Illegal Admissions To Nursing Courses Cannot Be Perpetuated: Bombay High Court

In a stern verdict, the Bombay High Court has upheld the cancellation of nursing admissions for 22 students who were enrolled in General Nursing and Midwifery (GNM) courses without meeting the prescribed educational qualifications. The ruling, delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe, underscores that judicial discretion cannot be used to sanction or perpetuate systemic illegalities in professional education.

Nipping Illegality in the Bud

The petitioners, who had been granted an ad-interim order in July 2025 to appear for their first-semester exams, argued that their admissions should be protected, citing parity with senior students who were allegedly admitted despite similar deficiencies in their qualifications.

The Court, however, rejected this "negative parity" argument. Justice Ghuge’s judgment emphasized that the court’s intervention at the start of the three-year course provided a unique opportunity to “nip the problem in the bud.” Allowing these admissions to stand, the court reasoned, would be a mockery of the admission process and would jeopardize the integrity of critical healthcare training programs like ANM and GNM.

The Breakdown of Eligibility

The controversy stemmed from a mismatch between the students' 12th-standard vocational subjects and the specific eligibility criteria set by the Indian Nursing Council (INC) and the Maharashtra State Board . While the Board mandated specific health-related vocational subjects, the colleges had admitted students with unrelated streams, such as "Accounting & Office Management" or "Computer Technique," failing to verify the strict baseline requirements.

The Court noted:

> "If candidates without the requisite qualifications are admitted to such courses, the entire educational program and the specific qualifications prescribed by competent Authorities would be rendered otiose."

Judicial Analysis of Equity and Precedent

Drawing a firm line on the limits of judicial intervention, the Bench relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Tinku v/s. State of Haryana (2024), which dictates that courts cannot issue mandates that force authorities to repeat or perpetuate illegal acts.

The Court observed:

> "No direction can, therefore, be issued mandating the State to perpetuate any illegality or irregularity committed in favour of a person, an individual, or even a group of individuals which is contrary to the policy or instructions applicable."

Final Directions: Impact on Colleges

The judgment does not merely penalize the students; it places the onus on the educational institutions that profited from these admission irregularities. The High Court's directives include:

• Cancellation: Immediate termination of the admissions of all involved petitioners.
• Action against Managements: The authorities were directed to initiate scrutiny of all admissions conducted by these institutions over the preceding five years.
• Compensation: Colleges are mandated to refund the full fees collected from the students within 45 days. Furthermore, they must pay Rs. 1 lakh per student as damages for the loss of an academic year.
• Result Sequestration: The results of the exams taken under the court's interim protection have been ordered to remain withheld and the physical answer sheets destroyed after 45 days.

This decision serves as a significant warning to nursing colleges in Maharashtra, reinforcing that financial profit-seeking through unauthorized admissions will not be shielded by judicial indulgence.