JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. The petitioners in present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are the students pursuing their study and training in the course of Auxiliary Nurses/Midwives and female health workers. 1.1 The 39 petitioners have preferred present petition feeling aggrieved by the decision of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 8 of not approving the admissions granted by the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 to the petitioners. The list of the names of the affected students (i.e. the petitioners) was placed on the notice board on 16th April, 2010. Aggrieved by the said decision and the notice, the petitioners filed present petition and prayed for below mentioned relief(s):- "7.(A) That Your Lordships be pleased to issue an order, direction and/or writ in the nature of mandamus and/or certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent no. 1, 2 & 3 to immediately issue formal approval order for admission of the petitioners in the respondents no. 4, 5 & 6 Institute to enable the petitioners to appear in the annual examination to be commenced from 10th May, 2010. (B) That Your Lordships be pleased to declare and hold the impugned action of the respondents in denying the approval, as arbitrary, against the documentary evidence and illegal;" 1.2 In view of the petitioners' request and upon considering the urgency and having regard to the subject matter of the petition, it is heard and decided finally, with the consent of the respondents, by this judgment. The counsel for the respondents have waived the notice of admission. 2. The 39 petitioners are the students who are pursuing study in the course and training for Auxiliary Nurses/Midwives & Female Health Workers {hereinafter referred to as the "said course"} and were admitted in the said course by the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 institutions. The respondent Nos. 4 to 6 are the self-finance institutions offering the said course-training. The respondent Nos. 7 and 8 are Indian Nursing Council {"INC" for short} and Gujarat Nursing Council {"GNC" for short}, respectively. The petitioners have been admitted for the academic year 2010-2011. 4 to 6 institutions. The respondent Nos. 4 to 6 are the self-finance institutions offering the said course-training. The respondent Nos. 7 and 8 are Indian Nursing Council {"INC" for short} and Gujarat Nursing Council {"GNC" for short}, respectively. The petitioners have been admitted for the academic year 2010-2011. 2.1 The petitioners have claimed that the annual examination was likely to commence on or around 10th May, 2010 and on 16.04.2010 i.e. just one month before the scheduled dates for annual examination, the intimation conveying that their admissions had not been approved was placed on the notice board. 2.2 By order dated 21st April, 2010, Notice to the respondents was issued. Thereafter, on 6th May, 2010, the Court, after considering the reply affidavit filed by the respondent No. 1-State, passed the following order:- "Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, respondents are directed to permit the petitioners to appear in the forthcoming examination of ANM which is likely to commence from 10th May 2010 onwards. Result of the students, however, shall not be published without the prior permission of the Court." In view of the said order, the petitioners were allowed to take the examination. 2.3 Subsequently, the reply affidavits by the respondent institutions and the GNC and the rejoinder affidavit by the petitioners have been filed. 2.4 The respondents No. 1 to 3 and 8 have contested the petition and resisted the relief prayed for by the petitioners. It has been, inter alia, contended by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 8 that the petitioner students have been admitted irregularly and most of them are of age below the minimum age prescribed for the admission purpose. The respondent No. 7 has not taken any stand (has not filed affidavit) despite having entered appearance. 3. Mr. T.R. Mishra, learned advocate has appeared for the petitioner students. Mr. J.K. Shah, learned AGP has appeared for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Prabhakar Upadhayay, learned advocate has appeared for the respondent Nos. 4 to 6. Mr. J.J.Yajnik, learned advocate has appeared for the respondent No. 7-Indian Nursing Council and for the respondent No. 8-Gujarat Nursing Council. We have heard the learned counsel and have perused the record. 4. Mr. 1 to 3. Mr. Prabhakar Upadhayay, learned advocate has appeared for the respondent Nos. 4 to 6. Mr. J.J.Yajnik, learned advocate has appeared for the respondent No. 7-Indian Nursing Council and for the respondent No. 8-Gujarat Nursing Council. We have heard the learned counsel and have perused the record. 4. