Judgment : 1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 14.2.2006 by which the petitioner is barred from continuing her course in Nursing course as she had completed 25 years. The petitioner was born on 4.7.1978. At the time of admission the writ petitioner was aged about 27 years. She was admitted in the sixth respondent college for the Nursing course during the academic year 2005-2006 and the admission was granted in June, 2005 and she joined the said course on 15.6.2005 by paying fees. She had undergone the course for eight months. 2. When things stand so, by the impugned order she was informed that she was aged more than 25 years at the time of admission and she would not be allowed to undergo the Nursing course. Challenging the same, the writ petition has been filed. 3. Mr. Mahadevan, learned counsel submitted that syllabus and regulations for Diploma in General Nursing and Midwifery had been issued by Indian Nursing Council which reads as follows: “Eligibility Criteria 1. Minimum and Maximum age for admission will be 17 and 35 years respectively. For ANM/LHV; there is no age bar.” The aforesaid criteria would show that the minimum age for getting admission is 17 years and maximum age is 35 years. Indian Nursing Council is a National Statuary body and its main function is to establish uniform standard of nursing education for nursing the country and, it alone got power and jurisdiction to prescribe the syllabus and regulations for various categories of nursing persons. 4. The syllabus and regulations for Diploma in Nursing are done by the council after having series of consultations with various experts, Nursing teachers, nursing service persons etc., and after the said consultations only, the program was devised and the tenure of the course was increased from three years to 3 1/2 years, so that the candidate can undergo internship and thereby the candidate could be able to achieve the desired competence. The aforesaid points are elaborately discussed in the syllabus and regulations issued by Indian Nursing Council. 5. As stated above, Nursing Council is a statutory body and it is the only council which is competent to prescribe the qualification to get admission into the course. When the eligibility speaks about the age limit, it is binding on all the authorities, including the second respondent. 6. 5. As stated above, Nursing Council is a statutory body and it is the only council which is competent to prescribe the qualification to get admission into the course. When the eligibility speaks about the age limit, it is binding on all the authorities, including the second respondent. 6. There is no dispute with regard to the petitioner’s date of birth as the impugned order itself says it as 4.7.1978. At the time of admission, she was aged about 27 years, well within the age limit, viz. between 17 and 35. A perusal of the impugned order would show that it is totally against the qualification prescribed by the competent council. The second respondent did not apply its mind while passing the impugned order. This Court is unable to understand as to how the maximum age of 25 was fixed by the second, respondent. The second respondent cannot contrary to the eligibility prescribed by the council give instruction, that too, in detrimental to the interest of the petitioner and pass the impugned order, stating that she was more than 25 years and she could not continue in the course. The illegal order passed by the second respondent only made the petitioner to approach this Court for relief. 7. The petitioner has been put to mental agony and the criteria for nursing students cannot be treated contrary to the councils’ regulation and the petitioner should not have been driven to this Court unnecessarily. It is rudimentary knowledge for the Board of Examinations for Nursing to know the details as to what are all the qualifications prescribed for getting admission in to Nursing Course. 8. It is very unfortunate that a student who got admission in the course and was and undergoing course was stopped in, the mid-way for no fault of her. This would totally demoralize the student. This Court could visualize disturbed mindset of the petitioner and mental agony she would have undergone when she was abruptly, stopped from attending the classes. She would have been put to shame and stigma would have been last. Every time, she had to approach this Court seeking permission to write the examination and the results are ordered to be withheld. This would have created a state of uncertainty about the study and that itself is a cause of worry for a student. She would have been put to shame and stigma would have been last. Every time, she had to approach this Court seeking permission to write the examination and the results are ordered to be withheld. This would have created a state of uncertainty about the study and that itself is a cause of worry for a student. For no fault of the petitioner, the petitioner was made to suffer. 9. This Court cannot mechanically decide the case which comes up before it and give decision and in the interest of society, this Court is duty bound to give a message to the concerned officials/authorities/people out of that case. Awarding of cost is a way of sending message. Awarding of cost is not only to compensate the affected person and also to give warning to the erring authorities about the consequences of passing order which are illegal, arbitrary, capricious and contrary to rules and regulations. This would enable the concerned authorities to perform their functions or duties as per law and deter them from acting/doing otherwise. Otherwise, an opportunity of correcting mistake by the authorities would be lost. Courts’ functions are not only to set aside illegal order and give relief to the affected and by the order, it can caution the authorities about the consequences and thereby deter/prevent them from repeating the mistakes. Cautioning the authorities and in a way deterring the authorities from passing orders which are illegal, arbitrary etc., In this Court’s view, is also a function of this Court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 10. Therefore, for the mental agony undergone and hardship caused to the petitioner, heavy cost of ` 1 lakh is to be slapped on the second respondent. However, this Court restricts the cost to ` 15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand only) which should be paid to the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed and the said amount should be paid within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.