JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. By the medium of this writ petition, petitioner has questioned the approval granted to respondent No.7 for starting GNM/BSc (N) course in private sector on the ground that the said institute does not fall in the area notified in the advertisement. The facts lie in a narrow compass. 2. The official respondents vide advertisement dated 22.10.2013 decided to call EOI’s from the desirous parties for the establishment of GNM/B.Sc (N) Institution(s) under preferred location in private sector as under:- Sr.No. Preferred location Name of course & No. of seats GNM B.Sc.(Nursing) 1. Rohru 40 - 2. Sarkaghat 40 - 3. Mandi 40 20 4. Jogindernagar - 40 5. Sundernagar 40 - 6. Chamba - 40 The petitioner as also respondent No.7 alongwith two other applicants applied for the preferred location ‘Mandi’ and ultimately the essentiality and feasibility certificate/NOC was granted in favour of respondent No.7. 3. The petitioner has assailed this approval on the ground that respondent No. 7 does not fall within the preferred location ‘Mandi’ as its institute is not only situate at a distance of more than 30 Kms but that apart the institute is located in a different Tehsil, thus, making respondent No.7 ineligible. It is also averred that in terms of the notification dated 28.8.2008, the sub divisional level inspection was to be conducted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate of the concerned area being the Chairman which essentially meant that it was the SDM, Mandi, who was required to carry out such inspection whereas in the instant case, SDM, Mandi vide his letter dated 3.12.2013 refused to carry out the inspection as respondent No.7 institute did not fall within his jurisdiction and thereafter it was the SDM, Chachoit at Gohar who carried out the inspection as the institute of respondent No.7 fell within his territorial jurisdiction. 4. The official respondents have opposed the petition by filing reply and have submitted that the government had notified Mandi for opening of one GNM School and one B.Sc Nursing college and all the four applicants including respondent No. 7 who applied were having the proposed institutions within the distance of 30 Kms from the preferred location and were therefore, considered for evaluation. All the applicants fulfilled the first stage criteria as approved by the government and were thereafter considered for the next stage of evaluation, wherein the evaluation criteria is on the basis of ‘those who own their own land, ‘those who have their own building on the said land’ and ‘preference to those who have building where no other educational institution is running. 5. As per the inspection report, the proposed area and the building shown to be used for establishment of nursing institute of one of the applicant namely Vidyarthi Kalyan Shiksha Samiti was not considered to be eligible as it was not partitioned while the cases of remaining three applicants were considered for next stage of evaluation which pertain to ‘preference to those who have own building with proper space for use as per Indian Nursing Council (for short the ‘INC’) requirements. Since none of the applicants owned adequate space as per INC requirements, the evaluation committee adopted a criteria for ranking all the applicants based upon the parameters approved by the government and Indian Nursing Council norms and on the basis of said criteria, the evaluation of the petitioner, respondent No. 7 and the other applicants was as follows:- Name of applying trust/society/ organization Course applied Parameters for evaluation adopted by the committee Total Points awarded Land Constructed area Total Land Points awarded Total constructed area points awarded 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 1.Abhilashi Educational Society, Nerchowk, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi. Open Education Development Research Welfare Society, Shimla GNM+ B.Sc (N) 4 20 61360 20 40 2. Jagriti College of Nursing (Jagriti Associates), Vill. Nalasar, PO Rajgarh, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, HP. GNM+ B.Sc (N) 2.5 17 2538 2 19 3. Himachal Education Society, Paddal Town, Mandi GNM+ B.Sc (N) 5 20 1023 2 22 6. It was further averred that although no distance criteria had been applied for ranking the applicants with regard to preferred locations as advertised, the distance of the applicant’s location from preferred location ‘Mandi’ as reported by the sub divisional level committee was as follows:- Sr. No. Name of Applying Trust /Society/Organization Distance of proposed institution from the preferred location (in Km) 1 2 3 1. 