IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14563 of 2009 1. ANUPAM KUMARI D/O RAM PRASAD SINGH VILL- MOTIPUR, P.S. TAJPUR, DISTT. SAMASTIPUR---------------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY DEPTT. OF HEALTH, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE STATE HEALTH SAMITI, BIHAR, PATNA FAMILY -WELFARE BHAWAN, SHEIKHPURA, PATNA-16, THROUGH ITS ADVISOR 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SAMASTIPUR 5. THE CIVIL SURGEON-CUM-MEMBER SECRETARY DISTRICT HEALTH SAMITI, SAMASTIPUR SADAR HOSPITAL CAMPUS, SAMASTIPUR 6. BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD, PATNA-1 THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN 7. THE SECRETARY BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD, PATNA 8. THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIATE BUILDING, PATNA-1 9. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER SAMASTIPUR 10. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION SAMASTIPUR 11. THE PRINCIPAL null MODEL INTER COLLEGE, SAMASTIPUR, MOH- BAHADURPUR, P.S. SAMATIPUR TOWN, DISTT. SAMASTIPUR 12. THE BIHAR NURSES REGISTRATION COUNCIL, PATNA SECRETARIAT BUILDING, PATNA THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR---------- ---------------------------------RESPONDENTS ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Najmul Hoda, Advocate Mr. Dr. Alok Kumar Alok, Advocate For the State: Mr. Vipin Kumar, AC to GP-VIII For Respt.No.12: Mr. J.P. Karn, Sr. Advocate For the Intermediate Council: Mr. S.K.Mandal, Advocate -------------- 4 25.1.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner’s service has been dispensed with by virtue of the order contained in annexure-10 issued by the Civil Surgeon, Samastipur on the ground that the so called training certificate obtained by the petitioner as A.N.M. is not a recognized degree by the Bihar Nurses Registration Council though the petitioner had been appointed to the post on the basis of annexures 1 and 2. But on due scrutiny this fact having emerged, the impugned order came to be issued which is under challenge in the present writ application. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is - 2 - that both annexures- 1 and 2 are from institutions established either by the State or the Government of India and therefore no separate registration or recognition for this degree are required and the reasons indicated in annexure-10 to that extent is erroneous if not arbitrary. Counter affidavit has come to be filed on behalf of respondents specially the official respondents including respondent no. 12 i.e. the Bihar Nurses Registration Council. Their stand is that the petitioner lacks requisite qualification for appointment because the so called degree which she has annexed with the writ application is not a recognized degree or registered as such by Bihar Nurses Registration Council. Recognition or registration with Bihar Nurses Registration Council is a must and both annexures-1 and 2 does not qualify her to be treated as validly qualified A. N.M. A categorical statement has been made on behalf of respondent no.12 that in terms of section 16 (c ) of the Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947 there is a uniform syllabus and courses of studies which has been prescribed and the degree issued on said standard of prescribed courses are the degrees which are recognized or registered as such, not any vocational course offered by any institution much less the Intermediate Council of Bihar will help the situation for the petitioner. The Bihar Nurses Council does not recognize vocational course of A.N.M. offered by erstwhile Intermediate Council of Bihar. - 3 - Learned counsel representing the petitioner thereafter submits that she has already approached the Council in question for registration on the basis of her qualification but no decision has been taken by them till date. The evidence annexed with the writ application specially annexure-9 does not support that such an application has been filed before the Bihar Nurses Registration Council. The application seems to have been addressed to many other persons except to respondent no.12. The reasonings given by the respondents for issuance of annexure-10 does not seem to be misplaced because despite indulgence shown to learned counsel for the petitioner he has failed to produced any document or any evidence to show that annexures-1 and 2 are valid degree which have recognition of law under 1947 Act. In that background it is difficult for this Court to interfere with the impugned order but the Court will not come in the way if the petitioner wants to move respondent no.12 seeking registration if she fulfills the criteria. The Court does not express its opinion on this issue for many a reasons. This writ application is dismissed with the liberty as above. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)