Back
2013 Supreme(Bom) 1236
High Court of Judicature at Bombay
S.C.DHARMADHIKARI & R.G. KETKAR, JJ.
Private Nursing Schools and Colleges Management Association & Others
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Medical Education & Drugs Department & Others
Public Interest Litigation No.72 of 2013 Along With Writ Petition Nos. 2842 of 2013, 2843, 2847, 3052, 3054, 3055, 3056, 3057, 3059, 3060 of 2013, 3061 of 2013, 3223, 3313, 3330, 3332, 3189 of 2013, 3190 of 2013, 3192 of 2013, 3193 of 2013, 3209, 3210, 3274, 3275, 3276, 7436 of 2012, 7437 of 2012, 7438 of 2012, 7467 of 2012, 7468 of 2012, 7579 of 2012, 7580 of 2012, 7392 of 2012 Along With Writ Petition (LODGING) No.1906 of 2012 (Original Side)
Decided on: 09-07-2013
For the Petitioners:P.M. Shah, Sr. Advocate, i/by P.B. Shirsath, V.S. Deokar, Syed Mauzam Bukhari a/w Abdul Shaikh, Bharat Kothari, S.S. Thombare, Sachin Deshmukh, Santosh S. Jadhav, Narendra D. Sonawane, V.R. Dhorde, A.M. Kulkarni with Ashutosh Kulkarni, Girish Kulkarni, i/by Sandeep Waghmare, Girish Kulkarni a/w. Jaydeep Milra, i/by Sandeep Waghmare, K.S. Motwani, Muzamnil Hussain, Anand Parchure, Sudhir Halli, Deepak S. Jadhav, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1 & R2, A.A. Kumbhakoni, Special Counsel, a/w. Mrs. S.S. Bhende, A.G.P., N.K. Rajpurohit i/by Suvarna Telgote, R3, Chandrakant A. Jadhav, N.K. Rajpurohit, i/by Ms. Suvarna Telgote, R4, Ms. Aishwarya Ambika, Suresh Kumar, R5, Sunil B. Jadhav, Advocates, Ms. Anjali Helekar, AGP.
The power to recognize training institutions and grant affiliation to them lies solely with the Maharashtra Nursing Council (MNC), and the State Government cannot override this authority.
Headnote:
The Maharashtra Nurses Act, 1966, the Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947, and the guidelines issued by the Indian Nursing Council (INC) were examined to determine the powers and responsibilities of the State Government, Maharashtra Nursing Council (MNC), and INC in regulating nursing education and practice in the state of Maharashtra, India. The High Court held that the State Government's insistence on final approval and permission for starting nursing courses and admitting students, beyond issuing the Essentiality Certificate, was illegal and unconstitutional. The Court emphasized that the power to recognize training institutions and grant affiliation to them lies solely with the MNC, and the State Government cannot override this authority.
Fact of the Case:
The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and connected Writ Petitions challenged the legality of certain conditions imposed by the State Government of Maharashtra in its Government Resolution dated 21.03.2005 and circulars dated 30.01.2012 and 21.04.2012. These conditions required nursing schools and colleges to obtain final approval and permission from the State Government before starting nursing courses and admitting students, even after obtaining the Essentiality Certificate from the State Government and the Suitability Certificate from the INC. The Petitioners, including private nursing schools and colleges, argued that these conditions were beyond the powers of the State Government and violated the provisions of the Maharashtra Nurses Act, 1966, and the INC Act, 1947.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the State Government's insistence on final approval and permission for starting nursing courses and admitting students, beyond issuing the Essentiality Certificate, was illegal and unconstitutional. The Court found that the power to recognize training institutions and grant affiliation to them lies solely with the MNC, and the State Government cannot override this authority. The Court also held that the State Government's conditions were not supported by any statutory provision and were arbitrary and unreasonable.
