THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 7056 of 2006 ORDER: The writ petitioner challenges the action of the respondent- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited in rejecting her candidature for recruitment to the post of Female Nurse pursuant to the Employment Notification No.01/2004 issued by it. The reason assigned for not considering the candidature of the writ petitioner was that she possessed only qualification of diploma in “General Nursing and Midwifery” which is of 3 years duration as against the requirement of General Nursing qualification of 4 years duration. 2. The facts which are relevant are these: The writ petitioner after successfully completing her two year Intermediate course has joined diploma course in General Nursing and Midwifery and she has successfully completed the said diploma course which is of 3 years duration. She was declared to have passed the examination to be qualified for awarding diploma in General Nursing and Midwifery conducted in July,1998. The writ petitioner was also enrolled with the Andhra Pradesh Nurses, Midwives, Auxiliary Nurse-Midwives and Health Visitors Council. The first respondent has issued Employment Notification No.1/04 looking for qualified and competent professionals to be recruited as Male/Female Nurses. 14 posts have been notified, of them 8 are for open category, 2 are reserved for Scheduled Castes and 1 is reserved for Scheduled Tribes and remaining 3 are reserved for O.B.C. candidates. Requirements are notified as under: “ Should have passed SSC/Metric or its equivalent from a recognized Institute/ University. Should have successfully completed 4 years course in General Nursing from any State or Central Government Institute/Medical College/Institution with a minimum of 4 years working experience in Central or State Government or Corporate or Industrial Hospital. Preference shall be given to ex-servicemen who possess Class-I & Class –II Certificate in General Nursing …” 3. It is not in dispute that the selection process comprised of a written test followed by a viva voce test. The writ petitioner was permitted to appear for the written test conducted on 6.11.2005. She was one of the successful candidates at the said examination . Based upon her result thereat through a communication dated 7th February,2006, the respondent directed the writ petitioner to appear for a job test on 1st March,2006 followed by interview on 2nd March,2006. When the writ petitioner made an attempt to appear for the aforementioned test, she has been prevented from attending the oral interview test after scrutinizing her certificates. According to the respondents, since the writ petitioner has possessed only a diploma course in General Nursing and Midwifery, which is only of 3 years duration, she is not eligible to be recruited. Hence, the present writ petition has been moved. 4. I have heard Sri G.Rama Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.Ravinder Rao, learned standing counsel for the first respondent Steel Plant. 5. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that within the State of Andhra Pradesh the General Nursing and Midwifery course offered both in the Governmental institutions as well as private institutions is only of 3 years duration and those who have successfully completed the said course are awarded a diploma in General Nursing and Midwifery by the Board of Examination in General Nursing and Midwifery which is the competent body and therefore, the respondents are not justified in rejecting the candidature of the writ petitioner for recruitment for the post notified under Employment Notification No.1/04. The learned counsel has also drawn my attention to the contents of the course curriculum pursued by her and also relevant material to demonstrate that the General Nursing and Midwifery course is only of 3 years duration and people with the said qualification are in fact eligible to be recruited as General Nurses/Midwives and hence the action of the respondent Steel Plant, being a public sector undertaking of the Central Government, is not only arbitrary but is contrary to the very terms of the notification pursuant to which the writ petitioner had come out successfully in the written examination. 6. Per contra, the learned standing counsel would submit that though the notification No.1/04 has not been happily worded, inasmuch as it has used the expression that the candidates should have successfully completed 4 years course in General Nursing from any State or Central Govt. Institute/ Medical College/ Institution, but nonetheless, it was clearly intended to recruit such candidates who pursued the 4 year course. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that steel plant’s intention in fact was to recruit such of those candidates who possess B.Sc (Nursing Degree) which is of 4 years duration and though not specifically mentioning B.Sc (Nursing Degree) as the requisite qualification, the notification tried to convey and indicate to the competing candidates by specifying that the course should have been of 4 years duration in General Nursing. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the respondent the prospective candidates have been clearly informed that they should have completed a course of study of Nursing which is of four year duration but not of 3 years duration. 7. While it is true that Employment Notification No.1/04 issued by the respondent has mentioned that the candidates should have passed SCC/Metric or its equivalent examination, but however, when it came to the question of professional qualifications required to be possessed, it has not used very clear and unambiguous terms but instead preferred to describe the requisite qualifications as “ should have successfully completed 4 years course in General Nursing from any State or Central Govt. Institute/ Medical College/ Institution.” 