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate for the petitioner students, has submitted that the admissions of the petitioner students have been disapproved on the solitary ground that the petitioners are of age below the minimum age prescribed for the purpose of admission. He has submitted that the impugned stand and decision of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are contrary to the criteria prescribed by the INC. He has referred to the syllabus and regulations for "Auxiliary Nurses and Midwives" prescribed by INC where under the prescribed minimum age for admission is 15 years (as on or before 31st December of the year in which admission is sought) and the prescribed maximum age is 35 years. He has submitted that on the relevant date, all the petitioners have completed 15 years of age and they also fulfil other qualifying criteria, therefore, they are eligible for admission in the said course. He has submitted that the respondent authorities are neither right nor justified in disapproving the admissions of the petitioner students on the said ground and/or in contending that the minimum age for the eligibility for admission is 20 years. Mr. Mishra has submitted that the action of the respondents of disapproving the admissions of the petitioners at the end of the course i.e. when the petitioner students were to take the annual examination, is unjust and arbitrary and that if the decision and action of the respondents is not set aside, the petitioner students will be put to suffer irreparable injury and the entire year of their study and the training undergone by them will be wasted. He has also submitted that in view of the interim order passed by the Court, the petitioner students were permitted to appear in examination, however, the results have not been declared. He, therefore, prayed that the respondents may be directed to finally approve the admissions of the petitioner students and to declare the results. 5. The learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3-State has supported and adopted the submissions by Mr. Yagnik, learned advocate for the respondent No. 7. Mr. He, therefore, prayed that the respondents may be directed to finally approve the admissions of the petitioner students and to declare the results. 5. The learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3-State has supported and adopted the submissions by Mr. Yagnik, learned advocate for the respondent No. 7. Mr. Yajnik, learned advocate has appeared for the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 Councils i.e. INC and GNC. The petition has been opposed by the respondent No. 8-GNC who has filed the affidavit and by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The learned counsel for the contesting respondents have vehemently resisted petitioners' submission that the decision of the respondent authorities of disapproving the admissions is bad in law. In counter, it has been submitted that by virtue of Government Notification dated 20th May, 1988 the minimum age, as eligibility criterion for admission, has been fixed at 20 years and that therefore, the action of the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 institutes of granting admissions to the petitioner students, whose age are below the prescribed age of 20 years, could not be approved hence, the institutes were accordingly conveyed and that the said decision being in consonance with the notification dated 20th May, 1988, is just and legal and does not warrant any interference. Mr. Yajnik submitted that the respondent institutes have granted admissions beyond the allotted seats and therefore such excess number of admissions have not been approved. Except the said two grounds in support of the impugned decision, any other ground has not been urged by the respondents. 5.1 The respondent institutions have entered appearance and filed affidavit controverting the allegations made by the respondent No. 8 Council. Mr. Upadhayay, learned advocate has appeared for the respondent institutes and submitted that the respondent institutes have granted the admissions in consonance with the eligibility criteria prescribed by the INC. He also submitted that all the petitioners have completed age of 15 years and they possess the prescribed educational qualifications. He has further submitted that the respondent institutes granted the admissions by following the instructions and procedure prescribed by the contesting respondents and no illegality or irregularity has been committed. He also submitted that all the petitioners have completed age of 15 years and they possess the prescribed educational qualifications. He has further submitted that the respondent institutes granted the admissions by following the instructions and procedure prescribed by the contesting respondents and no illegality or irregularity has been committed. He also submitted that the contention raised by the advocate for the contesting respondents on the ground that excess number of students have been admitted does not survive in view of the fact that the said respondent authorities have approved/regularized the admissions except of the students whose age is less than 20 years. He submitted that so far as the objection on the ground of minimum age is concerned, the contention is contrary to the criterion prescribed by the INC. 6. From the reply affidavits filed by the respondents No. 1 to 3 and 8 and the submissions made during the hearing of present petition, it emerges that now it is being claimed that the admissions are not approved on two grounds viz. (a) the respondent institutes have granted admissions in excess than the number of seats allotted to each respondent institute; and (b) students of age below the prescribed minimum age have been admitted. The aforesaid are the only grounds on which the petition has been opposed. It is pertinent to note that the said two grounds are raised by different respondents. The respondents No. 1 to 3 have raised only one objection