JUDGMENT S.N. AGGARWAL, J. 1. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 17745 of 2004, (Dr. Shyam Lal Thapar Nursing Foundation Versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences), 235 of 2005 (Malwa Education Society (Regd.) Faridkot Versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences) and 236 of 2005 (Rattan Professional Education Society (Regd.) Versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences and others) will be disposed of by this common judgment as the questions of law and facts involved in these writ petition are common. However, for the sake of convenience, facts are being taken up from Civil Writ Petition No.17745 of 2004. 2. The petitioner Society is running Dr. Shyam Lal Thapar Nursing Home in Moga. The petitioner-Society also opened Dr. Shyam Lal Thapar Nursing College with a view to start Post Basic B.Sc. (Nursing) Course. The petitioner-Society applied to the State of Punjab and got the necessary No Objection Certificate for starting Post Basic B.Sc. (Nursing) Course on the fulfilment of certain conditions. It also applied to the Indian Nursing Council (in short the Council) which is the apex body established under the Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947 ( in short Act of 1947). The Council granted approval to the petitioner Society vide letter dated 24.7.2004 (Annexure P-2) with an intake of 25 seats of Post Basic B.Sc. (Nursing) Course for being started in Dr. Shyam Lal College of Nursing, Moga. The petitioner-Society applied to Baba Farid University of Health Sciences (respondent No.1) (in short the University) for affiliation but the said affiliation has been declined by the University. The said action of the University has been challenged by the petitioner-Society by filing the present writ petition. 3. The respondent-University has taken the plea that since the petitioner-Society did not have all the four classes of regular B.Sc.(Nursing) Course in Dr. Shyam Lal College of Nursing, therefore, the University is not in a position to affiliate the said college for Post Basic B.Sc. (Nursing) Course. It was also submitted that the University is of the firm opinion that only those institutions would be granted affiliation in Post Basic B.Sc. (Nursing) Course which are also running regular classes in B.Sc. (Nursing). 4. Shyam Lal College of Nursing, therefore, the University is not in a position to affiliate the said college for Post Basic B.Sc. (Nursing) Course. It was also submitted that the University is of the firm opinion that only those institutions would be granted affiliation in Post Basic B.Sc. (Nursing) Course which are also running regular classes in B.Sc. (Nursing). 4. It may also be noticed that during the pendency of this writ petition, inspection was conducted by the University on the petitioner-institute and it was found that the petitioner- institute is running short of faculty as also hospital facilities which are highly essential for these institutions before they are permitted to run the classes of Post Basic B.Sc. (Nursing) Course. 5. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner was that the State Government has granted No Objection Certificate to the petitioner vide letter dated 22.1.2004 (Annexure P-1) for starting Post Basic B.Sc. (Nursing) Course. Similarly, on the application of petitioner-Society, the Council which is the apex body under the Act of 1947 has conducted inspection of petitioner- institute and has granted approval for running Post Basic B.Sc. (Nursing) Course. Therefore, the University is merely to grant affiliation and has just to ensure compliance of conditions laid down by the Punjab Government while granting No Objection Certificate and the conditions laid down by the Council while granting approval for running the classes in Post Basic B.Sc. (Nursing) Course. 6. It was further submitted that the University had given its view point to the Council that before the private institutes are permitted to run the classes in Post Basic B.Sc. (Nursing) Course, they must have regular B.Sc.(Nursing) classes by writing detailed letter and in response to the said letter, the Council vide its letter dated 20.8.2004 (Annexure P-3) clarified to the University that the College is only required to have physical, clinical and teaching facilities and as per Council’s norms it can start Post Basic B.Sc. (Nursing) Programme even if they do not have any regular B.Sc.(Nursing) classes in their Institutes. It was further submitted that inspite of that, the University vide their letter dated 20.10.2004 (Annexure P-4) has declined to grant affiliation. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner made reference to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as Medical Council of India v. State of Karnataka and others etc., AIR 1998 Supreme Court 2423. It was further submitted that inspite of that, the University vide their letter dated 20.10.2004 (Annexure P-4) has declined to grant affiliation. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner made reference to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as Medical Council of India v. State of Karnataka and others etc., AIR 1998 Supreme Court 2423. In the reported judgment, the question was whether the mandate of the Medical Council of India was binding on the State including on the University regarding the intake in the colleges. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe as under:- “The Indian Medical Council Act is relatable to Entry 66 of List I (Union List). It prevails over any State enactment to the extent the State enactment is repugnant to the provision of the Act even though the State Acts may be relatable to Entries 25 or 26 of List III (Concurrent List). Regulations framed under Section 33 of the Medical Council Act with the previous sanctions of the Central Government are statutory. These regulations are framed to carry out the purposes of the Medical Council Act and for various purposes mentioned in Section 33. If a regulation falls within the purposes referred under Section 33 of the Medical Council Act, it will have mandatory force. Regulations have been framed with reference to clauses (fa), (fb) and (fc) (which have been introduced by the Amendment Act of 1993 w.e.f. August 27, 1992) and Clauses (j), (k) and (l) of Section 33.” 