Judgment 1. This is the case of a Nursing Institution admitting students beyond the sanctioned intake by false representation and cheating and thereafter making efforts to regularise the illegal admissions. 2. The writ petition in W.P. No. 18849 of 2013 is at the instance of a Nursing College and the prayer is to direct Dr. M.G.R. Medical University to permit fifty students of the First Year BSC (Nursing) Course to appear for the annual examination. 3. The writ petition in W.P. No. 19477 of 2013 is at the instance of the students and the request is to direct the Indian Nursing Council and Dr. M.G.R. Medical University to permit first year B.Sc. (Nursing) students to appear for the first year B.Sc. (Nursing) Examination scheduled to be held on 1.8.2013 and the Second Year examination in 2014. Background facts: W.P. No. 18849 of 2013 4. The petitioner was given approval by the Indian Nursing Council to start a Nursing College with an annual intake of fifty students. Since there were only few students, the petitioner was not in a position to fill up the entire intake up to the academic year 20122013. 5. The Expert Committee nominated by the Indian Nursing Council inspected the institution on 17.4.2012. Since the Expert Committee noted certain deficiencies, the Indian Nursing Council vide its order dated 12.6.2012 reduced the intake from 50 to 30. Though the petitioner requested the Indian Nursing Council to reconsider the issue, the council refused to restore the intake. The institution, not withstanding the reduction of intake from 50 to 30, admitted 50 students. The petitioner now wanted regularisation of illegal admission by permitting the excess students to write the public examination. W.P. No. 19477 of 2013 6. The students of St. John’s College of Nursing who were admitted beyond the permitted intake are before this Court for a direction to the Indian Nursing Council and Dr. M.G.R. Medical University to permit them to write the examination. 7. The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University filed a counter affidavit explaining the factual position. According to the University, the reduction in intake from 50 to 30 was not informed by the petitioner to the University. The University was kept in darkness and the same resulted in renewing the affiliation. 7. The Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University filed a counter affidavit explaining the factual position. According to the University, the reduction in intake from 50 to 30 was not informed by the petitioner to the University. The University was kept in darkness and the same resulted in renewing the affiliation. The University was informed about the reduction subsequently and thereafter provisional affiliation for the academic year 20122013 was issued with an intake of 30 students. The University contended that during the year 2012-2013 the Government sponsored 20 students and the petitioner was expected to admit only the remaining 10 students. However the petitioner admitted 29 students and as such it is not possible for the excess students to write the examination. 8. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 18849 of 2013 on an earlier occasion submitted that the institution is prepared to surrender 20 seats in the next academic year and on such condition excess students should be permitted to write the examination. 9. Since the learned counsel for the University submitted that a letter was addressed to the Indian Nursing Council, New Delhi, on 7.6.2013 to clarify as to whether the intake of 50 could be retained for the academic year 2012-2013 subject to the condition that the excess admission should be adjusted in the coming academic year 2013-2014, I have passed an interim order on 25.7.2013 directing the Indian Nursing Council to take a decision in the matter. 10. When the matter was taken up for consideration on 1.8.2013, the learned Standing Council for Indian Nursing Council on instructions submitted that the suggestion made by the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University was considered by the Council. However the Council was not in favour of any such adjustment. Factual Analysis: 11. There is no dispute that the institution was initially permitted to admit 50 students. Since the institution was not having the necessary institutional and infrastructural facilities for conducting the Nursing Course with an intake of 50 students, the Indian Nursing Council vide order dated 12.6.2012 reduced the intake from 50 to 30. The order was not communicated to the University. Before the University the institution maintained that the sanctioned intake of 50 remained without any change. The Government sponsored 20 students. The order was not communicated to the University. Before the University the institution maintained that the sanctioned intake of 50 remained without any change. The Government sponsored 20 students. It was only during the month of November 2012 the University was made known from the website of the Indian Nursing Council about the reduction in intake. The University immediately passed an order by restricting the intake to 30 during the academic year 2012-2013. Even though there was a reduction, the institution continued to admit students beyond the sanctioned intake. The institution admitted 29 candidates in excess of the sanctioned intake. The institution cheated the poor students and by falsely representing that permission was granted to admit 50 students, made excess admission. The students are now before this Court requesting to write the examination. 