SURESH YADAV Vs. REGISTRAR RAJASTHAN NURSING COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners had completed their Nursing Training Course from Navodaya College of Nursing, Raichur (Karnataka) of the duration of three years from September 1992 to August 1995. They were registered with the Karnataka State Nursing Council, one of the copy of such registration is attached as Annexure-2. Annexure-4 is a certificate of registration by the Karnataka Nursing Council under the provisions of Karnataka Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act, 1961. They had also completed the diploma course in General Nursing and Midwiferies and, therefore, are qualified to undertake the duties of trained Nurse/midwife as per Annexure-5. After obtaining no objection certificate from the Registrar, Karnataka State Nursing Council, they had applied for registration with the Rajasthan Nursing Council. They were so registered with the Rajasthan Nursing Council. The petitioners were employed in Rajasthan since June 1996 as Male Nurse-II and are working in hospitals. The Registrar, Rajasthan Nursing Council vide its order dated 24-2-1997 had cancelled the registration of the petitioner on the ground that the Secretary of the Indian Nursing Council vide its order dated 18-2-1996 and letter dated 6-2-1997 had informed that Navodaya School of Nursing, Raichur has not yet been recognised by the Rajasthan Nursing Council. The impugned action is alleged to have been taken under Section 18 of the Rajasthan Nurses, Midwives, Health, Visitors, Auxiliary Nurses, Midwives Registration Act, 1964. The petitioners are aggrieved against the order dated 24-2-1997 passed by the Registrar, Rajasthan Nursing Council, copy of which is attached as Annexure-6 to the writ petition, saying that the Navodaya School of Nursing, Raichur, Karnataka has not been recognised by the Indian Nursing Council, New Delhi as informed by the Nursing Council, New Delhi vide their letter dated 18-12-1996 and 6-2-1997. Of course, no notice whatsoever was issued to the petitioners before passing the impugned order Annexure-6. Because of the reason that the matter related to the cancellation of the registration and the employees were under peril, the parties had requested that the case be decided at admission stage itself.

(2.) A common written statement was filed on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 and 5. Even though the respondent No. 2 was properly served at New Delhi, initially no appearance was made by the State Nursing Council to defend its action for the reason that the impugned order was based on the command of the respondent No. 2. Indian Nursing Council did not make any appearance. Vide order dated 14-7-1998 it was directed that the record upon which the cancellation order has been passed should be produced before the Court. The case was adjourned to 28-7-1998. Indian Nursing Council still did not make any appearance on 28-7-1998 and, therefore, counsel for the Registrar, Rajasthan Nursing Council was directed to contact the Indian Nursing Council, New Delhi for production of the record. It was on 4-8-1998 that the Secretary of the Indian Nursing Council appeared in the Court and reply was filed by the Indian Nursing Council as well. It was surprising to note that despite the fact that Indian Nursing Council had directed for cancellation of registration and the civil rights of the petitioners were involved, but having been served Indian Nursing Council had not taken any effective steps to defend its case in support of the order impugned or to appear in the Court with the record. It was because of special efforts made by the parties that ultimately the Secretary of the Indian Nursing Council appeared in the Court. This state of affair on the part of the Indian Nursing Council in not appearing even on service when the rights of the petitioners' livelihood itself were involved, cannot be appreciated by the Court.

(3.) It is stated by the learned counsel for the parties that the respondent No. 1 had registered the names of the petitioners with the Rajasthan State Nursing Council under Section 13 of the Act. Karnataka Nursing Council was duly recognised by Indian Nursing Council which had issued the certificate, therefore, the Registrar could not have invoked the provisions under Section 18 of the Rajasthan Act. It is stated that Navodaya School of Nursing, Raichur (hereinafter called Raichur School) was duly recognised by the Karnataka State Nursing Council and, therefore, respondent No. 2-Indian Nursing Council had no jurisdiction at all for ordering the cancellation of the Registration of the petitioners and as such the impugned order Annexure-6 based on certain directions of the Indian Nursing Council could not have been passed at all u/S. 18 of the Rajasthan Act and the impugned action is not sustainable.