JUDGMENT :

T. VINOD KUMAR, J.

1. Since the cause in all these writ petitions is common, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. In this batch of writ petitions, the action of the respondent authorities in excluding the names of the petitioner nursing schools from the list of eligible schools for admitting students into General Nursing and Midwifery (for short ‘GNM’) training course for the year 2019-20 through web counseling, is under challenge.

3. The common case of the petitioners is that the names of petitioner nursing schools were originally included in the list that was released in pursuance of notification for admission into first year GNM training course issued on 22.07.2019. It is stated that the said notification has been withdrawn after the two days of issuance. However, upon the reissue of notification in R.C. No. 30082/N1/2019, dated 11.09.2019, the petitioner nursing school names have been excluded for the year 2019-20, into which students can seek admission into the first year of three year GNM training course. It is stated that no proceedings have been issued by the respondent authorities between July 2019 and September 2019 either putting them on notice or giving any justification for omission of names from the list of schools which are permitted for intake of students.

4. The learned counsels representing the parties would submit that for the purpose of adjudication of this dispute, the facts as stated in Writ Petition No. 20430 of 2019 be taken as basis. Counter affidavits on behalf of respondents and reply thereto in all the matters have been filed.

5. Heard Sri. K. Anantha Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the writ petitioner schools and Sri. Nagesh Bheemapaka, Government Pleader for Medical and Health and Family Welfare appearing for the respondents.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner schools submits that the petitioners have been granted affiliation to run nursing schools both by the State authorities and also the Indian Nursing Council (INC) with permitted intake of students, as mentioned in the Government Order (GO) according approval. Based on such GO issued, the schools have been set up and have been running and in some cases for the last more than 10 years with regular intake of students year after year including the last academic year of 2018-19 for imparting GNM training Course.

7. It is also stated that though the schools were initially permitted to be set up at a particular location, due to various reasons like (i) providing better infrastructure facilities; (ii) premises where initial permission granted being a let out premises the schools have decided to move to their newly constructed own premises; (iii) some of the premises which were on lease, were forced to evict due to the default of owners in payment of monies taken as loans from the banks whereunder this property is given as a collateral security and (iv) similar such other reasons. The learned counsel would submit that the change of location in case of some of the petitioners was communicated to the 2nd respondent and the schools have also been inspected at the new location by the Inspection Committee constituted by the 2nd respondent.

8. In order to appreciate the contention of petitioner schools, it is to be seen that while granting permission, the respondent State Government authorities have issued separate GOs in respect of each of the institutions specifying the terms and conditions which would govern the establishment and running of the schools. Except in one of the permission granted to one of the petitioner schools, wherein a specific condition to the effect that the school should not shift from the location for which the permission is granted without prior approval of the authority, similar such clause does not find mention in the GOs by which permission has been granted to the other petitioner schools.

9. The GOs under which permission has been accorded to each of these schools, however, indicate that th