IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the power of the Central Legislature to determine standards in nursing education, the duty of both Union and State Governments to maintain high standards of education, and the need to prevent discrimination between institutions of different states.

JUDGMENT :

(Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.) :

1. Since all the instant petitions involve a common controversy though with marginal variation in the contextual facts, therefore, for the purposes of the present analogous adjudication, the facts and the prayer clauses are being taken from the above-numbered D.B. Special Appeal No.11/2023, while treating the same as a lead case; rival submissions of the parties and the observations of the Court, in the present judgment, would also be based, particularly, on the factual matrix of the lead case.

2. The prayer clauses read as under:-

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this special appeal may kindly be allowed and the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge dated 04.11.2022 allowing the writ petition preferred by the respondent/writ-petitioner may kindly be quashed and set aside and the writ petition preferred by the respondent/writ-petitioner may kindly be dismissed.

Any other order, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of appellants.”

3. As the pleaded facts would reveal, the Union Legislature had enacted the Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947 with the object to constitute a Central Council for determination of the standards of the education in nursing institutions, whereafter, the Nursing Council framed the Indian Nursing Council (Revised Regulations and Curriculum for B.Sc Nursing Program), Regulations, 2020 (hereafter referred to as ‘Regulations of 2020’) on 05.07.2021, prescribing a condition that the concerned institution(s)/college(s), so as to become eligible to establish the Nursing Institution/College, should have their own hundred bedded parent hospital(s).

3.1. The State of Rajasthan enacted the Rajasthan Nursing Mid-Wives Health Visitor and Auxiliary Mid-Wives Registration Act, 1964 and constituted the Rajasthan Nursing Council.

4. The bone of contention in the present case is that the State Government issued an order dated 07.06.2022 introducing a policy, wherein a condition was imposed that the Nursing Institution/College sought to be established by the organization/institution, shall have a hundred bedded own hospital of the organization/institution itself. A No Objection Certificate (NOC) is also required to be obtained for the new nursing institution/college or enhancement of seats in the existing institution/college, and the pre-requisite for such NOC is that they need to fall under the policy dated 07.06.2022.

4.1. Subsequently, the appellant-State’s policy dated 07.06.2022 was challenged by filing a writ petition before this Hon’ble Court by the respondent-Institution, and the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court vide impugned order dated 04.11.2022 allowed the writ petition and quashed the condition of 100 bedded own hospital by the Nursing Institutions/Colleges enumerated in the policy order dated 07.06.2022.

5. Dr. Praveen Khandelwal Additional Advocate General on behalf of the appellant-State submits that the condition of hundred bedded own hospital in Policy dated 07.06.2022 has been formulated to curtail the mushroom growth of Nursing Institutions and the entire purpose of the said policy is only to prevent establishment of fake nursing institutions, but the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court did not take into due consideration the said aspect of the matter.

5.1. Learned AAG also submits that the condition in question is for keeping the check on growth of fake institutions that are unable to maintain the required standards of Nursing education in the State. It was further submitted that when an element of public interest is involved in an administrative decision or policy of the State, then the Court may refrain itself to make interference in such policy decisions, and therefore, on that count alone, the impugned order is not justified in law.

5.2. Learned AAG further submits that it is clear that no prescription or condition has been laid down by the State whic