7. It was further held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this judgment as under: “Having thus held that it is the Medical Council which can prescribe the number of students to be admitted in medical courses in a medical college or institution it is the Central Government alone which can direct increase in the number of admissions but only on the recommendation of the Medical Council. In our opinion, the learned single Judge was right in his view that no medical college can admit any student in excess of its admission capacity fixed by the Medical Council subject to any increase there of as approved by the Central Government and that Sections 10A, 10B and10C will prevail over Section 53(10) of the State Universities Act and Section 41 (b) of the State Capitation Fee Act. To say that the number of students as permitted by the State Government and or University before June 1, 1992 could continue would be allowing an illegality to perpetuate for all time to come.” 8. With these observations, the Hon’ble Supreme Court did not leave any doubt about the law on the subject that the highest technical body established under the Central Act shall have the priority and preference over the matters under its control namely intake in the colleges etc. This judgment was followed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported as Homoeopathic Medical College, Abohar Versus Baba Farid University of Health Sciences and others, 2004(1) Recent Services Judgments 389. 9. On the same analogy, it becomes patently clear that once the Council has made it clear that Post Basic B.Sc. (Nursing) Course can be started by the institutes even if they do not have regular B.Sc, (Nursing)./}1st Year Degree Programme, then the University has no authority to raise objection to it nor it can question the authority of the Council nor the University can adopt its path nor it can enforce its own views in the garb of laying down higher standards of education. The University has taken a wrong view under the presumption that Post Basic B.Sc.(Nursing) Course is something higher than the B.Sc. (Nursing) Course. Therefore, it thought to start Post Basic B.Sc. (Nursing) Course, it is a necessity to have to have regular B.Sc. (Nursing) Course before affiliating the institution for running Post Basic B.Sc. (Nursing) Course. 10. In fact, Post Basic B.Sc. (Nursing) Course is something parallel to B.Sc. (Nursing) although the start of both these courses is different and eligibility conditions for the two courses are also different. Once the Council which is the central body has clarified to the University that classes of B.Sc. (Nursing) are not mandatory for running Post Basic B.Sc. (Nursing) Course then for the sake of discipline, the University should not have objected to the grant of affiliation on this ground. 11. The learned counsel for the University has drawn the attention of this Court to various documents and submitted that the University sincerely believed that full B.Sc.(Nursing) classes are a necessary before starting Post Basic B.Sc. (Nursing) Course and the decision was also taken by the highest body namely by the Academic Council of the University. However, this makes no difference. The learned counsel for the University has drawn the attention of this Court to various documents and submitted that the University sincerely believed that full B.Sc.(Nursing) classes are a necessary before starting Post Basic B.Sc. (Nursing) Course and the decision was also taken by the highest body namely by the Academic Council of the University. However, this makes no difference. The Academic Council of the University may be the highest body for various matters in the University but it has no authority to over-rule the decision of the Council. It would have been a different matter if the things were not made clear to the University by the Council but that is not so in the present case. The Council clarified the matter to the University vide its letter dated 20.8.2004 (Annexure P-3) that regular B.Sc. (Nursing) classes are not necessary for starting Post Basic B.Sc. (Nursing) Programme by the private institutes. 12. The learned counsel for the University has relied upon the judgment reported as Dr. Preeti Srivastava and another Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh and others, JT 1999(5) 498. This judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The question before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was quite different. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in para No. 11 of the judgment discussed as to what was the question before it. It reads as under: “We have, therefore, to consider whether for admission to the Post Graduate Medical Courses, it is permissible to prescribe a lower minimum percentage of qualifying marks ,for the reserved category candidates as compared to the general category candidates. We do not propose to examine whether reservations are permissible at the Post Graduate level in medicine. That issue was not debated before us, and we express no opinion on it. We need to examine only whether any special provision in the form of lower qualifying marks in the PGMEE can be prescribed for the reserved category.” 