1. Abhilashi Educational Society, Nerchowk, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi. Open Education Development Research Welfare Society, Shimla 28 2. Jagriti College of Nursing (Jagriti Associates), Vill Nalasar, PO Rajgarh, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, HP 2 3. No. Name of Applying Trust /Society/Organization Distance of proposed institution from the preferred location (in Km) 1 2 3 1. 1. Abhilashi Educational Society, Nerchowk, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi. Open Education Development Research Welfare Society, Shimla 28 2. Jagriti College of Nursing (Jagriti Associates), Vill Nalasar, PO Rajgarh, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, HP 2 3. Himachal Education Society, Paddal Town, Mandi 2 7. It is thereafter averred that the distance of the proposed institution as per INC norms should be 30 Kms and respondent No.7 duly qualified for the same since its institution as per report of the sub divisional level committee was located at a distance of 28 Kms from the affiliated hospital. It is also averred that as against the constructed area of 61360 sq. ft. of respondent No.7, petitioner only had a constructed area of 1023 sq. ft. Lastly, it was pointed out that the recommendations of the evaluation committee were accepted by the respondent State during Cabinet meeting held on 10.2.2014 and thereafter the government decided to grant the essentiality and feasibility/NOC to run GNM/B.Sc Nursing courses in favour of respondent No.7. 8. Respondent No.7, on the other hand, has filed a separate reply and has tried to justify the grant of essentiality certificate in its favour by contending that in response to the advertisement the replying respondent had clearly stated that he intended to open a Nursing School, Naugrawn (Chail-Chowk), Tehsil Chachiot, District Mandi, H.P. which was at a distance of less than 30 Kms from the affiliated/attached hospital. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. 9. At the outset, it may be observed that even as per the case set up by the petitioner, the proposed institution in terms of the guidelines of the Nursing Council of India is required to be situated within the radius of 15-30 Kms. 9. At the outset, it may be observed that even as per the case set up by the petitioner, the proposed institution in terms of the guidelines of the Nursing Council of India is required to be situated within the radius of 15-30 Kms. from the affiliated hospital as would be clear from the averments made in para - 9 of the petition, the relevant portion whereof reads as follows:- “9……It is not out of place to mention here that as per the guidelines of the Nursing Council of India the Institution should be within radius of 15-30 Kms and as the purpose of mentioning the distance may be to provide the better and safe training to the girl students as such the shortest distance should have been preferred whereas, the respondent-Institution is situated at another place which is more than 30 Kms from the preferred location and the institution of petitioner-Society is situated 2 kms which surrounding the Mandi City…” 10. The grievance of the petitioner is primarily two fold. Firstly, that the institution of respondent No.7 is located at a distance of more than 30 kms. i.e. 31.235 km. and secondly, that the respondent No.7 institution is not even located in Mandi Town or even Tehsil Mandi, rather the same is situated Nawgrawn (Chail Chowk), Sub Division Chachiot, that too, in Tehsil Gohar, District Mandi and was thus ineligible for even consideration much less being granted the essentiality certificate/NOC etc. 11. According to the petitioner, the identification of the places where the institutions were to be opened was not an empty formality as there was a conscious decision to this effect and that is why despite four out of six preferred locations being in District Mandi, they were identified by their names and find mention as such i.e. Sarkaghat, Mandi, Jogindernagar and Sundernagar. If it was not so, then conveniently the name of Tehsil or District alone could have been sufficient rather than giving the specific name of preferred location. Therefore, in such circumstances, it was required to be ensured that the petitioner-institute is situate within the preferred location itself and if not then atleast in the same Tehsil, whereas the respondent No.7- institute admittedly falls in Tehsil Gohar and was thus not eligible for being considered much less being granted approval to establish the institute. 