Issues: 1. Whether the State Government of Maharashtra had the power to impose conditions requiring nursing schools and colleges to obtain final approval and permission from the State Government before starting nursing courses and admitting students, beyond issuing the Essentiality Certificate and the Suitability Certificate. 2. Whether the impugned conditions were violative of the provisions of the Maharashtra Nurses Act, 1966, and the INC Act, 1947.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Nurses Act, 1966, and the INC Act, 1947, and concluded that the power to recognize training institutions and grant affiliation to them lies solely with the MNC. The State Government's role is limited to issuing the Essentiality Certificate, which is a prerequisite for obtaining recognition and affiliation from the MNC. 2. The Court held that the impugned conditions were violative of the statutory scheme and the principles of natural justice. The conditions imposed an additional and unnecessary burden on nursing schools and colleges, and they were not supported by any rational or legitimate purpose.
Final Decision: The High Court quashed and set aside the impugned conditions imposed by the State Government in its Government Resolution dated 21.03.2005 and circulars dated 30.01.2012 and 21.04.2012. The Court directed the State Government to allow nursing schools and colleges to commence courses and admit students based on the Essentiality Certificates and Suitability Certificates obtained from the MNC and INC, without the need for any further approval or permission from the State Government.
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.
1. The Public Interest Litigation and Writ Petitions were heard together. Since common arguments were canvassed and the issues for consideration are also common, all these matters are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Rule.
3. The Respondents waive service. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith.
4. The facts in the Public Interest Litigation No.72/2013 shall now be noted.
5. Before noting them, what one finds and which is distressing and disturbing to note, is that by our order dated 30th April, 2013 we had granted leave to the Intervener to file brief written submissions. That was only because of paucity of time and since the Intervener's Advocate could not be given time as sought by him for oral argument. However, we find that while filing the Written Submissions, the Intervener has also annexed documents styled as additional documents to the written submissions. The Registry has, without verification and scrutiny and particularly in the light of our specific order and direction, proceeded to accept them. This practice of introducing documents after all arguments are over, not only prejudices the opponents of such parties, but amounts to taking unfair and undue advantage of the liberty and leave granted by this Court. Later on, if the Court refuses to consider the additional documents, then, a grievance is invariably made either in review jurisdiction or otherwise that the Court has omitted from consideration certain materials and therefore, the order is ex-facie erroneous. These attempts are nothing but trying to outsmart the opponent and trying to cash on and make gains by relying on the discretion exercised and liberty given by the Court. All this destroys the very sanctity of judicial process and such practices, therefore, need to be deprecated in strongest terms. We remind the Registry that hereafter no written submissions accompanied by documents need be taken on record unless the Registry officials seek directions from the concerned Judges/ Benches. This tendency needs to be curbed because documents and submissions are filed in matters after arguments are concluded and the orders are reserved. At that stage, no documents can be filed unless proper applications are made and prior leave of the Court is sought by the parties. The Registry could not have accepted such additional documents annexed to the written submissions and without seeking directions from the Court. Therefore, we leave aside and omit from consideration all additional documents.
6. Now turning to the main issue, according to the “Concise Oxford English Dictionary, Indian Edition” the word “Nurse” means “a person trained to care for the sick or infirm.” The other meaning is “to give medical and other attention, to treat or hold carefully or protectively.”
7. “Practitioner Nurse” or “Nurse Practitioner” means “a nurse who is qualified to treat certain medical conditions without the direct supervision of a doctor.”
8. This ordinary and plain meaning of the above terms is what is material and relevant for the common man. This common parlance meaning itself would indicate that anybody and everybody with little or no training and experience cannot proclaim to be trained to care of the sick or infirm. If that be so, every relation, parent, friend or near and dear one would claim to be nursing the sick or infirm. It goes without saying, therefore, that one has to be trained to be a nurse and that is precisely why Nursing Institutes are set up or allowed to be set up by the State. In terms of the directive principles of the State Policy, the State is obliged to give public assistance in certain cases. Article 41 of the Constitution of India states that within the limits of economic capacity and development, the State has to make effective provision for public assistance in cases of old age, sickness and disablement. It is with this background and introduction that we proceed to consider the issues raised in this ba
