IMPORTANT POINT
The High Court was in error in issuing a direction to the appellants to treat the respondent - having "Madhyama" certificate of 1984 as equivalent to B.A. whereas it was not so in 1989-90 - and was not equivalent to the prescribed educational qualification (i.e., 1st year of TDC) and to declare her result on that basis.

Headnote:Education-Minimum qualification for admission in General Nursing and Midwifery and Staff Nurse Course in 1990-Respondent passed "Madhyama" of Hindu Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag in 1984 when it was equivalent to B.A.-In 1989-1990 this equivalence was not recognised-Provisional admission given by Court in 1990 with direction to consider declaration of her result-Appeal against to Supreme Court-Whether High Court right in its approach? (No)-Case law discussed-Appeal allowed.
Held : We are of the view that the learned single Judge misread the order passed in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 5995 of 1991. All that had been ordered in that case was that the Nursing Council should decide the controversy and give a clear direction that whether such candidate has to be admitted to the course or not. We do not find any observation or direction therein which directly or by implication suggests that the educational qualification possessed by the respondent should be taken as duly recognized and relief should be given to her on that basis. In that case the observation in the order leaving the matter to the Nursing Council to decide objectively and sympathetically and issue a categorical direction for all future time to come, was irrelevant. The learned single Judge, in our view, was in error in holding that in view of the order passed by the High Court in the previous writ petition filed by the respondent the Nursing Council should have decided the matter granting relief to the respondent. The Division Bench was also in error in dismissing the special appeal in limini by passing a cryptic and unreasoned order. The points involved in the case are two fold : one relating to prescription of minimum educational qualification for admission to the course and the other relating to recognition of the Madhyama Certificate issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad as equivalent to or higher than +2 or 1st year of TDC for the purpose of admission. Both these points relate to matters in the realm of policy decision to be taken by the State Government or the authority vested with power under any statute. It is not for courts to determine whether a particular educational qualification possessed by a candidate should or should not be recognized as equivalent to the prescribed qualification in the case. That is not to say that such matters are not justiciable. In an appropriate case the Court can examine whether the policy decision or the administrative order dealing with the matter is based on a fair, rational and reasonable ground; whether the decision has been taken on consideration of relevant aspects of the matter; whether exercise of the power is obtained with malafide intention; whether the decision serves the purpose of giving proper training to the candidates admitted or it is based on irrelevant and irrational considerations or intended to benefit an individual or a group of candidates. (Paras 8 and 9)

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The Madhyama Certificate (1984) was not recognised as equivalent to the required qualification (1st year of TDC/10+2) for admission in 1990; the certificate’s equivalence ceased to be operative from 1.4.1985, and later guidance stated it is not equated with regular secondary boards/universities (!) . - The High Court’s direction to treat the Madhyama certificate as equivalent and declare the respondent’s result was in error; the matter involves policy decisions about minimum qualifications and recognition of qualifications, which are for the State Government/authorities, not courts to decide on a case-by-case basis (!) (!) (!) . - The Court held that the Nursing Council should decide the controversy, and there was no observation indicating that Madhyama should be recognized as equivalent for admission; misreading of SB Civil Writ Petition No. 5995 of 1991 by the High Court was noted (!) (!) (!) . - The appeal was allowed; the respondent’s writ petition was dismissed; if any financial benefit was already granted on basis of the qualification, it need not be recovered (!) . - The decision emphasizes that eligibility qualifications for admission and recognition of qualifications are matters of policy and need fair, rational, and reasonable grounds; court can intervene to examine fairness but not substitute its own policy decision (!) (!) . - The notification of 28.6.1985 deleted Madhyama from recognized qualifications; the respondent submitted application in December 1989, aware of non-recognition (!) . - Provisional admission was initially given but later canceled once qualification was found lacking (!) (!) . - Delhi/Dr. Ravinder Nath precedents cited discuss recognition of traditional qualifications and statutory framework; but this judgment confines to evaluating whether courts should substitute policy decisions (!) .

