JUDGMENT : 1. These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been preferred claiming the following reliefs : “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:- (i) The record of the case may kindly be called for; (ii) The order dated 09.03.2023 (Annexure-10) may be quashed and set aside. (iii) The respondent authorities may be directed to include the name of the petitioner institution in the list of eligible institutions for the purpose of counseling and other consequential benefits. (iv) The students admitted in the petitioner institution may be regularized at par to other students. (v) Cost of litigation and damages may also be allowed in favour of the petitioner. (vi) Any other appropriate writ or order or direction which is favorable to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted to the petitioner.” 2. For the purpose of the present adjudication, the factual matrix is being taken from the above-numbered WP No.7592/2023. 2.1. The petitioner-Institution is a private Nursing Training Institution established for imparting training in the Subject of Nursing and Midwifery. 2.2. After submission of the application for the purpose of issuance of the No Objection Certificate (NOC), the same was granted to the petitioner-Institution vide certificate 25.01.2010 a No Objection Certificate was issued by the State Government for opening of a new B.Sc. Nursing College with intake capacity of 40 seats. Subsequently, the Indian Nursing Council (INC) as well as the Rajasthan Nursing Council (RNC) granted recognition to the petitioner-Institution for conducting the aforementioned Course. 2.3. However, pursuant to a complaint filed by one Sumit Kumavat, an inspection of the petitioner-Institution was conducted at the behest of respondent no.2 and the inspection report was forwarded to respondent no.1, wherein certain recommendations were made. Thereafter, another team – Screening Committee was constituted by respondent no.2 to examine recommendations of inspector, and after examining the same, certain deficiencies were pointed out in the functioning of the petitioner-Institution. 2.3.1. Based on the observations of the Screening Committee, vide order 09.03.2023, passed by the respondent-State Government, a ban was imposed upon the petitioner-Institution (WP No.7592/2023) in regard to admission of students for B.Sc. Nursing Course; and upon the petitioner-Institution (WP No.7617/2023) in regard to admission of students for G.N.M., B.Sc. Nursing and Post Basic B.Sc. 2.3.1. Based on the observations of the Screening Committee, vide order 09.03.2023, passed by the respondent-State Government, a ban was imposed upon the petitioner-Institution (WP No.7592/2023) in regard to admission of students for B.Sc. Nursing Course; and upon the petitioner-Institution (WP No.7617/2023) in regard to admission of students for G.N.M., B.Sc. Nursing and Post Basic B.Sc. Nursing Courses, till further orders. Aggrieved aggrieved by the impugned action on the part of the respondents, the present petitions have been preferred claiming the following reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that representations were preferred by the petitioners before the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Department, Government of Rajasthan on 05.05.2023 along with all necessary documentation as proof and compliance of the norms; however the required action was not taken, in pursuance of such representations. 3.1. It was further submitted that the impugned order caused irreparable loss, as the name of the petitioners-Institutions stood removed from the list of eligible institutions for grant of affiliation/recognition for the Courses in question. 3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioners-Institutions commenced their courses from the year 2010, and thus, the latest norms laid down by the Indian Nursing Council which were formulated in the year 2021, cannot have retrospective effect qua the petitioners-Institution, but are to be applied only to the new institutions, established thereafter. 3.3. It was further submitted that there is no provision in the Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947 empowering the Council to grant permission on year to year basis, and if permission by the Council has been granted, then affiliation can only be withdrawn by following the procedure, for withdrawal as laid down under the Indian Nursing Council, 1947. In furtherance, it was submitted that the Screening Committee had no power to analyse the working of any Nursing Institution; however in the present case, the Committee had given its analysis on the basis of the inspection report even though the same had been positive and in the favour of the petitioners. 4. In furtherance, it was submitted that the Screening Committee had no power to analyse the working of any Nursing Institution; however in the present case, the Committee had given its analysis on the basis of the inspection report even though the same had been positive and in the favour of the petitioners. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the impugned order was passed on the basis of the deficiencies as pointed out by the Screening Committee qua the functioning of the petitioner-institutions, and thus, such functioning of the petitioners-Institutions runs contrary to the norms as laid down by the Indian Nursing Council. 4.1. In furtherance, it was submitted that the lands of the petitioner-Institutions have, in their functioning, committed various irregularities, and that, their functioning suffer from various deficiencies, which are clearly not permissible as per the norms laid down by the Indian Nursing Council. Thus, as per learned counsel, due to such deficiencies and irregularities on the part of the petitioners-Institutions, the impugned order of imposing the ban in question upon them is valid and justified in law. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 6. This Court observes that the petitioner-Institutions are Nursing Training Institutions for imparting training in the Subject of Nursing and Midwifery and had been granted the NOC by the State Government along with other requisites. An inspection of the premises of the petitioners-Institutions were conducted on the complaint of a private person and vide the impugned order 09.03.2023, the impugned ban was imposed on the petitioners-Institutions from taking admission of students for the aforementioned Courses, till further orders. Aggrieved of the said impugned action, the present petitions have been prefererd. 7. This Court further observes that the first deficiency pointed out by the Screening Committee was that the Institution (Gayatri Vidyapeeth, Jaipur) is offering B.Sc. Nursing Courses through two Nursing Institutions (the present petitioners) within one city, which is impermissible as per the norms of Indian Nursing Council. 7.1. Secondly, the land of the institutions were not converted for institutional and educational purposes as per the requisite norms; instead, the petitioner-Shri Ram College of Nursing, had got its land converted for religious and spiritual purposes. 7.2. 7.1. Secondly, the land of the institutions were not converted for institutional and educational purposes as per the requisite norms; instead, the petitioner-Shri Ram College of Nursing, had got its land converted for religious and spiritual purposes. 7.2. Thirdly, the beds of the institutions’ affiliated hospital (Dayal Hospital, Jaipur) have been divided for clinical experience between two nursing institutes (the present petitioners), which is also not permissible as per the norms of Indian Nursing Council. 7.3 Fourthly, as regards petitioner-NIMT College of Nursing, the size of classes of PBBSCN Course is not as per the norms of the Indian Nursing Council. 8. Such deficiencies and irregularities, not only run contrary the norms laid down by the Indian Nursing Council but also have adverse impact upon the students of the institutions, and thus, in the opinion of this Court, the same are sufficient to render the petitioners-Institutions disentitled for any relief by this Court in the present case. 9. Thus, in view of the above and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find any legal infirmity in the impugned order passed by the respondents. 10. Consequently, the present petitions are dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.