CWP No.19038 of 2009 (O&M) and connected case [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (I) CWP No.19038 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.08.2011 Jyoti Rani D/o Sh. Ajmer, R/o Khanda Kheri, District Hisar, Haryana and others. ... Petitioners Versus The State of Haryana through Chief Secretary to Government of Haryana, Civil Secretariat Chandigarh and others ... Respondents (II) CWP No.12693 of 2011 (O&M) Saraswati D/o Sardaram R/o Boys/Girls Hostel, Prerna Senior Secondary School, Sirsa, District Sirsa, Haryana and others. ... Petitioners Versus The Registrary Haryana Nursing Registration Council, SCO-3, Sector 20-D, Chandigarh and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr. J.S. Dahiya, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. S.S. Goripuria, Addl. AG, Haryana. Mr. Amrit Paul, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. Mr. Munish Jolly, Advocate, for respondents No.5 and 6. Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Advocate, for respondent No.7. ***** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO CWP No.19038 of 2009 (O&M) and connected case [2] K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1. The point raised in these writ petitions are squarely dealt with by a decision, which I have already rendered in a judgment in CWP No.4021 of 2009 titled “Ms. Neelam Devi and another v. Haryana Nurses Registration Council and others”. I do not want to be detained by elaborate arguments which the counsel for the respondents wish to make since the point involved is not different from what I have dealt with already. The only difference in these cases is that the Central Nursing Council was not a party in previous proceedings and now it is a party to take and wants to contend that the judgment delivered by this Court is not correct and has not properly appreciated the judgment of a Division Bench in “Shiv Shakti Educational Society (Regd.) v. State of Punjab and others, 2008(1) SCT 691”. I have dealt with the Division Bench ruling as well and I have attempted to distinguish the decision as to how it is not applicable to the facts of this case. I do not want to again undertake the same exercise of having to explain in my judgment as to how the Division Bench ruling is not applicable to the facts of the case. 2. I am informed that the judgment rendered by this Court already has been a subject of appeal in LPA No.455 of 2010. There is, however, no order of stay. A direction in this writ petition, therefore, follows the line of reasoning which I have already adopted in case titled “Ms. Neelam Devi and another v. Haryana Nurses Registration Council and others” in CWP No.4021 of 2009. 3. It appears that Haryana Nursing Council has already issued a provisional certificate during the pendency of the writ petition through an CWP No.19038 of 2009 (O&M) and connected case [3] interim order originally. The respondents No.2 and 3 are mandated to register the petitioners in the State Register of Haryana Nursing Registration Council for the courses in which they have qualified. 4. The counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners states that the petitioners do not seek any relief against the sixth respondent. The writ petition against the sixth respondent is dismissed. 5. Both the writ petitions are allowed against other respondents. ( K. KANNAN ) AUGUST 30, 2011 JUDGE Rajan