IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 32139 of 2009(J)
1. CHITRA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE AND
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
3. INDIAN NURSING COUNCIL,
4. KERALA NURSES AND MIDWIVES COUNCIL,
For Petitioner :SRI.AJITH MURALI
For Respondent :SRI.N.RAGHURAJ, SC, TCMC & KNMC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :10/03/2010
O R D E R
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
----------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.32139 OF 2009
-----------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF MARCH, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner challenging Exhibit
P6 communication made by the University of Kerala rejecting the
application for NOC submitted by the petitioner. The learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that actually the petitioner
wanted only an NOC for submitting the same before the
University in the light of the NOC granted by the Government as
per Exhibit P2. But his application has been considered as an
application for affiliation by the University which is evident from a
reading of Exhibit P6.
2. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the University.
3. The petitioner is conducting a Nursing School (GNM)
named Chithra Nursing College which is attached to the Chithra
Multi Specialty Hospital at Pandalam in Pathanamthitta District.
4. By Exhibit P1 circular, the 3rd respondent invited
applications from various institutions desirous of starting College
of Nursing. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted an application.
W.P.(C)No.32139/2009 -2-
One of the requirements is to produce the NOC from the
concerned University and the Government. Going by Exhibit P2,
the Government has included the petitioner’s institution for grant
of NOC.
5. Since there was delay in the matter from the part of
the University, the petitioner had moved this Court by filing W.P.
(C)No.11470/09, which was disposed of by Exhibit P5 judgment
directing the University to take a decision. In the meanwhile
Exhibit P3 application was submitted within the time prescribed.
6. A reading of Exhibit P6 shows the following facts:
7. The Standing Committee of the Syndicate of Affiliation
of Colleges and Courses of Studies considered and recommended
to approve the report of the Commission and also recommended
that the application need not be considered as the documents
submitted by the educational agency does not satisfy the
statutory requirements for affiliation of colleges prescribed by the
University and as the arrangements made by the educational
agency for the establishment of the College was not found
satisfactory by the University Inspection Commission.
W.P.(C)No.32139/2009 -3-
8. This recommendation was approved by the Syndicate.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is too
premature to consider the grant of affiliation, as the same need
be considered only after a decision is taken by the Indian Nursing
Council based on the application submitted by the petitioner.
Affiliation is required before starting the course, which is evident
from Exhibit P2 order of the Government. What is required is
only a grant of NOC by the University and therefore Exhibit P6
cannot be supported. I find force in the above submission made
by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In that view of the
matter, as the 3rd respondent has to consider the application, it
was unnecessary to treat the application for grant of NOC as one
seeking for affiliation.
9. Therefore Exhibit P6 is quashed. There will be a
direction to the University to issue NOC to the petitioner for
production before the 3rd respondent, as the Government has
already granted sanction as per Exhibit P2. After the application
is considered favourably by the 3rd respondent, then alone the
further process with regard to the affiliation could be taken by
W.P.(C)No.32139/2009 -4-
the University for which the petitioner may have to file a fresh
application. The needful shall be done by the University for
issuing NOC within a period of three weeks.
10. In the light of the pendency of the Writ Petition, the
petitioner has forwarded a fresh application before the Indian
Nursing Council as per Exhibit P17 without the NOC issued by the
University. The said application will be kept pending by the 3rd
respondent without rejection for enabling the petitioner to
produce the NOC from the University.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
JUDGE
dsn