ORDER
K. Govindarajan, J.
1. With the consent of both the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for final hearing.
2. The petitioner is an educational society and is running several educational institutions. The Government in G.O.Ms.939 (Health & Family Welfare Department) dated 28.6.1993, G.O.Ms. 993 (Health & Family Welfare Department) dated 4.9.1992, G.O.Ms. 995 (Health & Family Welfare Department), dated 4.9.1993 and in G.O.Ms. No. 941 (Health & Family Welfare (ME II) Department) dated 28.6.1993, accorded sanction to the petitioner to start Bachelor of Physiotherapy course, B. Pharmacy Degree Course, B.Sc. Nursing course and Bachelor of Occupational Therapy Course respectively with an annual intake of 50 candidates in each course.
3. The Government stipulated some conditions to obtain permission of the Government with respect to paramedical course. Clause 14 of the guidelines reads as follows:
The college should have its own arrangement or tie up with major private medical institution as per the requirements of Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University for clinical training of its students
In view of the above option, the petitioner sought for permission on 5.7.1993 to have clinical training in the Government Medical Institution. The Government in G.O.Ms. No. 1138 (Health & Family Welfare Department) dated 24.8.1993 granted permission to undergo clinical training in various specialities available in the Government medical institutions mentioned therein. According to the petitioner they have been using the clinical training facilities in various hospitals mentioned and in the abovesaid Government Orders, till June, 1996. In July, 1996, the respondent seems to have refused to permit the students to avail the facility of clinical training, and, immediately the petitioner sent a letter on 23.7.1996 and 5.10.1996 citing the Government Orders regarding their right to have the clinical training. But the respondent in his letter dated 22.11.1996 rejected the petitioner’s claim stating that the Government had adopted a policy of not allowing any private paramedical institution to have the clinical tie-up arrangement with any teaching medical institution at present. Aggrieved against this order, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition with the prayer to set aside the same.
4. The respondent has filed a counter mainly stating that the right is not permanent and the writ petitioner cannot enforce such a right under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further slated that the petitioner ought to have provided infrastructural facilities by this time but they have not done and that the petitioner has no right to insist for clinical tie-up arrangement for ever.
5. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent has reiterated the averments contained in the counter affidavit. He relied on Clause 14 of G.O.Ms. No. 13 (Health & Family Welfare Department) dated 5.1.1993 to submit that the college should have its own arrangement for clinical training. He also relied on Clause 4(ii)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University (Affiliation of Physiotherapy College) statutes in support of the above submission. I do not find any force in the said argument.
6. Even Clause 14 of G.O.Ms. No. 13 (Health & Family Welfare Department) dated 5.1.1993 and the statutes of the University referred to above will clearly show that the option is given to the college either to have its own arrangement or to have a tie-up with the major private medical institutions. The petitioner had exercised its option to have tie-up with the other medical institutions and appreciating the case of the petitioner, the Government in G.O.Ms. No. 1138 (Health and Family Welfare Department) dated 20.1.1993 permitted the petitioner to have a tie-up with the Government Medical Institutions. The names of the institutions have been specifically mentioned in the said Orders. In the said Orders, nothing has been mentioned that the said arrangements were only temporary. Having extended the facilities, pursuant to the conditions stipulated, the Government now cannot pass an administrative order saying that they will not allow the institution to avail of the tie up arrangement. Of course, before passing the impugned order, no opportunity was given to the petitioner. Even on that ground, the impugned order cannot be sustained.
7. In the above Government Orders dated 24.8.1993 and 20.1.1993 nothing has been stated that the arrangements are only temporary and that the petitioner should make its own arrangement after some time. The petitioner exercising the option given in the conditions and also the statutes of the university, requested for tie-up arrangement. Accepting the same, the Government has passed the abovesaid orders permitting the students of various institutions to undergo the clinical training in the institutions mentioned therein. So, the respondent now cannot all of a sudden withdraw such arrangement. Unless the said Government Orders are withdrawn, after giving opportunity to the petitioner, the respondent cannot take away the facilities given to the petitioner.
8. It was also brought to my notice that a portion of the students allotted to the college by the Government have been utilising the tie-up arrangement facility. That being so, the Government is also having responsibility to provide such faculty to the students. In the letter dated 17.1.1997 sent by the Vice-chancellor of the Tamil Nadu Dr. M.G.R. Medical University, it is stated as follows:
in view of the above discussions at the the senate, that the private institutions who are having tie-up arrangements with Government Hospitals also admit 85% of the students allotted by the Government in the form of ‘Free’ and ‘payment’ seats and in order to protect the interest of these 85% of the student community, it is felt that Government have to extend this period for sometime till the private institutions can set up their own hospitals. For these institutions who are having nursing, as well as B.P.C Course, it is difficult to establish private hospitals and it will be very costly to maintain them also. In view of the above facts, I strongly recommend that Government may extent the facility of tie-up arrangements for the private institutions for some more time.
The above said fact will clearly prove that the Government is also having responsibility of providing such facility to the students allotted by them. In any point of view the impugned order cannot be sustained. Hence the impugned order is set aside.
9. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and this writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, in W.M.P. Nos. 2101 and 14577 of 1997 no further orders are necessary and they are closed.