Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1996 DIGILAW 1076 (RAJ)

Dayanand v. The Rajasthan Nursing Council

1996-09-23

N.K.JAIN

body1996
JUDGMENT 1. - The controversy arising in both the writ petitions is identical and as agreed by the learned counsel for the parties, the same is disposed of by a common order. For the convenience, the facts of Writ Petition No. 5374/1995 are mentioned. 2. The petitioners in this writ petition have inter-alia prayed for a direction to the respondents to allow them to appear in the Second Year Examinations of General Nursing and Midwifery Course going to be held. in December, 1995. 3. It is alleged that the petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 were admitted on 20.11.1992 and the petitioner No. 6 was admitted on 20.9.1990 in the General Nursing and Midwifery Course (in shdrt The Course'). term of which is of three years. There are two examinations in the Course i.e. First Examination and Second Examination. The first examination is to be held after a period of not less than eleven months from the beginning of the course whereas the second examination is to be held after two years and nine months from the beginning of the course and at least one year after passing the first examination. If a candidate fails in the First Examination, opportunity is given to him to appear in supplementary examination to be held within six months from the First Examination. Four attempts are permissible as per Rules.3-A. The main grievance of the petitioners is that as the examinations and the supplementary examinations could not be held in time as per the schedule in accordance with the Rules, the petitioners cannot be deprived of, for the delay in conducting the examinations. It is also stated that the respondent No. 1, vide its order dated 17.4.95 (Annexure- 4) has observed that while considering second examination the period will be counted after having first examination, as the first examination could not be held in time and has already been delayed. He further submits that the other persons of petitioner's batch have -already completed their course and they also got job as their results were declared in time. Therefore, under these circumstances of the case, the result of the petitioners may be declared so that on passing of the examinations, they may get their job. He has also relied on the case of Girdharilal Yadav. 4. Therefore, under these circumstances of the case, the result of the petitioners may be declared so that on passing of the examinations, they may get their job. He has also relied on the case of Girdharilal Yadav. 4. Reply has been filed by the respondents alleging that mere completing the period of two years and nine months, do not make the petitioners entitled to appear in the second examinations, without completing one year after declaration of the result of the first year examinations which was declared in the month of July, 1995 and if the period has to be reckoned with from March, 1995, even then, the petitioners will be eligible to take second examinations in March, 1996 and not in January, 1996. 5. It is also stated that the case of Girdharilal Yadav, is not helpful as that case was not of taking examinations without completing one year from first examinations.The Indian Nursing Council has already turned down the letter/recommendations of the Nursing Council. He has placed reliance on the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Kirloskar Penumatic Co. Ltd., 1996(4) SCC 453 ; Guru Sharan Singh v. Municipal Council, 1996(2) SCC 459 and Ashok Kumar v. University of Jodhpur, 1993(3) WLR 801 . 6. In rejoinder, a table showing the time gap of ten years previous examinations and a chart showing academic record of the petitioners have been placed on record and on that basis the petitioners submit that on the earlier occasions the examinations were never held with such delay but in the instant case, only due to the fact that the writ petitions have been filed, the examinations were delayed, which however, has been denied stating that the petitioners cannot blame the authorities but due to fact that some students had failed. 7. As per the order of this Court dated 25.1.1996, the petitioners were allowed to appear provisionally, in the examinations with a direction that the result of the petitioners shall not be published till further orders. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 9. Undoubtedly, the respondents are bound to adjudge the eligibility of candidates as per the syllabus and the regulations framed by the Indian Nursing Council and the conditions imposed by the Rajasthan Nursing Council. 10. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 9. Undoubtedly, the respondents are bound to adjudge the eligibility of candidates as per the syllabus and the regulations framed by the Indian Nursing Council and the conditions imposed by the Rajasthan Nursing Council. 10. It is no doubt true, that the jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked by the petitioners so as to direct the statutory authority to act contrary to law. It is also true that if an illegality is committed, it cannot be allowed to be repeated and this Court will not indulge in allowing an illegality to be perpetuated only on the ground of discrimination as it is a positive concept and cannot be imposed in a negative manner. It is also true that appearing and passing of the examinations by the order of the Court will not create any right unless the petitioner ultimately succeed in establishing his right and eligibility. This legal position has not been disputed. Therefore, the condition of completing one year after declaration of the result of First Examination cannot be said to be arbitrary. 11. Now the question as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are entitled to take advantage, in case they pass the examinations in which they appeared by the order of this Court which admittedly could not be held in time.11-A. In the instant case, the petitioners were admitted on 20.11.1992 and the examination was to be held after 11 months but the same was held on 28.2.1994 i.e. after 16 months. The result was declared in June, 1994. The petitioners could not get through in the first attempt in the First Year, they were eligible to appear in the supplementary examination as per the Scheme, which was to be held within six months from 28.2.1994 but was held in March, 1995 i.e. after more than 12 months. 12. The petitioners passed the said examinations and started the studies for second year but were not allowed as per the letter dated 13.12.94 and as per the order of this Court dated 25.1.96, they were allowed to appear in the examinations under the peculiar circumstances of the case. If a sympathetic view is taken. 12. The petitioners passed the said examinations and started the studies for second year but were not allowed as per the letter dated 13.12.94 and as per the order of this Court dated 25.1.96, they were allowed to appear in the examinations under the peculiar circumstances of the case. If a sympathetic view is taken. without treating it to be a precedent, in my opinion, the impugned letter dated 08.11.1995 filed in SBCWP No. 5374/1995 will not debar the petitioners in getting the result declared. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the respondents shall declare the result of the petitioners. 13. Before parting with this case, this Court can only expect from all concerned to hold the examinations in time, so that the unnecessary complications may not arise in future and the students may also not be deprived of their future career. 14. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of with the above observations.Writ Petition Disposed of as per Directions. *******