What is the appropriate consideration of Madhyama Certificate as equivalent to prescribed qualifications for admission to nursing courses?

What is the Court's stance on whether educational qualifications are to be decided as a policy matter by authorities or can be scrutinized by courts for fairness and rationality?

What relief, if any, can be granted where a candidate possessed an unrecognized qualification at the time of application but had earlier been granted provisional admission?

JUDGMENT

D.P. Mohapatra, J.-Leave granted. State of Rajasthan through the Director, Medical and Health Services; the Rajasthan Nursing Council, through its Registrar, and the Principal Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Barmer, Rajasthan, have filed this appeal against the order of the Rajasthan High Court dated 6.7.2000 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.917/99 (Def.) titled State & Ors. vs. Smt. Lata Arun. The order passed by the High Court reads as follows :

"However looking to all the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the order of learned Single Judge is in the interest of justice. It does not require any interference of this Court. We do not find any merit in this appeal."

2. In the special appeal the appellants assailed the judgment of the learned single Judge allowing the Writ Petition No.4433 of 1997, filed by the respondent. The operative portion of the said judgment runs as follows:

"In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed. The impugned order at Annexure R/1 annexed to the reply affidavit and the order dated 3.9.1997 Annex. 11 are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to declare the result of the petitioner for General Nursing and Midwifery and Staff Nurse Course examination forthwith."

3. The question which arises for determination in this case is whether the respondent had the eligibility qualification for admission in General Nursing and Midwifery and Staff Nurse Course (hereinafter referred to as nursing course ) commencing in the year 1990? The Director, Medical and Health Services had invited applications by 15.12.1989 from eligible candidates for admission in the Nursing Course to be started from January, 1990. It was stated in the notification that the candidates should have passed first year of Three Years Degree course (TDC) or 10+2; and that the candidates with science subjects (Biology, Chemistry, Physics) will be given preference. During the period the Indian Nursing Council had issued a set of Syllabi and Regulations for Courses in General Nursing and Midwifery in which the prescribed minimum educational qualification for all candidates was 12th class pass or its equivalent preferably with science subjects.

4. The respondent, who was then working as a female worker, submitted her application for joining the course. The educational qualification possessed by her was a Madhyama Certificate issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad in 1984. This certificate was previously recognized as equivalent to a degree in Hindi. The said recognition had ceased to be operative with effect from 1.4.1985. The position was further clarified in the letter dated 4.12.1991 addressed by Shri K.C. Kalra, Deputy Secretary, Association of Indian Universities, New Delhi to the Registrar, Rajasthan Nursing Council, Jaipur, in which it was stated "Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad is one of the voluntary Hindi Institutions set up for promotion of Hindi. Its examinations are not equated with the regular examinations of Secondary Boards/Universities. The standard of Hindi, only of its examinations is accepted." Copies of the said letter were sent to the Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Medical and Health Department, the Director of Medical and Health Services, Rajasthan, all Principal Medical Officers and others.

5. The respondent was given provisional admission in the nursing course which was subsequently cancelled when it was detected that she did not have the educational qualification prescribed for the course. The respondent filed writ petition CWP No. 5995/91, praying inter alia that the authorities be directed to allow her to pursue General Nursing Course and permit her to sit in the examination. The learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition by the following order:

".... .Therefore, instead of deciding the matter here I leave it for the Nursing Council to decide that whether a candidate who had obtained a Madhyama degree in the year 1984

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 693

What is the appropriate consideration of Madhyama Certificate as equivalent to prescribed qualifications for admission to nursing courses?

What is the Court's stance on whether educational qualifications are to be decided as a policy matter by authorities or can be scrutinized by courts for fairness and rationality?

What relief, if any, can be granted where a candidate possessed an unrecognized qualification at the time of application but had earlier been granted provisional admission?

Cases Referred (3)