JUDGMENT :

Anil S. Kilor, J.

1. A proposal of the petitioner to start General Nursing and Midwifery (GNM) course at Wardha, has been rejected by the respondent State Board of Nursing vide its communication dated 31st December 2019, in view of the Notifications dated 28th February 2019 and 14th March 2019, issued by the Indian Nursing Council, informing that the Council has resolved to phase out ‘GNM’ course from the year 2020-21 in compliance with the ‘National Health Policy 2017’. The communication of the State Board dated 31st December 2019 and notifications issued by the Council, dated 28th February 2019 and 14th March 2019, have been questioned in the present petition by the petitioner.

2. Heard Shri Firdos Mirza, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Gauri Venkatraman, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and Shri Amit Madiwale, learned Asst. Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

3. Shri Firdoz Mirza, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned notifications / orders dated Dated 28th February, 2019, 14th March, 2019 and 19th September, 2019 issued by the respondent Council cannot override or control the provisions of the Maharashtra State Board of Nursing and Paramedical Education Act, 2013 (the Act, 2013).

4. He further submits that the letters of Indian Nursing Council cannot be treated as legal documents as they have no legal force in absence of a publication of any such declaration in Official Gazette as required under the provisions of law and thus acting upon the same while rejecting the proposal of the petitioner, is illegal.

5. Shri Mirza, learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that it is a settled principal of law that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. It is submitted that the action on the part of the respondent-Board, rejecting the proposal of the petitioner is contrary to mandate of Section 28 of the Act, 2013.

6. Shri Firdos Mirza, learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that the respondent Indian Nursing Council has no authority to grant recognition to the nursing courses, but the said power lies with the State Board and therefore any direction issued by the Nursing Council is not binding on the respondent, State Board. For this purpose he has relied upon the judgment of this Court dated 9th October 2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 11260 of 2017 in the case of Private Nursing School College Management Association Vrs. Union of India and others.

7. It is submitted that for the year 2019-2020 permissions have been granted to some colleges to start GNM courses, by the State Board whereas on the other hand it has been denied to the petitioner citing the resolution of the Council, relating to phasing out GNM course from 2020-21. Hence according to him it is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

8. Per contra, Shri A.M. Madiwale, learned Assistant Government Pleader points out that the instructions or the directions issued by the Council which are based on’ National Health Policy 2017’, are binding on the State Board and the State Board has rightly acted upon the direction of the Indian Nursing Council. Thus, he submits that no illegality has been committed by the respondent-Board in rejecting the proposal of the petitioner.

9. Ms. Gauri Venkatraman, learned counsel for the respondent no.3, submits that the petitioner has no legal right under the law to start new GNM course, whereas it is the discretion of the State Board whether to grant such permission or not, under the provision of the Act, 2013.

10. She further draws attention of this Court to the provisions of the Act, 1947 and thereby points out that in view of Section 10 of the Act, 1947 the power to grant recognition to qualifications lies with the Council and under Section 14 the Council is empowered to withdraw recognition. It is submitted that the decision of grant of recognitions or withdrawal of recogni