JUDGMENT : Dr. D.P. Choudhury, J. - The petitioner-institution assails the inaction of the opposite parties by not allowing its students for General Nursing and Midwifery (hereinafter called 'GNM') Course 2015-16. Facts of the case : 2. The backdrop of the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner-institution applied to the State Government for grant of No Objection Certificate/Essential Certificate for opening the GNM courses. The O.P.- State Government granted Essential Certificate to the petitioner-institution vide Annexure-1. Thereafter the petitioner applied for the inspection of its institution by the O.P.No.2. Indian Nursing Council (hereinafter called INC) who made inspection and granted approval to the GNM course of the petitioner-institution and they also approved the course of studies for admission to the GNM course in accordance with the Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') vide Annexure-2. INC also published the name of the petitioner in its list of colleges to run GNM courses and permitted the petitioner-institution to admit its students for the academic year 2013-14 to the GNM course. It is alleged, inter alia, that on 21.7.2014 INCO. P.No.2 published the name of different institutions including petitioner-institution to undertake GNM courses vide Annexure-6. It is submitted by the petitioner that the Director Medical Education and Training (DMET) had also requested the Chief District Medical Officer, Malkangiri to allow for the practical training of the students of petitioner-institution vide Annexure-10. Thereafter the CDMO, Malkangiri allowed the students of petitioner-institution to undergo field training for GNM courses. The Chairman of the Orissa Nurses and Midwives Council, Bhubaneswar also vide order dated 13.1.2015 (Annexure-13) directed the CDMO, Malkangiri to allow practical GNM field training of GNM students of the petitioner-institution. It is alleged that on 19.10.2015 O.P.No.2-INC informed the O.P.No.1-State Government that it did not allow the petitioner-institute to run GNM courses during the academic year 2015-16. 3. It is stated by the petitioner that INC has found some deficiencies pertaining to the teaching faculty, clinical facilities and other infrastructure with the petitioner-institution but the petitioner complied with the same and intimated the INC accordingly. In spite of such compliance, the students of the petitioner-institution were not allowed to participate in the counselling for admission in the GNM course for the year 2015-16. In spite of such compliance, the students of the petitioner-institution were not allowed to participate in the counselling for admission in the GNM course for the year 2015-16. It is the claim of the petitioner that since there is no deficiency of the petitioner-institution for running GNM courses, such action of INC is illegal, bad in law and against all cannons of justice, fair play and equity. Hence the petitioner files this writ petition for quashing the impugned letter dated 19.10.2015 (Annexure-17) and to direct the O.Ps. to grant permanent recognition to the petitioner institution within a stipulated time. Further it is prayed by the petitioner to grant permanent recognition/affiliation within a fixed period to the petitioner institution to run GNM course. 4. The contesting opposite party no.2 filed counter affidavit stating that the writ petition is not maintainable in law being misconceived. It is further stated that the writ petition is premature because the petitioner had submitted the rectification of deficiency report dated 27.10.2015 which was received in the office of the contesting opposite party no.2 on 29.10.2015. It is the case of the contesting opposite party that after the reply of the petitioner is received, the petitioner was supposed to seek for re-inspection so that the contesting opposite party could have taken necessary steps to conduct re-inspection. Thereafter the report thereof could have been submitted to the Executive Committee of the INC to take decision thereon. It is further case of this opposite party that the INC being created under the Act, to regularise the nursing provision in the whole of India, had prescribed uniform standard in the matter of nursing training. For prescribing the uniform standard, INC has issued detailed guidelines for opening nursing institutions in the country. According to such guideline, any person desirous of opening nursing institute in the country, has to first obtain essential certificate from the State Government concerned and thereafter it has to submit the detailed proposal including the availability of teaching, clinical and infrastructure facility. For ensuring all these facilities, the periodic inspection is conducted by the inspection authority of INC. If the institution does not possess any of the facilities, then permission is not issued further to continue the courses. As the petitioner-institution has failed to rectify the above deficiencies on inspection, it is not permitted to continue GNM courses. It is prayed to dismiss the writ petition. SUBMISSIONS 5. If the institution does not possess any of the facilities, then permission is not