8. B.Sc Nursing is a degree qualification. The institutions which offered the said course train the candidates over a period of 4 years. The course content is also at variance with the course content of 3 years diploma course in General Nursing. B.Sc (Nursing) is a qualification, which is not called as B.Sc –General Nursing Degree. When once the expression “General Nursing” is used it conveys an impression that such of those candidates who possess the diploma in General Nursing as eligible. But at the same time, one cannot loose sight of the fact that the notification has used the expression 4 years course of General Nursing. This confusion which has been contributed by using not very precise expressions in the Employment Notification No.1 /04 has caused the mischief in the instant case. It is rather unfortunate that the first respondent should have used imprecise and ambiguous expression while taking out the Employment Notification. But the first respondent being a Public Sector undertaking, it’s requirement for its hospital services will have to be taken into account and consideration. The respondent employs several thousands on its rolls. Consequently, it had to maintain hospital services where quality Medicare and healthcare facilities have got to be provided. Not only during emergencies but even, otherwise. Apart from the employees, the dependents of the employees are also entitled to avail the medical facilities which the first respondent provides. Therefore, justification offered by the first respondent in seeking to recruit to its nursing cadre persons of certain established credentials cannot be denied or disputed. 9. Variance between a B.Sc (Nursing) degree and a 3 year Diploma course can be made out from the expression “4 years course” used and found in the Employment Notification No.1/04 as signifying that the first respondent intended to recruit such of those candidates who got trained in the nursing profession, in a course whose duration is of 4 years. Undoubtedly, B.Sc Nursing Course is of 4 years duration. But, at the same time the aspirations of the unemployed and qualified young persons should not be allowed or permitted to be left for imagination. In all fairness, the respondents should have made the position very clear to all the candidates at least prior to the written test being conducted. As was made out, in the present case, the writ petitioner has successfully come out of the written test and at the stage of being subjected to interview process, she has been denied such a right. It is not a mistake of the writ petitioner to have responded to the notification inasmuch as she did possess the necessary qualification in General Nursing and Midwifery. 10. At my instance, the learned standing counsel has taken up the matter with the first respondent Steel Plant to find out as to whether there were any vacancies left unfilled in Nursing cadre of their hospital services. Learned standing counsel has filed a set of material papers duly serving them on the opposite side. It has now been brought out that immediately after this episode, the first respondent steel plant itself has realized the confusion that has been created because of the ambiguity of the expression used in Employment Notification No.1/04 and tried to rectify the situation. It has now been pointed out that such of those candidates who possess B.Sc Nursing Degree qualification are sought to be recruited to the post of ‘Nurse in S-4 category’ while such of those candidates who possess 3 year diploma course in General Nursing and Midwifery are sought to be recruited to the post of ‘Junior Nurse in S-3 category’. Relevant pages of the note file run in that regard had been placed as part of the additional material papers. It has ultimately now been decided by the Steel Plant that the recruitment process will be confined to S-3 category for such candidates who possess diploma in General Nursing and Midwifery. Learned counsel also pointed out that through 3 subsequently taken out recruitment notifications bearing Advertisement No.4/06, Advertisement No.6/07 and Advertisement No.5/08 as many as 11 candidates have been recruited to S-3 category. It is rather unfortunate that because of the pendency of the writ petition, the writ petitioner either could not compete or compete successfully against any one of those posts. Since the mistake committed by the Steel Plant in using an inappropriate expression in the Advertisement No.1/04 which has been rectified and remedied subsequently, I prefer to exercise my discretion in favour of the first respondent because it is an industrial house employing several thousands of employees and therefore, the larger public interest demands that it recruits the best available talent for its hospital services. Otherwise the writ petitioner has made out a case for interference in view of the fact that she possess the qualification in General Nursing though it is only of 3 years duration. When once General Nursing courses offered across the State both by the Government institutions as well as private institutions are only of 3 years duration, the writ petitioner cannot be faulted at all for having responded to the notification. 11. Equity still lies in favour of the writ petitioner. The case of the writ petitioner deserves to be considered by the respondent Steel Plant against the next notification for recruitment for a Junior Nurse/Nurse in S-3 category as and when notified. Since the writ petitioner belongs to open category, the respondents would consider any representation which the writ petitioner might make seeking relaxation of the upper age limit suitably in her case. If the writ petitioner applies against the next notification for recruitment to S-3 category, her candidature would suitably be considered by the respondents, if necessary duly relaxing the upper age limit in her favour inasmuch as she has passed the written test pursuant to the notification No.1/04. 12. I also feel that the writ petitioner deserves to be paid a token sum of Rs.1,000/- as a measure of compensation in this writ petition by the respondents. 13. The writ petition stands disposed of with this. No costs. ___________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J 07-08-2009. Stp