i.e. on the ground of "prescribed minimum age for admission" and that is the only ground which has been formally conveyed to the respondents No. 4 to 6 institutions by the letter dated 01.04.2010 and any other reason for the objection has not been conveyed to the institutions. Now, by way of its affidavit the respondent No. 8 has raised altogether different ground i.e. the objection not conveyed to the institutions in the letter dated 01.04.2010 i.e. on the ground of "the total number of seats and total number of admissions/students." The two affidavits of the said respondents speak about two different grounds to justify the impugned objection which show that there is no common and clear policy and there is absence of clear and timely instructions and guidelines for the institutions and the students which has put a big question mark on the future and career of the students. 6.1 So far as the first objection for disapproving the admissions is concerned, it should be noted that the said contention is unsustainable and without merits, at least for two major reasons. In response to the query about the basis on strength of which it was claimed that the number of students in the respondent institutes was restricted to 30, initially the respondent No. 8 and respondents No. 1 to 3 could not point out any base, however, subsequently, the said respondents referred to and relied upon the communication dated 06.01.2010. On the strength of the said circular, it was claimed that the respondent institutes have been allotted 30 seats and as against the said allotment, the respondent institutes granted admissions to 40 students. Hence, the admissions granted by the institutes are in excess of or more than the maximum permissible number of seats. 6.2 The first reason which renders the objection unsustainable is that while advancing the contention on the strength of said circular dated 6.1.2010, the respondents conveniently overlook the fact that the admission process had begun in September-October 2009 and the admissions were granted in the last week of October and first week of November 2009, whereas the circular was issued much later i.e. in January 2010. Differently put, at the relevant time, the circular fixing the maximum number of seats for each institute was not in existence and that therefore, it cannot be applied to the admissions granted prior to its issuance. Hence, it would not have any bearing or effect and the said communication or instruction cannot be pressed in service to justify the action of declining approval to the disputed admissions. Thus, the very base on which the objection is sought to be raised, is found to be non-existent at the relevant time and is not available. 7. Assuming, only for the sake of testing the objection, that such ground is available and ordinarily could have been pressed in service, then also in view of the second point the platform on which the respondents try to rest their objection would be pulled away. The second point which also renders the objection worthy of rejection is that the contesting respondents cannot justify and defend their action on a new and different ground i.e. on a ground other than the one which has been conveyed i.e. the ground on which the decision and action was taken. The second point which also renders the objection worthy of rejection is that the contesting respondents cannot justify and defend their action on a new and different ground i.e. on a ground other than the one which has been conveyed i.e. the ground on which the decision and action was taken. In present case, the alleged reason (for not granting approval) that total number of admissions are more than the allotted seats, is not the reason which was conveyed to the institutes (or to the students) while intimating the non-approval of the admissions and as the record reveals, it was not the aspect taken into consideration while taking the decision to not to approve certain admissions. 7.1 Furthermore, there is another (i.e. the third reason) reason also which amplifies that the ground now urged to justify the action is not available to the contesting respondents. It deserves to be noted that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 authorities have approved the admissions, notwithstanding the total number of students admitted, except the admissions to the students whose age is below 20 years. Hence, in view of the post facto approval, except in respect of the students who are of age below 20 years, the said contention would fail. However, in view of the first ground, the other reasons pale into insignificance. 7.2 The aspects mentioned above are required to be considered in light of the following facts:- (a) that ordinarily the task of granting admission is undertaken by a Committee called "Admission Committee", however, so far as present academic year is concerned, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 had, by virtue of Government Resolution {"GR" for short} dated 25.09.2009 allowed the self-finance institutes, (since several seats in the self finance institutes remained vacant after the centralised admission process got concluded) to grant admissions (on the vacant seats) subject to complying the procedure prescribed in the said GR. (b) In view of the said policy decision, the respondent No. 1-State started issuing Essentiality Certificate in favour of the self-finance institutes offering the said course. It was