THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.26017 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is a College of Nursing, established by Sara Grace Educational Society, Machilipatnam (for short ‘the society’). A School of Nursing was started by the society, in the year 1988. With an intention to start B.Sc. (Nursing) Course, by upgradation of the existing institution, the petitioner submitted applications to the Indian Nursing Council, the 1st respondent, the Government of A.P., the 2nd respondent and Dr.N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, the 3rd respondent, for grant of permission and affiliation, as the case may be. The 1st respondent caused inspection of the institution and accorded permission to the petitioner, with an intake of 40 students, vide proceedings, dated 09.05.2008. On account of the fact that respondents 2 and 3 did not pass necessary orders, the petitioner did not start the College, in the academic year 2008-09. The 2nd respondent invited reports from the High Power Committee as well as a Team, constituted by the 3rd respondent. Taking the same into account, it issued G.O.Ms.No.226, dated 07.10.2009, and accorded permission for upgradation of the institution. Thereafter, it approached the 3rd respondent for grant of affiliation. The University appointed a Committee, which, in turn, visited the college, on 30.10.2009, and submitted a report, on the same date. Through letter, dated 09.11.2009, the 3rd respondent pointed out as many as 15 deficiencies, in the institution established by the petitioner, and stated that the provisional affiliation for upgradation to start B.Sc. (Nursing) Course, cannot be granted. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same. Sri K.G.K.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the University itself constituted the Inspection Committee, on a request made by the 2nd respondent, and the report submitted by the Committee has given rise to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.226, dated 07.10.2009, and there was no necessity and basis for the 3rd respondent to appoint another Committee. It is also his case that the Committee appointed by the 3rd respondent has applied parameters, which are not at all relevant for upgradation of an existing institution, and the petitioner has also attributed mala fides against the Vice-Chancellor of the University and made him as respondent No.4. Sri D.V.Nagarjuna Babu, learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent, submits that before granting affiliation, the University has to satisfy itself about the existence of infrastructural facilities, and the inspection caused, in this regard, has revealed that there are serious deficiencies in the institution. He submits that the Committee, which was constituted at the instance of the 2nd respondent, has also found several deficiencies, and the 2nd respondent does not appear to have taken the same into account, while granting the permission. The clearance in one form, or the other, is necessary from respondents 1 to 3 for starting a College of Nursing. An existing school of nursing stands on a slightly different footing, when compared to a College of Nursing, which is sought to be established afresh. However, the parameters that are fixed for a College of Nursing, be it by the 1st respondent, or the 3rd respondent, must be fulfilled. In the previous academic year itself, the 1st respondent accorded permission. Obviously because the clearance was not given by respondents 2 and 3, the petitioner was not able to admit the students for that academic year. Affiliation by the 3rd respondent becomes relevant, almost as a last step. An application for affiliation would be considered, only when necessary permissions, approvals etc., are granted by the other authorities. After the 1st respondent accorded permission, the matter was moved with the 2nd respondent. An High Power Committee is constituted by the 2nd respondent for this purpose. The report appears to have been received from that Committee. Apart from that, the Government addressed a letter to the 3rd respondent to constitute an Inspection Committee and forward the report of the inspection. The request was complied with and the 3rd respondent addressed a letter, dated 14.07.2009, while enclosing the report. A perusal of the said letter discloses that the Committee, which inspected the institution, was not satisfied with the infrastructure. However, by making reference to the said letter and report, the 2nd respondent granted permission vide G.O.Ms.No.226, dated 07.10.2009. The only stage that remained was the one of affiliation by the 3rd respondent. Soon after receiving G.O.Ms.No.226, dated 07.10.2009, the 3rd respondent constituted a Committee of inspection. The Committee, in turn, submitted its report, on 30.10.2009. Taking the same into account, the 3rd respondent addressed letter, dated 09.11.2009, pointing out as many as 15 deficiencies. The principal contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the very appointment of the Committee by the University was superfluous, since one Committee was already appointed by it, may be at the instance of the 2nd respondent. This Court finds it difficult to accept the said contention. The reason is that the appointment of a Committee, at the instance of the 2nd respondent, was for a totally different purpose. At any rate, the report submitted by the Committee does not disclose that everything with the petitioner was found to be satisfactory. Further, the requirements, with reference to which the University causes inspection, are a bit different. It needs to be noted that the involvement of respondents 1 and 2 is almost a one-time affair. Once the permission, or approval, is accorded by them, they hardly remain in picture. It is only the 3rd respondent that is required to conduct examinations year after year for the students to be admitted by the petitioner and award degrees. The statutes of the University mandate that, before affiliation is granted by it, verification as to existence of facilities must be done. Therefore, the impugned proceedings, dated 09.11.2009, cannot be said to be arbitrary, or without jurisdiction. Even now, the petitioner can rectify the deficiencies, and provide for various facilities, as per the stipulated norms. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing that it shall be open to the petitioner to submit a report of compliance, with reference to the various deficiencies pointed out in the impugned notice. As and when such compliance report is submitted, the 3rd respondent shall take the same into account, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the stipulated norms. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.23-12-2009. GJ