IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.14563 of 2009
1. ANUPAM KUMARI D/O RAM PRASAD SINGH VILL- MOTIPUR, P.S.
TAJPUR, DISTT. SAMASTIPUR---------------PETITIONER
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY DEPTT. OF HEALTH, GOVT.
OF BIHAR, PATNA
3. THE STATE HEALTH SAMITI, BIHAR, PATNA FAMILY -WELFARE
BHAWAN, SHEIKHPURA, PATNA-16, THROUGH ITS ADVISOR
4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SAMASTIPUR
5. THE CIVIL SURGEON-CUM-MEMBER SECRETARY DISTRICT HEALTH
SAMITI, SAMASTIPUR SADAR HOSPITAL CAMPUS, SAMASTIPUR
6. BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD, PATNA-1 THROUGH ITS
CHAIRMAN
7. THE SECRETARY BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD, PATNA
8. THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW
SECRETARIATE BUILDING, PATNA-1
9. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER SAMASTIPUR
10. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION SAMASTIPUR
11. THE PRINCIPAL null MODEL INTER COLLEGE, SAMASTIPUR,
MOH- BAHADURPUR, P.S. SAMATIPUR TOWN, DISTT. SAMASTIPUR
12. THE BIHAR NURSES REGISTRATION COUNCIL, PATNA
SECRETARIAT BUILDING, PATNA THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR----------
---------------------------------RESPONDENTS
-----------
For the Petitioner: Mr. Najmul Hoda, Advocate
Mr. Dr. Alok Kumar Alok, Advocate
For the State: Mr. Vipin Kumar, AC to GP-VIII
For Respt.No.12: Mr. J.P. Karn, Sr. Advocate
For the Intermediate
Council: Mr. S.K.Mandal, Advocate
————–
4 25.1.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner’s service has been dispensed with by
virtue of the order contained in annexure-10 issued by the Civil
Surgeon, Samastipur on the ground that the so called training
certificate obtained by the petitioner as A.N.M. is not a recognized
degree by the Bihar Nurses Registration Council though the
petitioner had been appointed to the post on the basis of annexures
1 and 2. But on due scrutiny this fact having emerged, the
impugned order came to be issued which is under challenge in the
present writ application.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is
-2-
that both annexures- 1 and 2 are from institutions established
either by the State or the Government of India and therefore no
separate registration or recognition for this degree are required and
the reasons indicated in annexure-10 to that extent is erroneous if
not arbitrary.
Counter affidavit has come to be filed on behalf of
respondents specially the official respondents including
respondent no. 12 i.e. the Bihar Nurses Registration Council. Their
stand is that the petitioner lacks requisite qualification for
appointment because the so called degree which she has annexed
with the writ application is not a recognized degree or registered
as such by Bihar Nurses Registration Council. Recognition or
registration with Bihar Nurses Registration Council is a must and
both annexures-1 and 2 does not qualify her to be treated as
validly qualified A. N.M.
A categorical statement has been made on behalf
of respondent no.12 that in terms of section 16 (c ) of the Indian
Nursing Council Act, 1947 there is a uniform syllabus and courses
of studies which has been prescribed and the degree issued on
said standard of prescribed courses are the degrees which are
recognized or registered as such, not any vocational course offered
by any institution much less the Intermediate Council of Bihar will
help the situation for the petitioner. The Bihar Nurses Council
does not recognize vocational course of A.N.M. offered by
erstwhile Intermediate Council of Bihar.
-3-
Learned counsel representing the petitioner
thereafter submits that she has already approached the Council in
question for registration on the basis of her qualification but no
decision has been taken by them till date.
The evidence annexed with the writ application
specially annexure-9 does not support that such an application has
been filed before the Bihar Nurses Registration Council. The
application seems to have been addressed to many other persons
except to respondent no.12.
The reasonings given by the respondents for
issuance of annexure-10 does not seem to be misplaced because
despite indulgence shown to learned counsel for the petitioner he
has failed to produced any document or any evidence to show that
annexures-1 and 2 are valid degree which have recognition of law
under 1947 Act. In that background it is difficult for this Court to
interfere with the impugned order but the Court will not come in
the way if the petitioner wants to move respondent no.12 seeking
registration if she fulfills the criteria. The Court does not express
its opinion on this issue for many a reasons.
This writ application is dismissed with the liberty
as above.
RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)