in view of the said policy decision of the respondent No. 1-State that the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 institutes commenced offering the said course. (c) In pursuance of the said GR dated 25.09.2009, a circular dated 09.10.2009 declaring the time table for granting admission in consultation with the District Level Committee was issued. It was in view of the said policy decision of the respondent No. 1-State that the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 institutes commenced offering the said course. (c) In pursuance of the said GR dated 25.09.2009, a circular dated 09.10.2009 declaring the time table for granting admission in consultation with the District Level Committee was issued. The respondent Nos. 4 to 6 have asserted, and it is not denied by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 or respondent Nos. 7 & 8, that the advertisement as per the GR dated 25.09.2009 was issued and thereafter, the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 institutes granted the admissions in the last week of October 2001 and that since 31.10.2009, 01.11.2009 and 02.11.2009 were gazetted holidays, the final intimation could be forwarded to the authorities only after 02.11.2009. The statements containing details about the admissions granted by the said institutes were forwarded, as aforesaid, to the Competent Authority after 02.11.2009 and the admissions granted to the students mentioned in the list were approved (communications dated 11.03.2010 and 01.04.2010) by the respondent authorities, except in the cases of the students whose age is below 20 years. The said factual aspect gets substantiated from the documents on record at page 132 to 159 wherein any other reason is not mentioned. The said factual aspect fractures the support of the objection now raised on the ground of number of total allotted seats, which is clearly an afterthought. (d) It is pertinent that so as to justify their stand on the issue of minimum age, the respondents referred to and relied upon the notification dated 20.5.1988, however, in the very same notification, under Clause 5 it is also prescribed that except the institute named Vatrak General Hospital the other 23 FHW Schools will have maximum 45 students. When the respondents seek to rely upon a part of the said notification dated 20.05.1988 (on one clause) in support of the decision of not approving the admission granted to the petitioners then they cannot conveniently discard the other part. Thus, in view of the said clause No. 5 in the GR dated 20.05.1988 it transpires that until 06.01.2010 (i.e. from 20.5.1988 till 6.1.2010) the permitted maximum number of admissions was 45 students. For the aforesaid reason also, the ground which is now advanced in support of the objection is not available. Thus, in view of the said clause No. 5 in the GR dated 20.05.1988 it transpires that until 06.01.2010 (i.e. from 20.5.1988 till 6.1.2010) the permitted maximum number of admissions was 45 students. For the aforesaid reason also, the ground which is now advanced in support of the objection is not available. (e) The third aspect connected with and relevant for present issue is that for the present academic term, when, after the centralised admission process was over, it was noticed that several seats remained vacant in the self finance institutes the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 permitted, for the current academic year, the self-finance institutes to grant admissions, at their level but in consultation with the District Level Committee. In this context, certain instructions were issued under circular dated 09.10.2009 by the Director, Health & Family Welfare Department where under the time table was also fixed. Accordingly, the institutes admitted the students and forwarded the details to the respondent authorities. The petitioners are the students who came to be admitted in this process. Subsequently, by communication dated 01.04.2010, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 conveyed that the admissions in respect of the enlisted students were not approved on the ground that their age was less than 20 years which, according to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 is the minimum age for admission. It is, however, relevant to note that the other admissions which did not suffer from such alleged short-coming, were approved. (f) It is pertinent that even in the communication dated 01.04.2010 conveying disapproval regarding the admissions (in cases of students below the minimum age), nowhere it is stated that any admission has been cancelled or disapproved on the ground that it is in excess of the allotted number of seats. (f) It is pertinent that even in the communication dated 01.04.2010 conveying disapproval regarding the admissions (in cases of students below the minimum age), nowhere it is stated that any admission has been cancelled or disapproved on the ground that it is in excess of the allotted number of seats. (g) Thus, when the approval in respect of any admission (granted by the respondents No. 4 to 6 institutes) pursuant to the circular dated 25.09.2009, has not been denied approval (as per their letter dated 01.04.2010) on the ground that it is beyond or in excess of the allotted number of seats and when the only ground for denying approval in respect of admissions is that the students are of age less than 20 years, now the respondents cannot justify their action on new or different ground or on the ground other than the ground stated in the letter dated 01.04.2010 i.e. on the new ground that more number of students than the allotted number of seats, have been admitted. For the said third reason also the said objection is not sustainable and cannot be entertained. 