JUDGMENT : C.L. Soni, J. The petitioners of all these petitions have applied for the posts of Female Health Worker pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent No.3. The advertisement is for appointments on 22 posts of Female Health Worker with other posts. The petitioners have prayed to direct the respondent No.3 to permit them to appear in the open interview to be held on 27.6.2013 for the post of Female Health Worker without insisting for registration of Female Health Worker (FHW) Course and have challenged the advertisement dated 20.6.2013 insofar as it provides for registration of the said course as one of the requirements. 2. Since common questions are raised in all the petitions on almost identical facts, the petitions are heard and decided together. 3. The case of the petitioners is that the qualifications required by the advertisement at Annexure-A for the posts of Female Health Worker are (1) candidate must have passed SSC or its equivalent examination and (2) candidate must have passed examination of Female Health Worker Basic Training Course recognised by the Government and registered with Nursing Council. All of them have passed SSC examination and thus acquired first qualification. As regards second qualification of passing Female Health Worker Basic Training Course, they have averred that they have passed examination of Diploma in Female Health Worker from Mahatma Gandhi University, Meghalaya and as per the circular dated 16.1.1978 of the General Administration Department of the State Government, such diploma course from Mahatma Gandhi University could be said to be recognised for the purpose of employment in State of Gujarat. They have annexed mark-sheets and Diploma Certificates issued by Mahatma Gandhi University with the petitions. It is their say that they satisfy the educational qualifications required by the advertisement and the Recruitment Rules for the post of Female Health Worker. They have averred that the Recruitment Rules do not require registration of the course of Female Health Worker with Gujarat Nursing Council, however the respondents have made such provision for registration in the advertisement and on such ground, the petitioners are not permitted to appear in the interview for the post of Female Health Worker though the petitioners are well qualified for the post of Female Health Worker. The petitioners have further averred that the Female Health Worker course is not being conducted in the State of Gujarat after 2008 and as information given to them under the Right to Information Act, the registration of Female Health Worker is not done by Gujarat Nursing Council. The petitioners have contended that the requirement of registration of Female Health Worker course with Gujarat Nursing Council provided in the advertisement and insisted upon by the respondents as pre-condition to appear in the interview for the post of Female Health Worker is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the Recruitment Rules for the said post. 4. The petitions are opposed by filing affidavit-in-reply in the first petition on behalf of the respondent No.3 which is relied for other petitions and also by affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of Gujarat Nursing Council in the second petition and relied on in other petitions. In the first petition, the petitioner has filed affidavit-in-rejoinder and in other petitions, the petitioners have filed affidavits in support of the petitions. 5. I have heard learned advocates for the parties. 6. Learned senior advocate Mr. Dhaval Dave appearing with learned advocate Mr. Dipen Desai for the petitioners submitted that Mahatma Gandhi University, Meghalaya from where the petitioners acquired the qualification of Diploma in Female Health Worker since established under Mahatma Gandhi Universities Act, 2010, the diploma course of Female Health Worker undertaken by the petitioners is automatically recognised by the State Government for the purpose of employment under the State Government by virtue of circular dated 16.1.1978 issued by the Government of Gujarat through its General Administration Department. Mr. Dave submitted that the Recruitment Rules, called as Female Health Worker (Class-III) (Panchayat Service) Recruitment Rules, 1999, as amended in 2006 ('the Recruitment Rules' for short) prescribe qualification of Female Health Workers Basic Training Course recognised by the Government for the post of Female Health Worker and there is no requirement in the Recruitment Rules for registration of such course with Nursing Council. Mr. Dave submitted that what is not provided by the Recruitment Rules cannot be permitted to be read in the advertisement as part of the qualifications required. Mr. Mr. Dave submitted that what is not provided by the Recruitment Rules cannot be permitted to be read in the advertisement as part of the qualifications required. Mr. Dave submitted that even as per the information supplied to the petitioners by the State Nursing Council under Right to Information Act, at