12. On the other hand, learned Advocate General as also Mr. 12. On the other hand, learned Advocate General as also Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate appearing for the respondents have vehemently argued that the preferred locations as notified in the advertisement were only for the purpose of identification and had to be considered bearing in mind the location of the Government hospital to which the institution was required to be attached. The dominant object of starting these courses in the private institute according to them was to attach these institutions with the government hospital at the preferred location and according approval for the same was to ensure that only the institution which is finally approved should apart from meeting the distance criteria should also meet with the basic infrastructural requirements. 13. Before we proceed any further, it is necessary that we set out the details of the infrastructure available with both the petitioner as well as respondent No.7, which are as follows:- “a) Physical facilities (GNM): Sr. No. Particulars INC Norms (area in Sq. ft.) Petitioner Existing at the time of inspection Respondent No. 7. Existing at the time of inspection 1. Total Built up area (60 students) 54,470 61360 sq. ft. (i) Constructed area for teaching block 23,720 28206 sq. ft. a) Lecture Hall (4 Nos.) @ 1080 sq.ft. = 4320 1023 sq.ft. Lect hall=2 1102 sq. ft. lect. Hall 2= 720 sq. ft. Total= 1822 x 2 = 3644 sq. ft. b) Fundamental of Nursing 1500 sq. - 1560 sq. ft c) CHN 900 - 912 sq. ft d) Nutrition 900 - 1320 sq. ft. e) OBG 900 - 1080 sq. ft f) Computer Lab 1500 - 1610 sq. ft g) Multipurpose Hall 3000 - 3000 sq. ft h) Common Room 2000 - 2403 sq. ft. i) Staff Room 1000 - 1197 sq. ft. j) Principal Room 300 324 sq. ft. 360 sq. ft. K) Vice-Principal. 200 - 360 sq. ft l) Library 2400 - 1216 sq. ft. m) A.V. Aids Room 600 - 720 sq, ft. n) One room for each HOD 800 - 851 sq. ft o) Faculty Room 2400 - 1311 sq. ft. p) Provision for toilets 1000 - 1000 sq. ft. Other circulation area - 5626 sq. ft. ii) Constructed Area for hostel block 30,750 Sq. ft. - 33154 sq. ft. a) Single Room 2400 - 25134 sq. ft. n) One room for each HOD 800 - 851 sq. ft o) Faculty Room 2400 - 1311 sq. ft. p) Provision for toilets 1000 - 1000 sq. ft. Other circulation area - 5626 sq. ft. ii) Constructed Area for hostel block 30,750 Sq. ft. - 33154 sq. ft. a) Single Room 2400 - 25134 sq. ft. b) Double Room - - - c) Sanitary (One latrine & one bathroom for 5 students) 500 - 1620 sq. ft d) Visitor Room 500 - 1000 sq. ft. e) Reading Room 250 - 500 sq. ft. f) Store Room 500 - 1000 sq. ft. g) Re-creation Room 500 - 1000 sq. ft. h) Dining Hall 500 - 1200 sq. ft. i) Kitchen & Store 1500 - 1700 sq. ft. b) Office Requirement: Sr. No. Particulars INC Norms Petitioner Existing at the time of inspection Respondent No. 7 Existing at the time of inspection 1. Principal’s office Separate Office with attach toilet at provision for visitors room independent telephone and intercom facilities connected with hospital and hostel Yes Yes Available with all amenities 2. Office for Vice- Principal Separate Office with attach toilet at provision for visitors room independent telephone and intercom facilities connected with hospital and hostel - Yes, available with all facilities. 3. Common Room A minimum three common rooms No Three common rooms available 4. Record Room No Yes, available 5. Other facilities Safe drinking water adequate sanitary/toilet facilities, separately for male and female Yes Drinking electricity, Sanitary/toilets facilities (male and female) available. 6. Garage No Yes available 7. Fire Extinguishers Yes Yes Available 8. Playground Yes Yes Available 14. It is evident from the above that the petitioner in comparison to respondent No. 7 has relatively less infrastructure and that is the precise reason that as against 40 points awarded to respondent No. 7, the evaluation committee awarded only 22 points to the petitioner in its report as referred to in para 5 supra. Notably, the award of points save and except insofar as they relate to the distance of respondent No.7 institute has not been assailed. 15. Nurses play a very important role in the field of health care. From helping patients with basic hygienic tasks to assisting in surgery, nurses are trained and educated to help patients to the best of their ability. Nurses pursue a very responsible job that is a branch of health care. 15. Nurses play a very important role in the field of health care. From helping patients with basic hygienic tasks to assisting in surgery, nurses are trained and educated to help patients to the best of their ability. Nurses pursue a very responsible job that is a branch of health care. Other branches include, for example, the care of elderly persons or children. Nurses care for, treat and look after sick people all around the clock and they watch after patients physical and mental condition. In addition to personal care and movement of patients the administration of medication and assistance with medical examinations and surgical procedures belong to their tasks. They also use and monitor medical devices. Nurses even advise patients and their families about caring after the time in the hospital. Planning of care measures, organizational and administrative work and care documentation are also parts of their daily work. 16. It has repeatedly been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that private institutions cannot be permitted to have educational shops in the country and it is for this reason that there are statutory prohibitions for establishing and administering the educational institutions without prior permission or approval of the concerned authority. 