8. One more reason for not accepting the said objection is to be found in the syllabus and regulations for Auxiliary Nursery & Midwifes, prescribed by the respondent No. 7-INC (Central Body). As per the said syllabus, the prescribed minimum students intake is of 20 students and the prescribed maximum students intake is 40. Even in the GR dated 20.05.1988 (Clause No. 5) the intake is stated to be of 45 students (except in case of one institute viz. Vatrak General Hospital). 8.1 Besides the aforesaid details, we have also noticed that even in the communication dated 11th March, 2010 (which is addressed to the Director, State Health & Family Welfare Training Institute) which contains an intimation that 14 admissions granted by the respondent No. 4, 12 admissions granted by respondent No. 5 and 12 admissions granted by respondent No. 6 are not approved the only reason mentioned in the said communication (for not approving the admissions) is that the students are of age below the minimum age i.e. 20 years (and not the total number of admissions). Even the said communication dated 11.03.2010 does not even whisper and does not give out that any of the disputed admissions were declined approval on the alleged ground i.e. more than the maximum permissible/allotted seats. Even the said communication dated 11.03.2010 does not even whisper and does not give out that any of the disputed admissions were declined approval on the alleged ground i.e. more than the maximum permissible/allotted seats. It is in the reply affidavit that the respondent No. 8-GNC has raised the said contention. 9. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid details demonstrates that the impugned decision and action is sought to be justified on different ground than the one which was conveyed. Having declined approval to the admissions granted by respondent Nos. 4 to 6 only on the ground that the age of the students is less than the minimum age, the contesting respondents cannot raise a new ground to support the objection and cannot oppose the admissions on such different ground. It is, by now, settled position that validity of a decision or an action taken or based on certain grounds, must be judged by the reasons stated in the order itself and not by supplementary reasons, which may be supplied subsequently. Otherwise, the order which would not be sustainable on the grounds stated in it, may acquire characteristic of an order sustainable in law. In present case also, the contesting respondents have attempted to supplement the original reason (in view of which and on the basis of which the impugned action of denying approval, to the admissions granted to the petitioners, was taken) by supplying additional ground which was not conveyed to the respondent institutions. 9.1 As noted earlier the documents at page 132 to 159 also demonstrate that the only reason on which the approval to the admissions mentioned therein was not granted, is the ground of age and not the number of students. For the aforesaid reasons, the objection on the ground that the institutes have admitted more number of students than the maximum permissible/allotted seats, being a different and new ground (other than the one considered and conveyed) urged as an afterthought, cannot be accepted. The ground being urged is merely an afterthought hence cannot be permitted, more so when the students had to appear in annual examination. 10. This leaves behind the respondents' objection on the ground that students of age below the prescribed minimum age have been admitted, which could not be approved. The ground being urged is merely an afterthought hence cannot be permitted, more so when the students had to appear in annual examination. 10. This leaves behind the respondents' objection on the ground that students of age below the prescribed minimum age have been admitted, which could not be approved. It is claimed by the respondents No. 1 to 3 that the prescribed minimum age for admission is 20 years whereas students who have not reached the prescribed minimum age have been admitted and that such admissions could not be approved. The material available on record would not permit the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, much less the respondent No. 8, to raise such an objection. 10.1 In this context, at the outset, reference needs to be made to the syllabus and regulations for Auxiliary Nurses & Midwives prescribed by the respondent No. 7-INC (i.e. the Central Body). Under the said regulation, below the title "Admission Terms & Conditions", following provision is prescribed. "Admission Terms & Conditions" (1) The minimum age for admission shall be 15 years on or before 31st December of the year in which the admission is sought. (2) The maximum age for admission shall be 35 years. (3) The minimum educational requirement shall be passing of Secondary School Certificate Examination (10 years' course); 10th Class or Central Board Secondary Education." (emphasis supplied) Thus, as per the regulations prescribed by the Indian Nursing Council, the minimum age for admission is 15 years. The regional body viz. GNC cannot take contrary stand and/or in absence of any authority of law cannot prescribe a contrary or conflicting criterion. 