no point of time, registration of Female Health Worker course was ever made by the Nursing Council. Mr. Dave submitted that the only requirement, therefore, is to possess the qualification of Female Health Workers Basic Training Course recognised by the Government. Mr. Dave submitted that the degree and diploma awarded by any University established under Central Act, State Act, or recognised as deemed University under Section 3 of the University Grant Commission Act, are to be taken as recognised by the State Government for any employment under the State as per the Circular of 1978 issued by the State Government and therefore, the respondents are not justified in not permitting the petitioners to appear in the interview on the ground that the diploma qualification held by the petitioners is not registered with the State Nursing Council. Mr. Dave submitted that the stand taken by the respondents in their affidavits as regards requirement of registration of Female Health Worker course with State Nursing Council as also of not recognising of diploma qualification acquired by the petitioners from Mahatma Gandhi University for the purpose of employment in the State by placing reliance on Meghalaya Private Universities Act, 2012, Mahatma Gandhi Universities Act, UGC Regulations and UGC Rules for private universities is contrary to the Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947 the circular of the State Government dated 16.1.1978. Mr. Dave submitted that what clearly appears from the recruitment Rules and the advertisement is that the registration of Auxiliary Nurse Midwives Course is required and not for Female Health Worker course. Mr. Mr. Dave submitted that what clearly appears from the recruitment Rules and the advertisement is that the registration of Auxiliary Nurse Midwives Course is required and not for Female Health Worker course. Mr. Dave submitted that reliance placed on the communication of the Indian Nursing Council dated 6.3.2013 stating that the Indian Nursing Council has not approved Mahatma Gandhi University for grant of Female Health Worker program and on communication of the UGC dated 3.4.2014 addressed to the Secretary of Indian Nursing Council stating Section 22 of the UGC Act does not specify the diploma program cannot take away the recognition automatically available to the diploma in Female Health Worker course done from other private Universities of different States as per the circular dated 16.1.1978 of the State Government for the purpose of employment under the State. Mr. Dave thus urged to allow the petitions and to direct the respondents to consider the petitioners qualified for the post of Female Health Worker and to permit the petitioners to appear in the interview for the said posts. 7. In support of his submission, learned senior advocate Mr. Dave has relied on following decisions:- (1) In the case of Unique Butyle Tube Industries (P) Ltd. v. U.P. Financial Corporation and others reported in (2003)2 SCC 455 ; (2) Judgment dated 15.10.2013 of this Court in Special Civil Application Nos.14846 of 2012 and 14860 of 2012; (3) In the case of Jagdish Prasad Sharma Etc. v. State of Bihar reported in (2013)8 SCC 633 . 8. To counter the above arguments, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Ronak Raval submitted that the qualification of diploma in Female Health Worker acquired by the petitioners from Mahatma Gandhi University is not the recognised qualification as per the advertisement and the Recruitment Rules. Mr. Raval submitted that the advertisement as also the Recruitment Rules require that candidate must possess the qualification of Female Health Workers Basic Training course recognised by the Government over and above the qualification of SSC or equivalent to SSC. Mr. Raval submitted that the diploma course in Female Health Worker conducted by Mahatma Gandhi University is not the course recognised by the Government for the post of Female Health Worker and no reliance can be placed on the circular dated 16.1.1978 for deemed or automatic recognition by the State Government of diploma qualification acquired by the petitioners from Mahatma Gandhi University. Mr. Mr. Raval submitted that training in the Female Health Worker course was initially given by the State authorities before 2008 and then it was left to the Nursing Council, however for any nursing course, registration with State Nursing Council for the purpose of employment under the State is must. Mr. Raval submitted that the Recruitment Rules and the advertisement both, therefore, provide for registration of nursing course either for Female Health Worker or for Auxiliary Midwives. Mr. Raval submitted that the Indian Nursing Council has clearly stated in the communication dated 6.3.2013 addressed to the respondent No.3 that the Indian Nursing Council has not approved Mahatma Gandhi University at Meghalaya for grant of Auxiliary Midwives Diploma/Female Health Worker program. Mr. Raval submitted that from the above communication, it clearly appears that the diploma