17. Education has never been commerce in this country. Making it one is opposed to the ethos, tradition and sensibilities of this nation. The argument to the contrary has an unholy ring to it. Imparting of education has never been treated as a trade or business in this country since times immemorial. It has been treated as a religious duty. It has been treated as a charitable activity. But never as trade or business. (Refer: Unni Krishnan, J.P. and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, AIR 1993 SC 2178 ). 18. Earlier to this, a three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale (1992) 4 SCC 435 observed “slackening the standard and judicial fiat to control the mode of education and examining system are detrimental to the efficient management of the education.” 19. 18. Earlier to this, a three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale (1992) 4 SCC 435 observed “slackening the standard and judicial fiat to control the mode of education and examining system are detrimental to the efficient management of the education.” 19. In this background, the further question which arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioner, who lacks even the basic infrastructure to start any institution and can offer an accommodation which is hardly sufficient to be let out to a middle class family for residential purposes can be permitted to question the grant of essentiality certificate in favour of respondent No.7, that too, on mere technicalities. 20. Even if it is assumed that respondent No.7 institute is at a distance of 31.235 km from the preferred location as against the prescribed distance of 30 Kms., we would still not like to interfere, because of the peculiar facts of this case. Reason being that the petitioner, who does not even possess the basic infrastructure cannot be permitted to question the essentiality certificate granted in favour of respondent No. 7. At this stage, it may be clarified that insofar as the official respondents are concerned, they have categorically stated on affidavit that the distance of the institute of respondent No. 7 from the preferred location is 28 Kms. and we see no reason to disbelieve the same. 21. Coming to the other contention regarding preferred location being District Mandi, whereas the institute being situated in Tehsil Gohar, suffice it to say that in case the distance of the proposed institution is within radius of 30 Kms from the prescribed location, therefore even if the institute is located in a different Tehsil, but within the same district, we in absence of bias or malafide find no irregularity or illegality in the same. 22. That apart, this Court is not oblivious to the fact that in a State like Himachal Pradesh, such problems because of its terrain, topography and lack of availability of such a huge space in and around or adjoining the urban/semi urban areas are not uncommon. It is not in dispute that even Tehsil Chachiot is an integral part of District Mandi and as observed earlier, the distance of the proposed institute from the preferred location falls within the prescribed norms. 23. It is not in dispute that even Tehsil Chachiot is an integral part of District Mandi and as observed earlier, the distance of the proposed institute from the preferred location falls within the prescribed norms. 23. The underlying object of opening nursing institute is to impart knowledge and training to the students which in absence of requisite infrastructure cannot be imparted. Since the petitioner lacks the basic infrastructure for opening a GNM/ B.Sc. (Nursing) Institute, it cannot be permitted to challenge and assail the essentiality certificate granted in favour of respondent No.7 on technical grounds, more particularly, when the respondent No.7 complies with and fulfills majority of the requirements as are required for the opening of GNM/B.Sc. (Nursing) Institute. 24. Having said so, we find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed alongwith pending application(s), leaving the parties to bear their costs.