issued further to continue the courses. As the petitioner-institution has failed to rectify the above deficiencies on inspection, it is not permitted to continue GNM courses. It is prayed to dismiss the writ petition. SUBMISSIONS 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner institution having required essential certificate/approval of the State Government, has obeyed the guidelines issued by it. As such the petitioner institution applied to the O.P.No.2 for inspection of the institution during the year 2012-13 and the students of the GNM course were admitted for the academic year 2013-14.The students were also allowed to receive the practical training in the District Headquarter Hospital at Malkangiri but for no reason INC did not permit the petitioner-institution to continue the GNM course for 2014-15. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the State Government has approved and issued essential certificate to the petitioner, there is nothing for the INC to sit over the matter for extending permission to the students of the petitioner-institution to appear in the examination in GNM courses for the year 2015-16. When the subject-matter of nursing is covered by Entry 25 of List III of VIIth Schedule of Constitution, INC being Advisory Body, as held in the recent judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2670 of 2012, disposed of on 29.01.2016, does not carry any sort of mandatory role to deny approval/recognition to the petitioner-institution to run GNM courses. 6. It is submitted that the petitioner-institution should be extended permanent recognition to run GNM course. It is further submitted that the letter dated 19.10.2015 (Annexure-17) which was issued by O.P. No.2 is illegal, unjust and the same should be set aside because the defects pointed out by the INC are not correct and the report of the petitioner-institution vide Annexure-18 should be accepted by the opposite parties. On the other hand learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the letter dated 19.10.2015 (Annexure-17) is issued without any authority and without complying with the provisions of law, for which the same has to be quashed. 7. On the other hand learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the letter dated 19.10.2015 (Annexure-17) is issued without any authority and without complying with the provisions of law, for which the same has to be quashed. 7. Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable and the permission by the INC is not granted to the petitioner-institution to run GNM courses because it has no such teaching facility and infrastructure. He further submitted that the INC being the creature of the Act, the central statute, the State law being subject to the central legislation, the central legislation becomes supreme. According to him, the statutory requirement under the Act having not been fulfilled, O.P. No.2 rightly issued letter indicating grant of no recognition to the petitioner institution to run GNM courses. He further submitted that in spite of letter, petitioner did not deposit the re-inspection fee for which vide letter dated 19.10.2015 (Annexure-17), O.P. No.2 did not proceed for re-inspection to the petitioner-institution and directed not to allow students of the petitioner institution, to continue GNM courses. He submitted to dismiss the writ petition. Points for discussion : 8. The points for consideration are : I. Whether the letter dated 19.10.2015 issued by the INC-O.P. No.2 is liable to be quashed ? II. Whether the permanent recognition of the petitioner-institution can be granted by the O.P.No.2-INC ? Point No.I 9. It is not disputed that the petitioner-institution has applied for opening of GNM course in the year 2008-09 and in fact vide Annexure-1 the State Government issued one essential certificate in favour of the petitioner institution for opening of GNM course from the year 2008-09 with conditions that it has to obtain approval of the INC and affiliation of State Council before admission of students during the year 2008-09. The contesting O.P.No.2 also did not deny about approval of INC to conduct the GNM course by the petitioner-institution with the intake of 30 seats. It is also not disputed that the petitioner-institution admitted students in the institution for the academic years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 and gave practical training in the district headquarters hospital, Malkangiri during the year 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 and its name has been published by the INC to have got recognition to run GNM course. It is also not disputed that the petitioner-institution admitted students in the institution for the academic years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 and gave practical training in the district headquarters hospital, Malkangiri during the year 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 and its name has been published by the INC to have got recognition to run GNM course. But it is revealed from Annexures-13 to 15 that the petitioner-institution was only granted provisional recognition for GNM courses for the session 2014-15 and for earlier years. On the other hand it is not disputed that the petitioner-institution has got approval of the INC, State Nursing and Midwifery Council and State Nursing and Midwives Examination Board to admit students and conduct their examination for GNM course purportedly for giving training in GNM courses for the said years. 