12. The institutional and infrastructural facilities has got a direct bearing while fixing the intake. The institution was originally given an intake of 50 students. The Nursing Council found that sufficient facilities for training 50 students were lacking and that was the reason for reducing the intake. However the institution admitted students beyond the sanctioned intake and thereby jeopardised the interest of students. 13. The Supreme Court in A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society v. Govt. of A.P. The Binding Precedent: AIR 1986 SC 1490 : (1986) 2 SCC 667 : refused to recognise the admission of students without recognition and observed thus: “We regret that the students who have been admitted into the college have not only lost the money which they must have spent to gain admission into the college, but have also lost one or two years of precious time virtually jeopardising their future careers. But that is a situation which they have brought upon themselves as they sought and obtained admission in the college despite the warnings issued by the University from time-to-time.” 14. In Central Board of Secondary Education v. Nikhil Gulati, AIR 1998 SC 1205 : (1998) 3 SCC 5 , the Supreme Court deprecated the practice of permitting ineligible students to appear for University Examination. The observation reads thus: “1. Occasional aberrations such as these, whereby ineligible students are permitted, under Court orders, to undertake Board and/or University examinations, have caught the attention of this Court many a time. The observation reads thus: “1. Occasional aberrations such as these, whereby ineligible students are permitted, under Court orders, to undertake Board and/or University examinations, have caught the attention of this Court many a time. To add to it further, the Courts have almost always observed that the instance of such aberrations should not be treated as a precedent in future. Such casual discretions by the Court is nothing but an abuse of the process; more so when the High Court at its level itself becomes conscious that the decision was wrong and was not worth repeating as a precedent. and yet it is repeated time and again. Having said this much, we hope and trust that unless the High Court can justify its decision on principle and precept, it should better desist from passing such orders, for it puts the “Rule of Law” to a mockery, and promotes rather the “Rule of Man”.” 15. The learned senior counsel for the students submitted that University records revealed that the institution was permitted to admit 50 students. The students were not aware of the order passed by the Nursing Council reducing the intake from 50 to 30. According to the learned senior counsel, the statutory bodies are primarily responsible for this sorry state of affairs and poor students are made the scapegoat. 16. The submission made by the learned senior counsel for students goes to the root of the matter. There are several statutes governing the field of education. The approval from Medical Council of India is necessary to commence M.B.B.S. Course. Similar approval is necessary from Dental Council for BDS course. The approval from All India Council for Teacher Education is necessary for commencing course in Technical Education. There are similar other legislations like Nursing Council Act, Pharmacy Council Act, National Council for Teacher Education Act , etc., requiring permission from the competent authority as a condition precedent for commencing Diploma and Degree in Education, Nursing, Pharmacy and other related courses. The institutions after obtaining approval/recognition should obtain affiliation from the concerned University. 17. There are similar other legislations like Nursing Council Act, Pharmacy Council Act, National Council for Teacher Education Act , etc., requiring permission from the competent authority as a condition precedent for commencing Diploma and Degree in Education, Nursing, Pharmacy and other related courses. The institutions after obtaining approval/recognition should obtain affiliation from the concerned University. 17. The failure on the part of the statutory body like Medical Council of India, Dental Council of India, NCTE, Nursing Council, Pharmacy Council, AICTE etc., to publish the list of approved/recognised institutions with the sanctioned intake sufficiently early and in any case, before the commencement of admission process, resulted in adopting a clever device of cheating by some of the institutions to admit students either without statutory approval or beyond the sanctioned intake. 18. It is appropriate to take the case of Medical Council of India. The establishment of Medical College Regulation framed by MCI contain the following time schedule. Sl. Stage of processing Last Date No. 1. Receipt of applications by the Council From 1st August to 30th September (both days inclusive) of the year. 2. Issue of letter of intent by the Council Upto 30th April 3. Receipt of reply from the applicant by the Council for consideration for issue of Letter of Permission Upto 31st May 4. Issue of Letter of Permission by the Council 15th June 19. The MCI regulation provides that upto the first five years extension of approval will be given on satisfactory compliance of regulations applicable to the first, second, third and fourth renewal. There is no guarantee that an institution having the benefit of approval for the year 2012-2013 would get extension of approval for 2013-2014. In the absence of notification issued by MCI regarding denial of approval or cancellation of approval already granted, Medical Institutions would continue to admit students based on the initial approval. The illegal admissions would come out only when the University decline to permit the students to write the public examination. The students would realise only at that point of time that they were cheated. We have seen the cases of several such institutions like D.D. Medical College, Thiruvallur admitting students without approval from MCI. The students ultimately would lose money as well as their valuable time by undergoing study in such unrecognised institutions. 