Dismissed

Jyoti Education Welfare Society Regd. v. State of Hp

Himachal Pradesh HC2 Aug 2017CMP/3677/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought implementation of a judgment dated 12.4.2017 in CWP No. 2392 of 2016 concerning nursing course admissions. The Court held that the respondent authorities had complied with the judgment by conducting fresh inspections and declaring institutions non-compliant with norms, justifying the withdrawal of prior certificates.

What the court decided

AI extract

Jyoti Education Welfare Society Regd. Vs… — Education and Admissions | Himachal Pradesh HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶2

CMP No. 3677 of 2017

¶3

In CWP No. 2392 of 2016 Decided on: August 2, 2017

¶4

---------------------------------------------------------------------------Jyoti Education Welfare Society Regd. ..…Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another ..…Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------------Coram:

¶5

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Acting Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge Whether approved for reporting?¹ yes.

¶6

---------------------------------------------------------------------------For the petitioner(s): Mr. B.C. Negi, Senior Advocate with Mr. P.P. Singh, Advocate, for For the respondents: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General with Mr. Anup Rattan, Additional Advocate General and Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.1. Mr. Aman Sood, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral)

¶7

By way of instant application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, having been filed by applicant-petitioner, in disposed of petition, prayer has been made to direct respondent authorities to implement judgment dated 12.4.2017, passed by this Court in CWP No. 2392 of 2016 and connected matter.

¶8

2. Facts, in brief, as are necessary for the adjudication of the

¶9

instant application are that aforesaid petition was with regard to

¶10

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶11

¶12

opening of GNM and B.Sc. Nursing courses in the State of Himachal Pradesh, for which respondents invited Expression of Interest, in response whereof, private respondents in the instant petitions applied. Material on record suggests that case of private respondents, as referred to above, was considered and placed before Council of Ministers. Petitioners, in the writ petitions above referred, assailed said action of respondents by way of writ petitions.

¶13

3. However, before proceeding further in deciding the present application, it would be relevant to have a bird’s eye view of the events, which took place in the matter.

¶14

4. Keeping in view the allegations and counter allegations with regard to correctness of reports submitted by evaluation committee, having been made by parties in the writ petitions, referred above, this Court, directed authorities vide order dated 24.11.2016, to carry out fresh inspection strictly in terms of guidelines framed in this regard as well as norms fixed by Indian Nursing Council after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the applicants including petitioners as well respondents.

¶15

5. Respondent State was directed to do the needful within two weeks from the date of passing of order i.e. 24.11.2016 and matter was ordered to be listed for 30.11.2016.

¶16

6. On 8.3.2017, report was filed by the respondent State in terms of order dated 24.11.2016 and matter was ordered to be posted on 5.4.2017. Ultimately on 12.4.2017, on the basis of report

¶17

of the authorities, which admittedly was undisputed, as neither the

¶18

¶19

parties to the petitions, objected to the same, therefore, the Court disposed of the matter with the direction to the respondent to do the needful in terms of order dated 24.11.2016 and report filed in terms of said order.

¶20

7. After the petitions having been disposed of by this Court, an application being CMP No. 3677 of 2017 was filed by petitioner (in CWP No. 3677 of 2017), thereby seeking direction to respondents to implement judgment dated 12.4.2017.

¶21

8. On the direction of this Court, an affidavit came to be filed by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, on 27^th day of July, 2017, wherein, following facts were elucidated:-

¶22

“i) That it is submitted respectfully that in compliance to order dated 24-11-2016, the fresh inspection of all the applicant institutions/Societies was done and the report was presented before this Hon'ble Court in sealed cover. ii) That vide order dated 12-4-2017, this Hon'ble Court was pleased to dispose of both the writ petitions i.e. CWP No. 2392/2016 and CWP 1740/2016 with the directions to the concerned authority to do the needful in term of order dated 24-11-2016 and the report filed in terms of order (supra).

¶23

iii) It is worthwhile to submit here that in para 13 of order dated 24-11-2016, this Hon'ble Court has clearly observed that it would be in the interest of justice if authorities are directed to conduct fresh inspection of all institutions/societies, who had applied in term of advertisement dated 24-09-2014 as well as Northern International Education and Research Centre, so that allegations of bias as well as arbitrary exercise of power as alleged by the parties, is put to rest.

¶24

¶25

iv) Be is submitted further with utmost regards, before this Hon'ble Court that opinion of Evaluation Committee i.e. Annexure R-1 had made it amply clear that none of five institutions fulfill the Indian Nursing Council (INC) norms and the conditions as laid down vide government notification dated 7-6-2008 i.e. annexure R-2. v) Accordingly, the matter was placed for the consideration before the Council of Ministers. It is worthwhile to mention here that it was essential to place the matter to the cabinet as earlier the no objection certificates in favour of the institutions were issued on the basis of recommendations/ approval of the Cabinet. The Memorandum is appended with this affidavit as Annexure R-3, for the kind consideration of this Hon'ble Court. It was proposed in view of the observation of evaluation committee that the No Objection Certificate (NOC) issued in compliance of Cabinet decision dated 12-5-2016 may be withdrawn and fresh EOI’s (Expression of Interest) may be invited from interested parties, for establishment of Nursing Institutions with 60 GNM and 60 B.Sc. Nursing Seats in Private sector, attached to Dr. Rajender Prasad Medical College Kangra at Tanda. vi) It is therefore, respectfully submitted that the directions issued by the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 2411-2016 and 12-4-2017 were complied in to-to.”