10. Letter of INC-O.P. no.2 under Annexure-17, impugned herein, shows that the INC has conveyed the State Health & Family Welfare Department and the Registrar, Orissa Nursing & Midwives Council about its refusal to petitioner-institution to admit students during the year 2015-16 in the following manner : "F.No. 18-24/5432-INC Date 19 Oct 2015 Name of the Institution : Satyanarayan Gnm Training College At-Sambayaguda, PO-Malkangiri, Malkangiri-764045, Orissa Programme : GNM School Code : 2402055 Date of Inspection : 10-11/09/2015 Deficiencies : 1. Teaching Faculty Inadequate :- (a) Mrs. Rismarani Dash and Mrs. Sebotileelabilug was on Maternity Leave. Please give the evidence with regard to the medical maternity leave. (b) Only 3(three) faculty were shown during last inspection and now it is shown that many faculty are recruited in the year 2014-15. 2. Clinical Facilities Inadequate:- (a) Government District Head Quarter's Hospital is already affiliated to many nursing institutions. (b) The facilities provided to the students during the psychiatric clinical experience shall be submitted. 3. The institution has rented building. However, in the last inspection report it was shown that institution proposed to shift the building to another building. Please submit the explanation that it along with documentary proof by a registered evaluator/surveyor with regard to the status of the building. Sd/- SECRETARY" With regard to the deficiencies, the petitioner-institution wrote compliance letter to the INC clarifying all the deficiencies vide Annexure-18. 11. Please submit the explanation that it along with documentary proof by a registered evaluator/surveyor with regard to the status of the building. Sd/- SECRETARY" With regard to the deficiencies, the petitioner-institution wrote compliance letter to the INC clarifying all the deficiencies vide Annexure-18. 11. From the deficiencies as pointed above, it appears that the inspection team of INC found no adequate teaching and clinical facility, the institution is found running in a rented building and has no documentary proof as to the status of the building. It is revealed from Annexure-18 that prior to this inspection, there was inspection of the INC to the petitioner-institution and such fact is also confirmed by the letter dated 23.11.2012 by the INC vide Annexure-2. Only due to satisfaction on the inspection, the name of the petitioner-institution was got listed in the website of the INC vide Annexures- 2 to 7 for the years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. If there was no deficiency with regard to the faculty members, clinical establishment and infrastructure when it was started, it is not understood as to how in the present, INC found such deficiencies resulting refusal of permanent recognition to the petitioner-institution. Moreover, on going through the inspection report, it appears that the teaching faculty was found to be three in earlier inspection but now many faculty were recruited during the year 2014- 15. It is not understood as to how the inadequate faculty members are there when good number of faculty members are available on inspection in earlier inspection. Moreover, the inspection team has desired to see the evidence with regard to the medical, maternity leave of two faculty members. Now the question arises whether the INC is required to call for the evidence of such nature. So far as clinical facility is concerned, it appears from the inspection note that the headquarter hospital has been already affiliated to many nursing institutions including present petitioner-institution as per the documents filed by the petitioner but not disputed by the contesting opposite party. So the clinical facilities cannot be said to inadequate. Apart from this, about the lack of residential building of the petitioner-institution, there is nothing from inspection report as to what the deficiencies are there in the present building. Thus the purported inspection report is found to be cryptic and not adequate enough to refuse recognition. So the clinical facilities cannot be said to inadequate. Apart from this, about the lack of residential building of the petitioner-institution, there is nothing from inspection report as to what the deficiencies are there in the present building. Thus the purported inspection report is found to be cryptic and not adequate enough to refuse recognition. As per submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, the deficiency pointed out by the petitioner have been clarified by Annexure-18. When the petitioner-institution has submitted explanation showing the presence of 12 nos. of teaching staff and petitioner-institution imparting practical training to its students in the District Headquarter Hospital, Malkangiri and also with permission to impart training to the students at Seven Heels Hospital, Vishakhapatnam and Neuro Psychiatric Clinic at Raipur, it sufficiently complies. The fact that the petitioner institution was continuing in rented building and being shifted to a larger building adjacent to the previous building, the question of change of address becomes irrelevant and as such the petitioner-institution has no fault. When the explanation given by the petitioner-institution is found to be satisfactory on the inspection report, INC ought to have examined the explanation instead of going for re-inspection. Further the question arises whether INC is competent to make re-inspection for granting permanent recognition to the petitioner-institution under law. 12. This Court in W.P.