Arbitrary reduction in student intake quashed as deficiencies were constant and previously accepted, rendering order without basis.

JUDGMENT

Petitioner seeks for a direction to quash Ext.P4 order dated 13.10.2023, by virtue of which, petitioner’s institution was declined suitability for the academic Year 2023-2024, and reduced its intake of students for the course B.Sc Nursing to 50, from 60, for the aforementioned academic year. Petitioner also seeks for a direction to permit an intake of 60 students itself for the said academic year. 2. According to the petitioner, the College of Nursing, Thalassery, was established in the year 1999 and is situated in 3 Acres of land with a built up area of 2444 sq.ms. Petitioner contends that, despite the college having all the infrastructural facilities, including a playground, approval for renewal of recognition for the college was not granted for the academic year 2022-2023, pointing out certain conditions required to be complied with. Petitioner however, alleges that the conditions were complied with, and that compliance report was even uploaded along with necessary documents immediately. 3. For the academic year 2023-2024, even though all the required details for renewal of recognition were uploaded, by communication dated 13.10.2023, it was informed that approval for programs in B.Sc and M.Sc Nursing is not extended and further that, seats for B.Sc Nursing stands reduced from 60 to 50. Certain deficiencies were also mentioned in Annexure 1 attached to the said communication. Petitioner asserts that the reduction in intake of B.Sc Nursing students from 60 to 50 was without any justification and that the deficiencies pointed out were all rectified. It was also stated that the college had sufficient infrastructure facilities and further that Kerala Nurses and Midwives Council had even accorded sanction to have an intake of 60 students for B.Sc Nursing. Thus petitioner claimed that the college is entitled to have an intake of 60 students for B.Sc Nursing and hence sought to quash Ext.P4.

4. I have heard Sri.P.C.Sasidharan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Abraham P. Meachinkara, and Sri.S.Ganesh, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1, 2 and 3 respectively. No counter affidavit has been filed till date by any of the respondents.

5. During the pendency of this writ petition, the Indian Nursing Counsel itself had permitted the petitioner to have an intake of 60 students for the academic year 2024-2025 as evident from Ext.P10 and also for 2025-2026. Thus it was only for the year 2023- 2024, that 1strespondent refused to permit an intake of 60 students and instead permitted only 50 students for the course BSc Nursing. 6. In this context, it is relevant to note that the Kerala University of Health Sciences as well as the Kerala Nurses and Midwives Council had permitted the petitioner to have an intake of 60 students for the academic year 2023-2024. Thus what has transpired is that except for the academic year 2023-2024, for all prior and subsequent academic years, petitioner was permitted, not only by the Kerala Nurses and Midwives Council, Kerala University of Health Sciences but also by the Indian Nursing Council to have an intake of 60 students. Only for the year 2023-2024 that the Indian Nursing Council alone refused permission to have an intake of 60 students and instead reduced it to

50 students.

7. The reason for reducing the intake of students from 60 to 50 is due to deficiencies noted in Ext.P4. Those deficiencies are defects that are general in nature and if existing can never be rectified, for few students alone, to limit the intake, as they relate to the location, area, and name of the nursing institution. Prior to 2023- 2024 and subsequent to the said academic year, the location, the total area and the name of the nursing institution had been accepted by the 1strespondent as sufficient t