13. Reference was also made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as State of T.N. and another Versus S.V. Bratheep (minor) and others, (2004) 4 Supreme Court Cases 513. The facts of this reported judgment are also far away from the present controversy. Reference was also made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as State of T.N. and another Versus S.V. Bratheep (minor) and others, (2004) 4 Supreme Court Cases 513. The facts of this reported judgment are also far away from the present controversy. In the reported judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed “it is, therefore, permissible for the State Government to prescribe higher qualifications for the purposes of admission to the engineering colleges than what had been prescribed by the AICTE ( All India Council for Technical Education).” The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that “what had been prescribed by the State is not contrary but only complementary and supplementary to what had been prescribed by AICTE.”) 14. The question in the present petition which needs determination is not as to what should be the eligibility for starting Post Basic B.Sc. (Nursing) Course. The University cannot lay down a condition of its own that the private institution must be having regular B.Sc. (Nursing) classes before it can be granted affiliation of Post Basic B.Sc. (Nursing) Course. In the name of higher standard of education, the respondent-University is trying to pose its nose in the affairs which are in the domain of the Council. Therefore, this judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court does not help the respondent-University. 15. Reference was also made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as Bharathidasan University and another v. All Indian Council for Technical Education and others, AIR 2001Supreme Court 2861. In this case also, the question before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was quite different as is clear from para No.1 of the reported judgment which reads as under: “The only and important question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the appellant- University created under the Bharathidasan University Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the “University Act”) having its area of operation over the Districts of Tiruchiappalli, Thanjavur and Pudukkottai in the State of Tamil Nadu, should seek prior approval of the All India Council for Technical Education (hereinafter referred to as ‘AICTE’) to start a department for imparting a course or programme in technical education or a technical institution as an adjunct to the University itself to conduct technical courses of its choice and selection” 16. The question reproduced above which was before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the reported judgment does not help us to determine the controversy involved in the present case. It is not the University which wants to run the classes in the present case. It may be that the advice of, Council may not be necessary for this purpose but, in the present case, it is the private institution which intends to run the classes after getting due approval from the Council. The University is imposing its own conditions for which it has no jurisdiction. I am, therefore, of the clear opinion that once the Government has granted No Objection Certificate and once the Council has granted the approval, the University has no business to raise its objection of the kind it has raised for granting affiliation. 17. No doubt, the University may ensure that the conditions laid down in the No Objection Certificate granted by the Government and the conditions laid down in the letter of approval granted by the Council are complied with before affiliation is granted but it cannot impose its own thought process in laying down conditions for affiliation which the Council has ruled out. The University cannot act contrary to the views of the Council on which the said Council has supremacy. It is therefore, held that the denial of affiliation by the University to the petitioner- institute for Post Basic B.Sc. (Nursing) Programme is not warranted by law. 18. The submission of learned counsel for the University was that inspection was held and in the inspection, it was found that the petitioner-institute was lacking in teaching faculty as also in hospital facilities which are necessary for clinical experience. In this context, this Court is of the opinion that the University should not have deputed the Principal of a rival institute. The rival institute is always interested that no other institute should come up so that the said institute alone may remain in the field and enjoy dominance. The action of the University obviously cannot be sustained. 19. No doubt, the petitioner-institute must have teaching faculty as per the standard laid down and must have hospital facilities for clinical experience for the trainees before the said institute is permitted to grant admission and before it starts taking classes. The action of the University obviously cannot be sustained. 19. No doubt, the petitioner-institute must have teaching faculty as per the standard laid down and must have hospital facilities for clinical experience for the trainees before the said institute is permitted to grant admission and before it starts taking classes. To ensure the compliance of these pre- requisites, the University has the right to make inspections and ensure that the petitioner-institute has the proper infrastructure for running its classes. 20. Accordingly, the letter of the University in not granting affiliation to the petitioner-institute on the plea that it must have regular B.Sc. (Nursing) classes is held to be illegal and is quashed. The petitioner-institute shall fulfil the conditions regarding teaching faculty and the hospital facilities for clinical experience necessary for giving admission in Post Basic B.Sc. (Nursing) Programme as per prescribed standards. Thereafter it shall apply to the University for affiliation. The University shall make necessary inspection within a week thereafter and if these conditions are found to be fulfilled, grant necessary affiliation forthwith and shall take all consequential steps for admission of students in Post Basic B.Sc. (Nursing) Course in the. petitioner-Institution. 21. The writ petitions are allowed in the terms discussed above.