(C) No. 2670 of 2012 disposed of on 29.1.2016 observed as under : "36. It is admitted fact that subject of Nursing Education being the subject of education under Entry 25 of concurrent list and at the same time the expression "co-ordination" used in entry 66 of List I-Union List of the VIIth Schedule to the Constitution, it does not mean they overlap each other. It means harmonization of two with a view to forge a uniform pattern for concerted action according to a certain design, scheme or plan of the development. In this regard reliance can be placed upon the decision in Dr. Preeti Srivastava and another v. State of M.P. and others reported in 1999 (7) SCC 120 . "Both the Union as well as the States have the power to legislate on education including medical education, subject, inter alia, to Entry 66 of List I which deals with laying down standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions as also coordination of such standards. "Both the Union as well as the States have the power to legislate on education including medical education, subject, inter alia, to Entry 66 of List I which deals with laying down standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions as also coordination of such standards. A State has, therefore, the right to control education including medical education so long as the field is not occupied by any Union legislation. Secondly, the State cannot, while controlling education in the State, impinge on standards in institutions for higher education. Because this is exclusively within the purview of the Union Government. Therefore, while prescribing the criteria for admission to the institutions for higher education including higher medical education, the State cannot adversely affect the standards laid down by the Union of India under Entry 66 of List I. Secondly, while considering the cases on the subject it is also necessary to remember that from 1977, education, including, inter alia, medical and university education, is now in the Concurrent List so that the Union can legislate on admission criteria also. If it does so, the State will not be able to legislate in this field, except as provided in Article 254. It would not be correct to say that the norms for admission have no connection with the standard of education, or that the rules for admission are covered only by Entry 25 of List III. Norms of admission can have a direct impact on the standards of education. Of course, there can be rules for admission which are consistent with or do not affect adversely the standards of education prescribed by the Union in exercise of powers under Entry 66 of List I. For example, a State may, for admission to the postgraduate medical courses, lay down qualifications in addition to those prescribed under Entry 66 of List I. This would be consistent with promoting higher standards for admission to the higher educational courses. But any lowering of the norms laid down can and does have an adverse effect on the standards of education in the institutes of higher education........."[p-154]. 37. But any lowering of the norms laid down can and does have an adverse effect on the standards of education in the institutes of higher education........."[p-154]. 37. It is also reported in R. Chitralekha and another v. State of Mysore, and others, reported in AIR 1964 SC 1823 where Their Lordships observed : Does the judgment mean that it has to be ascertained in each case whether the impact of the State law providing for such standards is so great on Entry 66 of List I as to abridge appreciably the central field? Or, does it not follow from the judgment that if a State Legislature has made a law prescribing a different, even higher, percentage of marks or prescribing marks for extra curricular activities, it would be directly encroaching on the field covered by Entry 66 of List I ? The majority judgment after saying what has been quoted above proceeds thus: "Though the powers of the Union and the State are in the exclusive lists, a degree of overlapping is inevitable. It is not possible to lay down any general test which would afford a solution for every question which might arise on this head. On the one head, it is certainly within the province of the State Legislature to prescribe syllabi and courses of study and of course to indicate the medium or media of instruction. On the other hand, it is also within the power of the Union to legislate in respect of media of instruction so as to ensure coordination and determination