Supreme Court allows appeal, dismisses writ petition while preserving financial benefits

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court. The writ petition filed by the respondent was dismissed. However, the Court clarified that any financial benefits already given to the respondent based on the qualification obtained from the course would not be recovered from her. There was no order as to costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility qualification for admission to General Nursing and Midwifery and Staff Nurse Course.
2. Recognition of Madhyama Certificate issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility Qualification for Admission:
The core issue was whether the respondent possessed the eligibility qualification for admission to the General Nursing and Midwifery and Staff Nurse Course commencing in 1990. The notification inviting applications specified that candidates should have passed the first year of a Three Years' Degree course (TDC) or 10+2, with preference given to those with science subjects. The Indian Nursing Council's regulations also prescribed a minimum educational qualification of a 12th class pass or its equivalent, preferably with science subjects.

2. Recognition of Madhyama Certificate:
The respondent's educational qualification was a Madhyama Certificate from the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, which was previously recognized as equivalent to a degree in Hindi. However, this recognition ceased to be operative from 1.4.1985. A letter dated 4.12.1991 from the Deputy Secretary of the Association of Indian Universities clarified that the examinations of the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan were not equated with regular examinations of Secondary Boards/Universities, and only the standard of Hindi was accepted.

Judgment Analysis:
The respondent was provisionally admitted to the nursing course, but this admission was later canceled upon discovering that she did not meet the prescribed educational qualifications. The respondent filed a writ petition (CWP No. 5995/91) requesting to be allowed to pursue the course and sit for the examination. The learned single Judge left the matter to the Rajasthan Nursing Council to decide sympathetically. The Nursing Council decided that the respondent was not eligible for admission due to her lack of a background in Biology and the requisite educational qualification. The respondent then filed another writ petition (CWP No. 4433/97) challenging this decision.

The learned single Judge of the High Court, in the second writ petition, misinterpreted the previous order, believing that the Nursing Council should have decided in favor of the respondent based on the direction to consider the matter sympathetically. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the previous order only directed the Nursing Council to decide the matter and did not imply that the respondent's qualifications should be accepted.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the prescription of minimum educational qualifications and the recognition of specific qualifications are policy decisions to be made by the appropriate authorities, not the courts. The Court cited previous judgments, including Delhi Pradesh Registered Medical Practitioners v. Director of Health and Dr. Ravinder Nath v. State of H.P., to support this view. The Court also distinguished the present case from Suresh Pal v. State of Haryana, noting that the latter was based on specific factual circumstances and did not establish a general legal principle.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the learned single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court. The writ petition filed by the respondent was dismissed. However, the Court clarified that any financial benefits already given to the respondent based on the qualification obtained from the course would not be recovered from her. There was no order as to costs.

---