course in Female Health Worker conducted by Mahatma Gandhi University is not approved course and therefore, cannot be recognised by the State Government. Mr. Raval submitted that even as per Mahatma Gandhi Universities Act, 2010 under which the Mahatma Gandhi University was established, the University is bound to comply with the UGC Regulations as also the requirement fixed by the Indian Nursing Council and therefore, diploma awarded by Mahatma Gandhi University without ensuring the standards laid down by the different authorities including the Indian Nursing Council and UGC cannot be said to be recognised qualification. Mr. Raval thus submitted that the petitioners cannot be said to have possessed the requisite qualification for the post of Female Health Worker and therefore, they are not entitled to appear in the interview for the said post. He thus urged to dismiss the petitions. 9. Learned advocate Mr. J.J. Yajnik appearing for the Gujarat State Nursing Council submitted that the qualification of diploma in Female Health Worker acquired by the petitioners from Mahatma Gandhi University cannot be said to be a qualification recognised by the State Government under the Recruitment Rules. Mr. Yajnik submitted that Mahatma Gandhi University established under Mahatma Gandhi Universities Act, 2010 is also under statutory obligation to ensure that the standards of degrees, diplomas and certificates and other academic distinctions are not lower than those laid down by the expert bodies, like UGC, MCI, INC, etc. Mr. Yajnik submitted that Mahatma Gandhi University established under Mahatma Gandhi Universities Act, 2010 is also under statutory obligation to ensure that the standards of degrees, diplomas and certificates and other academic distinctions are not lower than those laid down by the expert bodies, like UGC, MCI, INC, etc. and therefore, unless the approval or permission required by such expert bodies for a particular diploma or degree courses is obtained by the University for conducting such courses, awarding any diploma or degree in such courses cannot be said to be in any way recognised qualification. Mr. Yajnik submitted that as per the provisions of the Indian Nursing Council Act, if Female Health Worker course conducted by Mahatma Gandhi University is not included in the schedule of Indian Nursing Council Act, it could not be said to be approved course and consequently, cannot be said to be recognised by the State Government. Mr. Yajnik submitted that every nursing course though differently named is required to be registered with State Council and unless such nursing course is registered with the State Council, the same cannot be said to be recognised qualification for the State employment. Mr. Yajnik submitted that it is not that Female Health Worker course was not being registered. Mr. Yajnik submitted that the State Government decided that after 2008, the examination for Female Health Worker course and its registration should be done by the Nursing Council. Mr. Yajnik submitted that after 2008, the nursing course is being known commonly as ANM/FHW and registration thereof is done as ANM and it is not correct that no registration is done for the nursing course by the State Council. Mr. Yajnik submitted that the circular dated 16.1.1978 of the State Government cannot be relied after the Recruitment Rules for the post of Female Health Worker came into force as such Recruitment Rules are made in exercise of the statutory powers under the Panchayat Act. Mr. Mr. Yajnik submitted that the circular dated 16.1.1978 of the State Government cannot be relied after the Recruitment Rules for the post of Female Health Worker came into force as such Recruitment Rules are made in exercise of the statutory powers under the Panchayat Act. Mr. Yajnik submitted that when the Indian Nursing Council has in clear terms stated that Mahatma Gandhi University at Meghalaya is not approved for grant of Auxiliary Midwives diploma or for Female Health Worker program, the qualification of diploma acquired by the petitioners from Mahatma Gandhi University cannot be said to be recognised qualification by the State Government for employment under it and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners are holding qualification as required by the advertisement for the post of Female Health Worker. Mr. Yajnik has also drawn the attention of the Court to UGC Rules for private universities so as to point out that every private university is under obligation to fulfil the minimum criteria so as to comply with the standards fixed by the expert statutory bodies, including the Indian Nursing Council and the course of studies should have been approved by the respective academic bodies. Mr. Yajnik submitted that since the diploma course in Female Health Worker conducted by Mahatma Gandhi University is not recognised and approved either by the State Council or by Indian Nursing Council ('INC' for short), the qualification acquired from such university for courses by the petitioners cannot be said to be recognised for the purpose of appointment on the post of Female Health Worker as per the advertisement. Mr. Yajnik thus urged to dismiss the petitions. 