of standards, that is, to ensure maintenance or improvement of standards. The fact that the Union has not legislated, or refrained from legislating to the full extent of its powers does not invest the State with the power to legislate in respect of a matter assigned by the Constitution to the Union. It does not, however, follow that even within the permitted relative fields there might not be legislative provisions in enactments made each in pursuance of separate exclusive and distinct powers which may conflict. Then would arise the question of repugnancy and paramountcy which may have to be resolved on the application of the 'doctrine of pith and substance' of the impugned enactment? Then would arise the question of repugnancy and paramountcy which may have to be resolved on the application of the 'doctrine of pith and substance' of the impugned enactment? the validity of State Legislation would depend upon whether it pre-judicially affects coordination and determination of standards, but not upon the existence of some definite Union legislation directed to achieve that purpose." (p.716). 38. Not only this but also in Civil Appeal (civil) 1626-1628 of 2004 (State of Tamil Nadu and another v. Bratheep (Minor) and others) disposed of on 16.3.2004, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also followed the decision of Dr. Preeti Srivastava (supra) and Their Lordships observed as under : Entry 25 of List III and Entry 66 of List I have to be read together and it cannot be read in such a manner as to from an exclusivity in the matter of admission but if certain prescription of standards have been made pursuant to Entry 66 of List I, then those standards will prevail over the standards fixed by the State in exercise of powers under Entry 25 of List III insofar as they adversely affect the standards-laid down by the Union of India or any other authority functioning under it. Therefore, what is to be seen in the present case is whether the prescription of the standards made by the State Government is in any way adverse to, or lower than, the standards fixed by the AICTE. It is no doubt true that the AICTE prescribed two modes of admission - One is merely dependent on the qualifying examination and the other dependent upon the marks obtained at the Common Entrance Test. The appellant in the present case prescribed the qualification of having secured certain percentage of marks in the related subjects which is higher than the minimum in the qualifying examination in order to be eligible for admission. If higher minimum is prescribed by the State Government than what had been prescribed by the AICTE, can it be said that it is in any manner adverse to the standards fixed by the AICTE or reduces the standard fixed by it? In our opinion, it does not. If higher minimum is prescribed by the State Government than what had been prescribed by the AICTE, can it be said that it is in any manner adverse to the standards fixed by the AICTE or reduces the standard fixed by it? In our opinion, it does not. On the other hand, if we proceed on the basis that the norms fixed by the AICTE would allow admission only on the basis of the marks obtained in the qualifying examination the additional test made applicable is the common entrance test by the State Government. 39. With due respect to the aforesaid authorities, we are of the considered view that the education being in the concurrent list, the Nursing education can be considered in the entry 25 of the said List and at the same time, coordination and determination of standard in institution for higher education for research and scientific education enters under entry 66 of List I. In fact after going through the Act and Act, 1938 read with Rules, 1958, we are of the considered view that the Central Government in order to maintain uniform standard of Nursing education, has to only decide the qualification and for that purpose can inspect any institution and can devolve any sort of examination, curriculum and State being the authority of education has to apply the same by enacting the provision of law keeping the standard as advised by the Act so that uniformity can be maintained throughout the country. The State Government cannot make out any sort of standard of curriculum or attending of examination or any sort of manner of training below the standards prescribed by the Act. After discussion in the aforesaid paras, we are of the considered view that there is no conflict between the two legislations inasmuch as it is clear that the Act explicitly declares power of INC so far as declaration of qualification concerned but the recognition of institution, holding of examination, inspection and manner of training are all prescribed by the Act, 1938 read with Rules, 1958. The guidelines in the statutory provisions as discussed above. Hence it is the State Government to extend permanent recognition to the petitioner-institution for imparting training in ANM courses but not the INC. Point No.I is answered accordingly. XX XX XX XX 42. The guidelines in the statutory provisions as discussed above. Hence it is the State Government to extend permanent recognition to the petitioner-institution