PARMAR SMITABEN KHEMCHANDBHAI Vs. GUJARAT NURSING COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This group of bur petitions involve common questions of law and therefore at the request of the learned Counsels for the parties they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. In these petitions the petitioners challenge the examination results declared by the Gujarat Nursing Council (hereafter called Council) on the basis of the interpretation of the Bye-laws and the examination instructions issued thereunder. In particular the petitioners challenge the power of the Council to amend or alter the provisions contained in the bye-laws and instructions by the Administrative Order contained in the resolution of the Council.

(2.) At the hearing of these petitions Mr. V. J. Desai the learned Counsel for the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 3761/83 has contended that the Council is not justified in taking a stand that the meeting of the BoArd of Examiners is not necessary in view of the fact that gracing policy with regard to the candidates who have appeared in the examinations have been framed and enforced. Mm Desai has relied on Bye-law No. 6 in Part III of the Gujarat Nurses Midwives and Health Visitors Bye-laws 1971 (hereafter called Bye-laws). The Bye-law 6 (1) states that there will be an Examination Board consisting of a President appointed by the Council and not more than six members of the Council. Bye-law No. 6(3) states that the examiners shall meet and discuss the results of the examinations held by them and shall then submit the results to the Registrar who shall declare them under the signature of the President of the Examination Board. Bye-law No. 6 (7) lays down that the examiners shall comply with the instructions to the examiners se out in Schedule F. Schedule F contains elaborate instructions to the examiners. The material instruction relevant for these petitions are instructions Nos. 7 11 12 13 14 15 and 16. They are as follows:

(3.) Mr. Desai has argued that these instructions are of mandatory nature and therefore it is imperative that there should be a meeting of the examiners. According to him by not following the mandatory directions to hold the meeting of the examiners the petitioners have suffered inasmuch as most of the petitioners are marginal cases where the candidates have failed by one or two marks while appearing as repeaters in the subject in which they have failed availing themselves of the exemptions which they were entitled to.