10. In support of his submission, learned advocate Mr. Mr. Yajnik thus urged to dismiss the petitions. 10. In support of his submission, learned advocate Mr. Yajnik has relied on the following decisions:- (1) In the case of R.B. Sewak Ram Maternity Hospital, (Charitable Institution) v. Veeran Devi (Smt) and others reported in (2004)10 SCC 548 ; (2) In the case of R.B. Sewak Ram Maternity Hospital, Jalandhar and Another v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jalandhar and Another reported in (2000)10 SCC 490 ; (3) In the case of Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation v. Subhash Sindhi Cooperative Housing Society, Jaipur and others reported in (2013)5 SCC 427 ; (4) In the case of Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation and Another v. Diamond & Gem Development Corporation Limited and Another reported in (2013)5 SCC 470 ; (5) In the case of Rajasthan Pradesh Vaidya Samiti, Sardarshahar and Another v. Union of India and others reported in (2010) 12 SCC 609 ; 11. Learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw has adopted the arguments of learned advocate Mr. J.J. Yajnik. 12. Having heard learned advocates for the parties, it appears that the qualification of Female Health Worker Basic Training course recognised by Government required by the advertisement for the post of Female Health Worker is as per the Recruitment Rules. The case of the petitioners is that the Recruitment Rules do not provide for registration of Female Health Workers Course with Nursing Council and therefore, to the extent the advertisement required registration of Female Health Worker course with Nursing Council is contrary to the Recruitment Rules, unreasonable, arbitrary and in violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioners enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 13. As stated in the advertisement, registration of Female Health Worker Basic Training course recognised by the Government should have been with Nursing Council. Therefore, what is primarily required for registration with the State Council is the qualification of Female Health Worker course recognised by the State Government. 14. With the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the Gujarat Nursing Council in Special Civil Application No. 11920 of 2013, copy of the resolution dated 28.8.2008 issued by the State of Gujarat through its Health and Family Welfare Department is placed on record. By the said resolution, it is provided that examination and registration of Female Health Workers course shall be done by the Gujarat Nursing Council. By the said resolution, it is provided that examination and registration of Female Health Workers course shall be done by the Gujarat Nursing Council. From the said resolution, it appears that before 2008, it was for the State authority to take such examination and give registration. Section 10 of Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947 ('the Act' for short) provides for recognition of the qualifications. It reads as under:- "10. Recognition of Qualifications:- (1) For the purposes of this Act, the qualifications included in Ins. by Act 45 of 1957, Section 6 (w.e.f. 1.12.1958)[Part I of] the Schedule shall be recognised qualifications, and the qualifications included in Part II of the Schedule shall be recognised higher qualifications. (2) Any authority within the States The words "of India" omitted by the A.O. 1950[* * *] which, being recognised by the State Government 1[in consultation with the State Council, if any] for the purpose of granting any qualification, grants a qualification in general nursing, midwifery, Ins. by Act 45 of 1957, Section 6 (w.e.f. 1.12.1958)[auxiliary nursing midwifery], health visiting or public health nursing, not included in the Schedule may apply to the Council to have such qualification recognised, and the Council may declare that such qualification, or such qualification only when granted after a specified date, shall be a recognised qualification for the purposes of this Act. (3) The Council may enter into negotiations with any authority Subs. by Act 75 of 1950, section 2, for in any State or country outside the States[in any Subs. by the Adaptation of Laws (No. 3) Order, 1956, for "Part B State". foreign country][territory of India to which this Act does not extend] or which by the law of The words "of India" omitted by the A.O. 1950[such territory] or country is entrusted with the maintenance of a register of nurses, midwives or health visitors, for the settling of a scheme of reciprocity for the recognition of qualifications, and in pursuance of any such scheme the Council may declare that a qualification granted by any authority in any The words "of India" omitted by the A.O. 1950[such territory] or country, or such qualification only when granted after a specified date, shall be a recognised qualification