9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (7) TMI 787X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w 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. 4. 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 educat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hetically as the petitioner has rightly or wrongly studied for more than three years. Therefore, I leave it to the Nursing Council to decide the matter objectively and sympathetically and issue a categorical direction for all future times to come as the matter of Prathma and Madhyama has already evoked a controversy and such matters are agitated before this Court in number of writ petitions. As such the Nursing Council may now decide this controversy and give a clear direction that whether such candidate is to be admitted to the course or not. With these observations I leave it to the Nursing Council to consider the matter sympathetically and dispose of the matter. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 7. Pursuant to the direction issued by the High Court the Rajasthan Nursing Council considered the matter and took the decision that the respondent was not eligible for admission to the General Nursing Course since she had no background in Biology and further she did not possess the requisite educational qualification. The respondent was informed of the decision of the Nursing Council vide letter dated 3.9.1997 of the Additional Director, Medical and Health Services. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ether 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. 10. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the State of Himachal Pradesh. This Court held that the Second Schedule to the Indian Medical Central Council Act, 1970 came into force in the State of Himachal Pradesh on 15.8.1971 which clearly mentioned the period for which diploma/degrees awarded by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan were recognized. The respondent obtained qualification after this period for which there was no recognition, and they were aware of the fact which itself disentitled them from claiming promotion. Their contention that the condition regarding degree from a recognized body is prescribed for direct recruitment only in Rule 7 of 1974 Recruitment Rules while there is no such condition in Rule 11 which governs promotion,was rejected by this Court holding that the recruitment rules have to be read consistently with the 1970 Act and 1968 Act as well as the Government Notification dated 21.2.1978 which recognizes diploma/degrees awarded by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan during the period 1931 to 1967 only. This Court declared that the qualifications acquired by the respondent for the HSS which were admittedly after 1967 did not entitle them to be considered for promotion to the post of Vaidya. 13. From the ration of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