10.2 Furthermore, it appears from the record that the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 had made an inquiry (in January 2009) with the INC by invoking provisions under RTI Act in respect of various points which included the issue about minimum age for admission. In reply to the said inquiry, INC had forwarded the details prescribed under its above referred syllabus and the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 claim that they, therefore, conducted their affairs accordingly. 10.3 Besides this, in this context, reference needs to be made to the inspection made by GNC in respect of the respondent institutions pursuant to which the permission-sanction was granted. The said permission-sanction letter is dated 17.09.2009. 4 to 6 claim that they, therefore, conducted their affairs accordingly. 10.3 Besides this, in this context, reference needs to be made to the inspection made by GNC in respect of the respondent institutions pursuant to which the permission-sanction was granted. The said permission-sanction letter is dated 17.09.2009. The Clause 12 thereof clearly stipulates that "the present eligibility criteria for admission are as prescribed by Indian Nursing Council in current syllabus." Thus, even as per respondent No. 8-GNC, the eligibility criteria was to be the criteria prescribed by the respondent No. 7-INC. Therefore, it is necessary to recall that the syllabus and regulation of the INC prescribe 15 years as the minimum age for admission and maximum intake of 40 students. 10.4 Thus, when the sanction letter dated 17.09.2009 makes the INC's criteria applicable and when the relevant criterion prescribed by the central body (viz. INC) is age of 15 years as the minimum age for admission, the respondent No. 8 GNC and/or the respondents No. 1 to 3 are not justified in applying or imposing criterion of 20 years, which is at variance with the age prescribed by the respondent No. 7-INC, as the minimum age. The said respondents are not justified in not approving the admissions to the students who, on the relevant date, had completed 15 years of age as per the requirement prescribed by the INC. 11. Having not been able to make any headway in defending and justifying the decision and the action on the aforesaid ground, the contesting respondents then turned to and placed reliance on the "proposed regulations" which appear to have been "proposed" as the regulations (for admission and fixation of fees)" with a stipulation that the regulations are applicable for the year 2009- 2010 only. 11.1 The contesting respondents, with a view to opposing the petition, have relied upon the said regulations and claimed that under Clause-6 of the said regulations, the prescribed minimum age is 20 years and therefore, the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 institutes could not have admitted students who had not completed 20 years. 11.2 The respondents overlook the fact that the said regulations are merely "proposed regulations" and are even titled as such. 4 to 6 institutes could not have admitted students who had not completed 20 years. 11.2 The respondents overlook the fact that the said regulations are merely "proposed regulations" and are even titled as such. Furthermore, though the regulations provide that the same would be applicable for the year 2009-2010, from the copy of the regulations which is placed on record it does not become clear as to whether the same have been duly published in the Gazette and duly notified or not and, if yes, on which date. The said contesting respondents also have failed to clarify and explain the status of the said regulation which appear to be merely "proposed" regulation and do not appear to have been duly notified in gazette. What is on record is merely "proposed regulations" which bear signature of Chairman & Director of "State Health & Family Welfare Training Institute." It cannot be said to be duly notified regulations and that therefore it appears that the said regulation cannot be pressed in service in present case or against the admissions which have been granted by the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 institutions. 11.3 Notwithstanding the said ambiguity, what is more relevant is that INC (Central Body) has prescribed 15 years as the minimum age and in the sanction/recognition letter issued in favour of the respondent Nos. 4 to 6, it has been stipulated that the eligibility criteria applicable in the cases of the institutes will be the criteria prescribed (from time to time) by INC and for the purpose of admission and syllabus etc. the provisions made by INC-respondent No. 7 will be applicable, then how could the contesting respondent have "proposed" a provision contrary to or different than that of INC-respondent No. 7. Mr. Yagnik, learned advocate for respondent No. 8 as well as respondent No. 7 could not explain the dichotomy between the relevant provision (regarding minimum age) by Indian National Council and the action of GNC or proposed regulation by the State. 11.4 As against the aforesaid position, we have also noticed the copies of about 11 letters which are dated 21.01.2008 or 28.05.2008 and have been addressed by the respondent No. 8 GNC to various institutes imparting the course in question. 