for the purposes of this Act: Provided that no declaration shall be made under this sub-section in respect of any qualification unless by the law and practise Subs. by Act 75 of 1950, section 2, for in any State or country outside the States[of the foreign country] in which the qualification is granted persons domiciled or originating Subs. by the Adaptation of Laws (No. 3) Order, 1956, for "Part B State". foreign country][in India] and holding qualifications recognised under this Act are permitted to enter and practise the nursing profession [in that country] Provided further that- (i) any reciprocal arrangements subsisting at the date of the commencement of this Act between a State Council and any authority outside India for the recognition of qualifications shall, unless the Council decides otherwise, continue in force, and [(ii) any qualification granted by an authority in a territory of India to which this Act did not extend at the date of its commencement, and recognised on the said date by the State Council of a State to which this Act then extended, shall continue to be a recognised qualification for the purpose of registration in that State.] (4) The provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) and of sections 14 and 15 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the declaration by the Council of a qualification granted in respect of post-certificate nursing training as a recognised higher qualification." As per sub-Section (1) of Section 10, qualification included in Part-I of Schedule shall be recognised qualification. Part-I of the Schedule provides for certificate and diploma in Midwifery and also Health Visitor Certificates or Diploma issued by various authorities/Institutions including Gujarat Nursing Council. Mahatma Gandhi University or any authority of the State of Meghalaya are not found included in such Schedule. Diploma Certificates given for Female Health Worker course to the petitioners by Mahatma Gandhi University thus cannot be said to be a recognised qualification. Section 11 of the Act provides that any recognised qualification shall be sufficient qualification for enrolment in any State register. It further provides that no person shall after date of commence of the Act be entitled to be enrolled in any State register as a nurse, midwife, auxiliary nurse-midwife, health visitor or public health nurse unless he or she holds a recognised qualification. Thus, if any person is not holding the recognised qualification, as required by Section 10 of the Act, he shall not be entitled to get himself enrolled in any State register in any capacity as a nurse. Thus, if any person is not holding the recognised qualification, as required by Section 10 of the Act, he shall not be entitled to get himself enrolled in any State register in any capacity as a nurse. Therefore, the candidate having recognised qualification of Female Health Worker course becomes entitled to be enrolled in State register. And such registration shall be proof for him that he holds recognised qualification. Therefore, requirement of registration in the advertisement cannot be said to be beyond the Recruitment Rules as they are to be construed in harmony with the provisions of the Act. 15. At this stage, Section 6 of the Mahatma Gandhi Universities Act, 2010 needs to be referred, which reads as under:- "6. The objectives for which the University is established are as follows: (a) to provide Instruction, Teaching, Training and Research in various branches and specialised fields of Vocational Education, Skill Development, Engineering, Physical Sciences, Life Sciences, Technology, Medical Science and Paramedical Management, Technical, Finance & Accounting, Commerce, Humanities, Languages, & Communication, Applied and performing Arts, Education, Law, Social Science and related areas and subjects and to make provisions for research, Advancement and dissemination of knowledge therein; (b) to establish a campus in the State of Meghalaya, and to have study centres campuses examination, off-campus centres, offshore campuses and Regional centres at different places in India and abroad; (c) to provide continuing and distance education programmes in India & Abroad through offline, online, correspondence and all modes of education (Learning Management System (LMS)/Computer Based Tutorials (CBT) etc.). Study centres shall be open to run distance education program in India and Abroad, through any mode of technology assisted learning for academics, research and training in any field under blended learning pattern etc.; (d) to institute degrees, diplomas, certificates and other academic distinctions on the basis of examination, or any other method of evaluation; (e) to collaborate with other colleges or universities, research institutions industry associations, professional associations or any other organisation in India or abroad to conceptualize design and develop specific educational and research programmes, training programmes and exchange programmes for students, faculty members