¶26

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records.

¶27

10. After having carefully perused supplementary affidavit filed by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, in terms of order 6.7.2017, we find that grievance of applicant-petitioner no more survives. By way of application at

¶28

¶29

hand, applicant prayed for implementation of judgment dated 12.4.2017, which appears to have been implemented.

¶30

11. This Court sees no merit in the contention of Mr. B.C. Negi and Mr. N.K. Sood, learned senior Advocates representing the parties, that orders dated 24.11.2016 and judgment dated 12.4.2017, have not been complied with in their letter and spirit by the authorities. Similarly, we are not inclined to accept the contention of learned senior Advocates that respondents have made an attempt to overreach order dated 24.11.2016/judgment dated 12.4.2017 passed by this Court, by passing order dated 15.7.2017, whereby no objection certificates issued in compliance to Cabinet’s decision dated 12.5.2016, has been ordered to be withdrawn with further direction to call for fresh “Expression of Interest”, from all interested parties, for establishment of Nursing institutions with 60 GNM and 60 B.Sc. (Nursing) seats.

¶31

12. Needless to say, vide order dated 24.11.2016, this Court, taking note of method adopted by authorities, while analyzing/scrutinizing applications, submitted by petitioners as well as respondent societies, pursuant to advertisement dated 24.9.2014, had come to conclusion that no uniform yard stick was adopted by the evaluation committee, while carrying out inspection of institutions and, accordingly, authorities were directed to conduct fresh inspection of all the institutions/ societies, which had applied in terms of advertisement referred above as well as Northern Educational Research Centre, whose case was considered

¶32

by the government, while accepting its representation dated

¶33

¶34

6.1.2015, so that controversy/allegations of bias as well as arbitrary exercise of power as alleged by the parties, is put to rest.

¶35

13. It is also not in dispute that pursuant to aforesaid directions issued by this court, respondent authorities conducted fresh inspection of parties concerned, and submitted its report to the Court, in a sealed cover. It is also not in dispute that copies of aforesaid report were made available to the parties through their counsel, enabling them to file objections, if any to the report.

¶36

14. Since, none of the parties except respondent No.5 in CWP No. 1740/2016 filed objections to the aforesaid report, this Court, after having gone through objections filed by respondent No.5, deemed it fit to dispose of the petitions with the direction to the concerned authority to do the needful in terms of order dated 24.11.2016, as well as report filed in terms of order referred to above. It is also not in dispute that aforesaid order dated 24.11.2016, and judgment dated 12.4.2017 passed by this Court, attained finality, since no appeal was filed against the same, in the competent court of law. Rather, applicant-petitioner moved instant application seeking therein implementation of aforesaid orders passed by this Court. Perusal of affidavit filed by Chief Secretary, clearly suggests that since none of five institutions including petitioners, fulfilled the Indian Nursing Council norms and conditions as laid down vide Government notification dated 7.6.2008, committee constituted in terms of order dated 24.11.2016, passed by this Court, did not recommend case of petitioners/respondent societies. Chief Secretary in his affidavit

¶37

¶38

has categorically stated that since none of the institutions including that of petitioners was found eligible by evaluation committee constituted by this Court, matter was placed for consideration of Council of Ministers since, no objection certificates were earlier issued in compliance of cabinet decision dated 12.5.2016.

¶39

15. Having carefully perused the affidavit filed by Chief Secretary, we have no hesitation to conclude that orders referred above passed by this Court, stand duly complied with. There is no force in the arguments having been made by the learned senior Advocates representing the parties that no objection certificates granted in their favour pursuant to cabinet decision dated 12.5.2016, could not be withdrawn, on the basis of report submitted by evaluation committee constituted in terms of orders passed by this Court. Since this Court, taking note of the discrepancies in the report of evaluation committee had ordered for fresh inspection by evaluation committee, vide order dated 24.1.2016, applicant-petitioner as well as respondents can not be allowed to state/argue that no objection certificates granted in their favour pursuant to cabinet decision dated 12.5.2016, still hold good.

¶40

16. At this stage, it may be observed that no objection certificates, if any, pursuant to cabinet decision dated 12.5.2016, was definitely based upon reports of evaluation committee, which were discarded by this Court, while passing order dated 24.11.2016. After passing of order dated 24.11.216, everything was

¶41

¶42

to be guided by the report submitted by evaluation committee constituted in terms of order dated 24.11.2016, since evaluation committee constituted in terms of orders dated 24.11.2016, did not find any of the institutions including that of petitioners, eligible for issuance of no objection certificate/essentiality certificate, we see no illegality in order dated 15.7.2017 passed by Principal Secretary (Health) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh (Annexure R-2 of affidavit).

¶43

17. Having said so, we see no reason to differ with the contentions having been made by learned Advocate General that order dated 24.11.2016/judgment dated 12.4.2017, stands duly complied with.

¶44

(Sanjay Karol) Acting Chief Justice

¶45

(Sandeep Sharma)

¶46

Judge

¶47

August 2, 2017 (VIKRANT)

Jyoti Education Welfare Society Regd. v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Jyoti Education Welfare Society Regd. v. State of Hp

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madan Lal Vs Adithela Jai Vara Prasad

Bali Devi Vs Jagdish Chander

Amar Basant Raajbansh Vs State of Hp and Others

Anoop Sharma Vs Tarun Shridhar

G.S.Guleria Vs State

Ms Utkarsh Apparels and Another Vs Ms Winnsome Textiles Industries Ltd.