20. Education, once upon a time was considered as a noble cause. We have seen the cases of several such institutions like D.D. Medical College, Thiruvallur admitting students without approval from MCI. The students ultimately would lose money as well as their valuable time by undergoing study in such unrecognised institutions. 20. Education, once upon a time was considered as a noble cause. Now it has become a lucrative business. Some of the ill equipped institutions even managed to secure the deemed university status and on account of this even the Universities established by the State and Central Government have no control over them. 21. The Supreme Court in P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2005 SC 3226 : (2005) 6 SCC 537 : observed that imparting education has come to be a means of livelihood for some professionals over a point of time. The Supreme Court said: “Education used to be charity or philanthropy in the good old times. Gradually it became an “occupation”. Some of the judicial dicta go on to hold it as an “industry”. Whether to receive education is a fundamental right or not has been debated for quite some time. But it is settled that establishing and administering of an educational institution for imparting knowledge to students is an occupation, protected by Article 19(1)(g) and additionally by Article 26(a), if there is no element of profit generation. As of now, imparting education has come to be a means of livelihood for some professionals and a mission in life for some altruists.” Role of Statutory Body: 22. The statutory bodies and the Universities have a definite role and a duty to play in a matter of this nature in the interest of students. The denial of permission/affiliation/recognition and reduction of intake should not be kept as a secret affair. The public must know the status of each of these educational institutions. The students should be in a position to ascertain the affiliation/recognition status of a particular institution and its permitted intake before seeking admission. Guidelines: 23. Till appropriate regulations are made in this behalf, including punishment for admitting students without affiliation/recognition or beyond the sanctioned intake, Medical Council of India, Dental Council of India, National Council for Teacher Education, All India Council for Technical Education, Bar Council of India, Nursing Council and Pharmacy Council and Universities must consider adopting the following guidelines with appropriate modifications. Till appropriate regulations are made in this behalf, including punishment for admitting students without affiliation/recognition or beyond the sanctioned intake, Medical Council of India, Dental Council of India, National Council for Teacher Education, All India Council for Technical Education, Bar Council of India, Nursing Council and Pharmacy Council and Universities must consider adopting the following guidelines with appropriate modifications. “(i) Every year before the commencement of admission process for medical, Engineering, Nursing, Pharmacy, teaching, law and all other courses and preferably within three days of publication of plus two results, the concerned statutory body must publish the list of colleges/institutions entitled to admit students along with the sanctioned intake. (ii) In case the application for affiliation/recognition is pending and the institution was having affiliation/recognition till the last academic year, the same also should be indicated in the notification/website of the concerned statutory body. (iii) The subsequent grant of affiliation/recognition or extension of approval should also be published in the similar manner. (iv) The final list of approved institutions with its permitted intake should be published before the last date prescribed for submission of application for affixation or cut off period prescribed for making admission under the relevant statute. (v) The statutory body should evolve a mechanism for awarding damages to the students whose careers are seriously jeopardised by unscrupulous management of colleges/schools which indulged in giving admission without statutory recognition/affiliation and in violation of rules as indicated by the Supreme Court in Maharishi Dayanand University v. M.L.R. Saraswati College of Education (2000) 7 SCC 746 .” Disposition: 24. So long as it is clear that the petitioner was not permitted to admit more than 30 students, the question of directing the University to permit the excess students to write the examination does not arise for consideration. The institution acted in violation of the order passed by the Indian Nursing Council. There is no question of showing any kind of indulgence in a matter of this nature. 25. In the upshot, I dismiss the writ petitions. Consequently, the connected MPs are close. No costs. Petitions dismissed.