11.4 As against the aforesaid position, we have also noticed the copies of about 11 letters which are dated 21.01.2008 or 28.05.2008 and have been addressed by the respondent No. 8 GNC to various institutes imparting the course in question. In each of the said letters, the respondent No. 8 GNC has stated "the admission procedure and criteria as prescribed by Indian Nursing Council from time to time be followed." The present criteria are as under:- "(1) The minimum age for admission shall not be less than 15 years and maximum age should not exceed 35 years. (2) xxx xxx (3) xxx xxx (4) admission procedure as prescribed by the State Government be followed." (emphasis supplied) 11.5 In light of the said letters, it is claimed, and rightly so, that the action of the respondent No. 8 GNC, denying the approval to the admissions in question, is unreasonable. The contesting respondents cannot apply different standard in respect of the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 institutions, more particularly in light of the communication addressed by the respondent No. 8 GNC to the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 institutes wherein it has been stated that the eligibility criteria for admission would be as prescribed by the INC in the current syllabus. As noted earlier, INC i.e. respondent No. 7, has prescribed 15 years as the minimum age for admission. 11.6 In this factual backdrop, without entering into the dispute regarding applicability of the "proposed regulations" which apparently do not appear to have been duly published in the Gazette and notified and do not appear to have been brought in force, in the facts of the case, we consider it appropriate (in light of the aforesaid material e.g. INC's syllabus, the recognition/sanction letter, the 11 letters to other institutes, etc. obtaining on record) to accept and take into consideration the criterion prescribed by the INC [i.e. the Syllabus & Regulations for Auxiliary Nurses and Midwives (page-36)], being the regulation prescribed by the central body and proceed on the premise that the age limit prescribed by the respondent No. 7-INC (which prescribe 15 years as the minimum age) shall be applicable and shall govern present admission process (at least for this academic year-term) which is in question. There is another reason also for adopting the said course i.e. the institutes have been given to understand, from the time when sanction to the institution to start the course was granted, that INC regulations shall apply in the matter of syllabus and admission. 12. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the facts of the case and material on record, both the objections are not sustainable. We, for the reasons discussed above, reject both the objections. In the result, the petition succeeds and deserves to be allowed. Hence, the following order is passed. 12.1 The petition is accepted. 12.2 In the facts of present case, the decision of the contesting respondents of applying the criterion of 20 years as minimum age and the action of not approving the admissions granted by respondent Nos. 4 to 6 to the students below 20 years are set aside. Further, for the reasons discussed above and in view of the facts of present case – as available on record - the objection raised by the respondent No. 8-GNC on the ground of total number of students/admissions is (only in respect of the admissions granted for the present term) also set aside and having regard to the fact that the students have completed their course and have appeared in the examination, we direct the contesting respondents to treat the petitioners eligible for admission in the said course. The decision of not approving the disputed admissions stands set aside. Consequently, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, 7 and 8 are also directed to declare the results of the petitioners. 13. It is, however, clarified that from the next academic term, the contesting respondents may restrict the maximum number of seats, as per the details mentioned in the circular/GR dated 06.01.2010 and the said circular/GR shall be applicable to the institutes whose names are mentioned in the said circular. Such institutes will not admit more number of students (i.e. more than the number of seats allotted to them). It is also directed, so as to avoid any dispute or doubts in the matter of admissions for the next academic terms, that the respondent Nos. 7 (INC) and 8 (GNC) and the respondent Nos. Such institutes will not admit more number of students (i.e. more than the number of seats allotted to them). It is also directed, so as to avoid any dispute or doubts in the matter of admissions for the next academic terms, that the respondent Nos. 7 (INC) and 8 (GNC) and the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 shall jointly issue clarification with regard to the minimum and maximum age for admission and the said decision/clarification (which shall be made in consultation with respondent No. 7 INC) shall be conveyed to all self-finance institutes well in advance. Such clarification shall be appropriately mentioned in the application forms also, so that the applicants-students may be aware about the said criterion. With the aforesaid clarifications and directions, the petition is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent. The petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms. No costs. Petition allowed.