Honble SHETHNA, J.–The petitioner has challenged in this petition the impugned decision dated 3.9.97 (Annex.11) and prayed that the respondents be directed to declare the result of the petitioner of General Nursing Midwifery and Staff Nurse Course Examination 1993-94. Reply affidavit is filed in this petition. Alongwith the reply Annex. R/1 is annexed, whereby, respondent no.2 informed the petitioner that Rajasthan Nursing Council has decided against the petitioner. Annex.11 seems to be based on the decision at Annex, R/1therefore, petitioner has also challenged the Annex. R/1. (2). Before filing this petition, the petitioner had approached this Court by way of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5995/91 and during the pendency of that petition, the petitioner was permitted to appear in the examination.However, the said writ petition came to be disposed of by the learned Single Judge (A.K. Mathur, J.) on 12.10 1993 (Annex.9). (3). The petitioner passed the Madhyama examination from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad in the year 1984. Advertisement was issued for admitting the candidates for General Nursing and Midwifery and Staff Nurse (G.N.M.) Course and in pursuance of that advertisement the petitioner applied for the session 1990-91. She was not only admitted but allowed to continue her study, however, all of a sudden a decision was taken that she should not have been admitted because she possess Madhyama Degree, which was not recognised by the State of Rajasthan. For giving admission to the petitioner,an explanation was called for from the Chief Medical and Health Officer for giving her admission. Meanwhile, petitioner filed the aforesaid writ petition no. 5995/91 before this Court and under the interim orders of the court she was permitted to appear in the examination. Nursing Council had not taken the final decision in the matter, therefore, instead of deciding the matter the learned Single Judge left it to the Nursing Council to decide as to whether the candidate who has obtained Madhyama Degree in 1984, equivalent to B.A. for Hindi purpose, may be admitted to the course or not and directed the Nursing Council to decide the case of the petitioner sympathetically and objectively by keeping in mind the fact that petitioner had rightly or wrongly studied for more than three years. I would like to re-produce some important and relevant portion of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid writ petition, which is as under:- ``Therefore, I leave it to the Nursing Council to decide the matter objectively and sympathetically and issue a categorical direction for all further time to come as the matter of Prathama and Madhyama has already evoked a controversy and such matters are agitated before this Court in number of writ petitions. As such, the Nursing Council may now decide this controversy and give a clear direction that whether such candidate is to be admitted to the course or not. With these observations, I leave it to the Nursing Council to consider the matter sympathetically and dispose of the matter. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. (4). When the Court directed the authority to consider the case objectively and sympathetically that means that Court was inclined to interfer with the order, but instead of disturbing that order on a judicial side it had left it to the authority, so that its grace and sentiments are not hurt. From the aforesaid portion of the order reproduced by me it is clear that the authority had to take a decision in the matter for all time to come but had never even remotely suggested that the council can take its decision in its own way regarding the case of the petitioner. (5). In case of Siddharth Mohanlal Sharma vs. South Gujarat University (1), the Honble Gujarat High Court observed that, ``the petitioner was debarred from prosecuting studies at any of the Colleges or Institutions affiliated to the University and from appearing at any examination conducted by the University for a period of five years. While dismissing the petition, the learned Single Judge has expressed the view that penalty of debarment for a period of one year would meet the ends of justice and had recommended to the University to review the penalty accordingly. Even the Division Bench at the stage of admission of the Letters Patent Appeal had made a similar recommendation. On both the occasions, the University refused to review the penalty substantially on the ground that the petitioner was visited with penalty similar to that imposed in identical case and that to treat him more leniently might give rise to the charge of discrimination against the University. (6). On both the occasions, the University refused to review the penalty substantially on the ground that the petitioner was visited with penalty similar to that imposed in identical case and that to treat him more leniently might give rise to the charge of discrimination against the University. (6). The part of the judgment of learned Single Judge dismissing the petition was challenged in Letter Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of the Hon"ble Gujarat High Court. The appeal was allowed fully, but while allowing the appeal the Division Bench observed as under:- ``The question of penalty has to be examined in each case on the basis of the peculiar facts and circumstances present therein. Mini- mum and maximum penalty may be prescribed within reasonable limits. Within those parameters, the quantum of penalty may, and more often than not, will differ from case to case depending upon its varying features. To believe, therefore, that to treat one errent student different from another in the matter of imposition of penalty, where both are found to have committed a similar malpractice, would necessarily expose the University to the charge of discrimination. betrays ignorance of the true principle governing the exercise of discretionary powers in the penological field. In fact, imposition of uniform penalty in all cases involving a similar malpractice, without regard to the presence or absence of relevant circumstances bearing on the quantum, may sometimes invite the charge of non-application of mind or arbitrary exercise of power. Under the circumstances, if the case had not been decided on merits in favour of the petitioner, the grossly disproportionate penalty imposed upon the petitioner wo- uld have been certainly interfered with and the impugned decision in so far as it related to penalty would have been quashed and the University would have been precluded from reconsidering the question of penalty and directed to treat the chapter as closed having regard to the penalty already undergone. (7). Coming to the facts of this case, it is clear from the orders at Annex. 11 and R/1 annexed to reply affidavit that respondents have not at all applied their mind to the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 12.10.1993 in writ petition No. 5995/91. It was not appreciated in its true spirit. (7). Coming to the facts of this case, it is clear from the orders at Annex. 11 and R/1 annexed to reply affidavit that respondents have not at all applied their mind to the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 12.10.1993 in writ petition No. 5995/91. It was not appreciated in its true spirit. When the learned Single Judge had observed that the petitioner has rightly or wrongly studied for more than three years, therefore, her case was required to be considered objectively and sympathetically, that means that respondent no.2 had to accept her case. Therefore, this petition was required to be allowed straightway only on this ground. (8). On merits also the respondent No.2 has completely failed to consider the aspect that the petitioner completed her Madhyama examination from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad in they year 1984 and the same was recognised till 1.4.1984, therefore, the policy implemented lateron and the decision taken by the State not to consider the said examination equivalent to B.A. Hindi was wrong as no retrospective effect can be given to it. (9). In any case, after giving admission to the petitioner her admission cannot be lateron cancelled without giving her an opportunity of hearing. Thus, it was against the principle of natural justice. (10). In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed. The impugned order at Annex.R/1 annexed to the reply affidavit and the order dated 3.9.97 Annex.11 are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent are directed to declare the result of the petitioner for General Nursing and Midwifery and Staff Nurse Course Examination, forthwith.