and others; (f) to disseminate knowledge through seminars, conferences, executive education programmes, community development programmes, publications and training programmes; (g) to undertake programmes for the training and development of faculty members & Teachers of the University and other Institutions of India and abroad; (h) to undertake collaborative research with any organisation in India and abroad; (i) to create higher levels of intellectual abilities; (j) to provide consultancy to industry, Government, public and private organization; (k) to create an Industry Academia partnership by inviting Industry in the University campus and other university places for mutual benefits; (l) to ensure that the standard of degrees, diplomas, certificates and other academic distinctions are not lower than those laid down by AICTE/NCTE/UGC/MCI/DEC/DCI/INC/BCI and Pharmacy Council of India; (m) to conduct examination in both ways through offline as well as online mode in India and Abroad for regular campus and distance education program; (n) to do all things necessary or expedient to promote the above objectives; (o) to impart instructions in record to a course or programme of study through one or more modes which may include distance, continuing and regular modes of teaching and learning; (p) to pursue any other objective as may be prescribed by State Government or Sponsor; and (q) Board of Governor will have the power to launch any new courses or technology which in demand or suitable as per the requirement. They may also do any kind of activity for upliftment of society. The objectives stated above require the University to ensure that the standard of degrees, diplomas, certificates and other academic distinctions are not lower than those laid down by the authorities, like AICTE, NCTE, UGC and Indian Nursing Council (INC). They may also do any kind of activity for upliftment of society. The objectives stated above require the University to ensure that the standard of degrees, diplomas, certificates and other academic distinctions are not lower than those laid down by the authorities, like AICTE, NCTE, UGC and Indian Nursing Council (INC). Section 51 thereof also mandates observations of minimum standard and any other matter concerning the private universities as per the provisions of UGC Regulation 2003, as amended from time to time and any other regulation or direction issued by UGC and Meghalaya State Government from time to time. Learned advocate Mr. Yajnik drew the attention of the Court to the Rules (at page 139) for private universities made by UGC for maintenance of standard in private universities which also inter alia provide that any private university shall fulfil the minimum criteria in terms of programs/faculties/infrastructure facilities as laid down from time to time by statutory bodies such as AICTE, INC and NCTE etc. 16. By the communication dated 6.3.2013 at Annexure-I, the Secretary of INC informed the Principal Secretary of the District Health Society and Chief Health Officer, Health Branch, District Panchayat, Bharuch that the INC has not approved Mahatma Gandhi University, Meghalaya for ANM Diploma/Female Health Worker program. Therefore, it clearly appears from this communication that Mahatma Gandhi University at Meghalaya, as not found included in Schedule of Section 10 of the Act, is not approved by INC for grant of any qualification in Female Health Worker program. In such view of the matter, it appears that the diploma certificates produced by the petitioners in Female Health Worker course cannot be said to be recognised qualification. Such unrecognized diploma qualification of the petitioners cannot get automatic recognition under Circular dated 16.1.1978 for employment in the State. There is one more reason to take a view that the petitioners are not holding recognised qualification. As found from Meghalaya Private Universities (Regulation of Establishment and Maintenance of Standards) Act, 2012, published vide notification dated 30.3.3012 in the Gazette of Meghalaya, copy whereof is placed at page 49 of Special Civil Application No.11920 of 2013, sub-section (5) of Section 3 mandates that private university shall fulfil the minimum criteria in terms of programs/faculties, etc., as laid down by UGC and other concerned statutory bodies, such as AICTE, INC, MCI, NCTE, etc. Clause (b) of Sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the said Act clearly provides that the courses of studies prescribed for a first degree and/or the postgraduate degree/diploma programs shall confirm to relevant regulations or norms of education department, Government of Meghalaya or concerned statutory bodies as amended from time to time. Therefore, when the INC has provided information that it has not approved Mahatma Gandhi University for grant of ANM diploma or Female Health Worker program, diploma in Female Health Worker certificate held by the petitioners cannot be said to be recognised qualification. It appears from the circular dated 16.1.1978 that for those