutions, as such matters are better left to the expertise of the persons in the field. ( 16 ) THERE is also no dispute with the proposition that the Courts should not foreclose the entire case by giving an interim relief at the interlocutory stage and the High Court should not pass such orders except in those rare cases where the non-passing of such orders would cause such injury as could not be repaired later. The facts of the present case would indicate that the Lower Appellate Court has not erred in passing the impugned order for the similar reason that the discretion, which has been exercised in favour of the respondent, is not vitiated as the Court has neither acted illegally or with material irregularity. The respondent was caught in an unfortunate incident and may have committed a lapse in this regard, but this incident alone should not be the end of the road for her, particularly when the matter is yet to be finally adjudicated by the parties at the regular trial. The presumption drawn against the respondent is totally misconceived, as humans do err and this sort of conduct is not confined to the people in the Nursing profession but can also arise to that extent in case of negligence of the Doctors or any other professionals who are entrusted with such responsibility. The Lower Appellate Court has considered the relevant factors and has arrived at the conclusion that the respondent shall be permitted to continue her studies provisionally till the decision of the suit on merits and there is no infirmity in this finding. ( 17 ) THE judgments of the Supreme Court which have been relied upon by counsel for the petitioners ciearly conclude that this Court is not debarred from granting the relief at the interlocutory stage as well as in matters relating to orders passed by the Authorities of Educational Institutions, when the interest of justice so demands. The respondent in the present case has completed her First Year Course of study, she has appeared in the Theoretical Examination of Second Year Course and she is only to take the practical examination. Thereafter, only one year Course of studies remains. The respondent in the present case has completed her First Year Course of study, she has appeared in the Theoretical Examination of Second Year Course and she is only to take the practical examination. Thereafter, only one year Course of studies remains. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the respondent is only at the threshold of her career and the same must be held in abeyance till the Trial Court concludes the proceedings in the suit. What happens in case the respondent succeeds In the ultimate analysis? The petitioners will not be able to compensate for the loss which may be caused to the respondent by depriving her to continue the profession merely on the ground of single lapse which is yet to be finally determined in civil proceedings. It will be in the interest of justice not to interfere with the order of the Lower Appellate Court, particularly when the petitioner has already completed part other course. In any case, the provisional admission shall depend on the final outcome of the suit. This is a prima facie view of the matter and nothing expressed herein will effect the issues that will arise in the ultimate disposal of the suit. ( 18 ) IN view of the above, I find no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Lower Appellate Court, which calls for Interference of this Court. The petition is, accordingly dismissed. The matter is of some urgency and I will request the Trial Court to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. There will be no order as to costs.