ORDER

1. This petition filed by a nursing institute seeks a writ of mandamus for respondent No.2 to enroll the students studying in 1st Year batch (2019-20) of B.Sc. Nursing Programme within a time frame. In turn, said students be permitted to appear in the examination of the said course.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is admittedly a recognized and affiliated nursing college with the respondent No.2. The students of 1st Year of B.Sc. Nursing Programme (2019-20) were admitted and registered with the nursing college before the last date of admission i.e. 31.10.2020. Shri Siddharth Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner by placing heavy reliance on the web portal of respondent No.2 (Annexure P/3) submits that the enrollment/admission/registration for the session of 2019-20 shows that all such students were duly enrolled by respondent No.2 and accordingly their names were reflected in the web portal.

3. The Madhya Pradesh Ayurvigyan Vishwavidyalay (Eligibility and Enrollment of Students for Under Graduate Courses) Ordinance, 2014 (hereinafter called “Ordinance”) is referred to contend that a conjoint reading of various clauses of said Ordinance shows that it contemplates only one registration/enrollment. After having registered the students aforesaid, which is reflected in the web portal (Annexure P/3), it was no more open to respondent No.2 to ask for a further enrollment as per Clause-9 of the said Ordinance. To bolster this point, reliance is placed on Clauses-3, 4, 5 & 6 of the said Ordinance. In Clause-5, it is mentioned that the “student shall pay the registration/enrollment and various other fees as prescribed …….” Thus, enrollment and registration is one and the same. Once students are registered and their names are reflected in the web portal (Annexure P/3), the students cannot be deprived to participate in the examination for want of application of the college for enrolment of said students. The second point raised by Shri Gupta is that on the one hand the students of the petitioner-college were not permitted to be enrolled after 30.10.2020 and on the other hand, students of three medical colleges were permitted to get themselves enrolled through their colleges. The attention of this Court is drawn on the aspect of parity and on the point of alleged discrimination by pointing out the averments of para-5.11 of the petition.

4. Shri Siddharth Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the alternative submission without prejudice to the legal submission is that the concern officer of petitioner-college who was obliged to submit application for enrollment online could not undertake the said exercise because she suffered from corona virus twice. The representation dated 17.3.2021 and 28.6.2021 were relied upon for this purpose.

5. Furthermore, it is submitted that Clause-9 is a procedural provision and, therefore, must be treated as directory in nature. This provision cannot take away the substantive right of the petitioner/students.

6. Lastly, it is submitted that exams which were previously scheduled from 7.8.2021 are now postponed and likely to take place from 9.9.2021. When admission of students in question is not in dispute, the students cannot be made to suffer for any mistake of the petitioner-college. No prejudice will be caused to the respondents if enrollment still takes place. The respondents have permitted three medical colleges who were governed by the same ordinance to complete the formality of enrollment after the cut-off date. The petitioner may be treated similarly. Petitioner is willing to pay the fine/cost for the same.

7. Shri Sunil Jain, learned senior counsel for the respondent No.2 opposed the prayer by contending that the Ordinance cannot be read in the manner suggested by Shri Gupta. The Clauses of the Ordinance are differently worded and deals with different situations. The enrollment is a separate activity than the admission of students. Petitioner’s re