degrees/diplomas awarded by any university in India incorporated by the Act of the Central Government or the State legislature, on or before the circular was issued, no formal order of recognising such degrees or diplomas was to be issued by the State Government and such degrees/diplomas were to be treated recognised automatically for the purpose of employment under the State Government and therefore, in fact, Clause (2) of the said circular provides that the orders recognising degree/diploma/certificates, etc. of any institution covered under Clause (a) of para 1 for the purpose of recruitment to the post and services should be issued in consultation with the General Administration Department and the Gujarat Public Service Commission irrespective of the fact that whether or not the post is within or outside its purview. Therefore, by this circular, the Government of Gujarat never intended that all degrees or diplomas awarded by the University of other States even after the date of the circular were to be recognised automatically for the purpose of employment in the State. Such being the position emerging from the said circular as also since diploma certificate in Female Health Worker issued to the petitioners by Mahatma Gandhi University cannot be said to be recognised qualification by the Indian Nursing Council, the petitioners cannot be said to have possessed the qualification of Female Health Workers Training course recognised by the State Government. In such view of the matter, the requirement of registration with the State Council as provided in the advertisement being part of qualification cannot be done away with. 17. At this stage, the provisions made in Sections 12, 13 and 18 of the Gujarat Nurses, Midwifes and Health Visitors Act, 1968 ('the Gujarat Act' for short) need to be referred. They read as under:- "12. 17. At this stage, the provisions made in Sections 12, 13 and 18 of the Gujarat Nurses, Midwifes and Health Visitors Act, 1968 ('the Gujarat Act' for short) need to be referred. They read as under:- "12. Maintenance of register :- The Council shall prepare and maintain a register of nurses, midwives and health visitors, in such form containing such particulars and divided into such parts and sections as may be prescribed. 13. Persons entitled to registration :- (1) Any person who has undergone such courses of training and has passed such examinations and who fulfils such other conditions as may be prescribed or any person who possesses any of the qualifications included in the Sch. to the Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947, (XL VII of 1947), shall, subject to any conditions laid down by or under the said Act, at any time on an application made in the prescribed form to the Registrar and on payment of the prescribed fee and on presentation of his degree, diploma or certificate, be entitled to have his name entered in the register. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) the name of every person which was entered in the register duly maintained under the Bombay Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act, 1954, (Bom XIV of 1954), and in force immediately before the coming into force of this Part in the Bombay area of the State of Gujarat shall, without further fee or charge be entered in the register to be prepared and maintained under this Act and continue thereon for the period for which such registration was made or renewed, as the case may be, unless removed earlier under the provisions of this Act. (3)(i) Any person who desires to be registered temporarily under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 11 of the Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947, (XLV III of 1947) shall make an application in the prescribed form to the Registrar and shall pay the prescribed fee. On receipt of such application the Registrar shall seek the approval of the President of the Council constituted under the said Act for temporary enrolment of the applicant in the register. (ii) Every person whose name is entered in the register under clause (i) shall be given a certificate of temporary registration in the prescribed form. Such certificate shall remain in force for such period as may be specified therein. (ii) Every person whose name is entered in the register under clause (i) shall be given a certificate of temporary registration in the prescribed form. Such certificate shall remain in force for such period as may be specified therein. (iii) Any person who possesses temporary registration under clause (i) shall not be eligible to stand as a candidate or to vote at any election held under this Act. 18. Persons not registered or on the list not to practise as nurse etc :- (1) No person other than a person registered under this Act or a person whose name is entered in the list shall practise or hold himself out, whether directly or by implication, as practising habitually or for personal gain as a nurse, midwife or health visitor. (2) Any person who acts in contravention of the provisions of subsection (1) shall, on conviction, be punished with which may extend to one hundred rupees for the first offence, to two hundred rupees for the second offence and to three hundred rupees for any subsequent offence. 