for imparting training in ANM courses but not the INC. Point No.I is answered accordingly. XX XX XX XX 42. In view of aforesaid analysis and the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, we are of the considered view that the petitioner institution is entitled to receive permanent recognition to run ANM courses from 2006-07. It is revealed from the petition and the counter of the contesting opposite parties that the inspection by State authority and INC has already been made, the petitioner has already been allowed to carry on the training of the students in 2007-08 after obtaining approval w.e.f. 2006-07 as per Annexure-3 but the students are not allowed to appear in the examination. Since the decision in Writ Appeal No.40 of 2011 is not applicable to the facts of the case and finding that INC has no role except advisory one, the students of the petitioner-institution should be allowed to appear in the examination held by Orissa Nursing and Midwifery Board and in the event of passing of the same, they should be awarded certificates in ANM courses without being influenced by the guidelines of the Central or State Governments already issued illegally, as held in the aforesaid para within a period of two months from today. So far as declaration of institution of O.Ps.6-21 cannot be declared void as they have got recognition of the State Government bereft of approval of INC. We, therefore, direct O.Ps. to extend permanent recognition/affiliation to the petitioner-institution w.e.f. 2006-07 to run ANM Training Courses, allow students of petitioner-institution to appear examination and on passing out, issue certificates as per uniform standard prescribed by the INC." 13. This Court has taken above view purportedly following the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the above case, the same question arises whether permanent recognition of ANM courses started by the petitioner in that case, can be extended by INC or State Government and it has been clearly mentioned that the State Government is to extend permanent recognition to the petitioner-institution to run the course and conduct examination through the competent authority as per the standard prescribed by the INC because INC is the body under the Act which has only advisory role. It is, therefore, found that the letter vide Annexure-17 of the INC to the Secretary to the State Government in Health & Family Welfare Department and the Registrar, Orissa Nursing and Midwives Council, is not legal, rather it is an encroachment to the power of the State Government and at the same time the letter dated 19.10.2015 vide Annexure-17 being not in consonance with law and the facts, cannot transgress the State Act, namely Orissa Nurses and Midwives Registration Act, 1938 and Orissa Nurses and Midwives Examination Board Rules, 1958 on the subject which have been well discussed in the above judgment of this Court. 14. Taking the above discussion into consideration, we are of the considered view that the letter dated 19.10.2011 (Annexure-17) issued by the INC to the State Government denying the permission to start GNM course by the petitioner, is wholly illegal and improper for which cannot be sustained in law. Point no.I is answered accordingly. Point No.II 15. It is already discussed in the aforesaid para that INC is a creature of the Act and entire provisions thereunder only stated that in order to maintain the uniform standard of nursing, INC can inspect any institution and give the copy thereof to the State Government showing the deficiencies of the concerned institution being in the role of Advisory, but cannot ask the State Government to stop recognition. INC can advise the State Government to ask the institution for removal of defects. Apparently when there is no detailed inspection report and the INC has started to throw squabble to the petitioner-institution which is beyond the purview of the statute, such direction by Annexure-17 being held illegal as per the above paragraph, the State Government is the competent authority to extend permanent recognition, of course, with the standard prescribed by the INC. At any rate, INC is not competent to extend permanent recognition to the petitioner institution. Point No.II is answered accordingly. CONCLUSION 16. In the long run, we are of the view that the impugned letter dated 19.10.2015 being illegal, unjust is liable to be quashed and at the same time petitioner is entitled to get the permanent recognition. At any rate, INC is not competent to extend permanent recognition to the petitioner institution. Point No.II is answered accordingly. CONCLUSION 16. In the long run, we are of the view that the impugned letter dated 19.10.2015 being illegal, unjust is liable to be quashed and at the same time petitioner is entitled to get the permanent recognition. We, therefore, direct O.Ps.1, 3 to 6 to extend permanent recognition/approval to petitioner institution to run GNM courses from the year 2015-16, admit students to appear examination and distribute certificates to pass out students under the uniform standard prescribed by INC.The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Final Result : Disposed Off