18. From Section 13 of the Gujarat Act, it clearly appears that a person not holding the recognised qualification is not entitled for registration with State Council. Therefore, it appears that requirement for registration with State Council is provided in the advertisement to ensure that the candidates with recognised qualification can be considered eligible for the posts. Therefore, the Court is of the view that the requirement provided for registration of qualification of Female Health Workers Basic Training course with the State Council in the advertisement is neither unreasonable or contrary to the Recruitment Rules. 19. Learned senior advocate Mr. Dave, however, relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Unique Butyle Bube Industries (supra), so as to urge that when statutory Recruitment Rules do not provide for registration of Female Health Worker, by judicial interpretation, no such requirement of registration can be read in and there is no question of supplying Casus Omissus as Rules are possible to be clearly interpreted. Reliance placed on this judgment is misconceived as there is no question of interpreting the Statute and supplying Casus Omissus, as what is considered is whether the petitioners could be said to be holding recognised qualification for the posts to be filled in as per the advertisement. Mr. Reliance placed on this judgment is misconceived as there is no question of interpreting the Statute and supplying Casus Omissus, as what is considered is whether the petitioners could be said to be holding recognised qualification for the posts to be filled in as per the advertisement. Mr. Dave also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Sharma (supra), so as to urge that there is no question of complying with Regulation of UGC when the recruitment to the post is governed by the statutory Rules. This judgment will have no application to the facts of the case as the questions considered are whether in the context of INC Act, the Gujarat Act read with Recruitment Rules, the petitioners possess recognised qualification. 20. Learned advocate Mr. Yajnik, however, relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Diamond & Gem Development Corporation Limit (supra), so as to point out that the mandamus cannot be issued to create or establish right. It can only be issued to enforce legal right which is already established. Such writ is equitable in nature and its issuance is governed by equitable principles. In view of the principles settled by the Supreme Court in the said decision, since the petitioners have failed to establish that they hold qualification recognised for the posts advertised, at their instance, no mandamus could be issued to permit them to appear in interview for the posts of Female Health Worker. 21. In the case of Rajasthan Pradesh Vaidya Samiti, Sardarshahar (supra), relied on by learned advocate Mr. Yajnik, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held and observed in para 47 and 48 as under :- "47. This Court further came to the conclusion that unless the person possesses the qualification as prescribed in Schedules II, III and IV of the Act, 1970, he cannot claim any right to practise in medical science and mere registration in any State register is of no consequence. 48. In view of the above, it is evident that right to practise under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution is not absolute. By virtue of the provisions of Clause (6) to Article 19 reasonable restrictions can be imposed. 48. In view of the above, it is evident that right to practise under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution is not absolute. By virtue of the provisions of Clause (6) to Article 19 reasonable restrictions can be imposed. The Court has a duty to strike a balance between the right of a Vaidya to practise, particularly, when he does not possess the requisite qualification and the right of a "little Indian" guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution which includes the protection and safeguarding the health and life of a public at large from mal-medical treatment. An unqualified, unregistered and unauthorized medical practitioner possessing no valid qualification, degree or diploma cannot be permitted to exploit the poor Indians on the basis of a certificate granted by an institution without any enrolment of students or imparting any education or having any affiliation or recognition and that too without knowing the basic qualification of the candidates." 22. For the above settled principles of law and for the reasons stated above, the petitions are dismissed. Rule is discharged in each of the petition. 23. Since the main petitions are decided, no orders are required to be passed in the Civil Applications. The Civil Applications stand disposed of. Petitions dismissed.