IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2010 / 21ST SRAVANA 1932 WA.No. 1018 of 2010 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.1587/2010 Dated 11/03/2010 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN THE WPC ----------------------------------------- BINCY.K.B, DAUGHTER OF MR.K.O.BABY, AGED 22 YEARS,RESIDING AT "GREEN FIELDS", 6/854, YMCA CROSS ROAD, CALICUT 673 001. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH, GOVT.OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035. 2. THE PRESIDENT, BOARD OF EXAMINERS, THE KERALA NURSES AND MIDWIVES COUNCIL, RED CROSS ROAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035. 3. THE REGISTRAR, THE KERALA NURSES AND MIDWIVES COUNCIL, RED CROSS ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035. 4. THE DIRECTOR, THE DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035. R1 & R4 BYGOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ, SC, TCMC & KNMC THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.N.Ravindran, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A. No.1018 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. Aggrieved by a judgment dated 11th March, 2010 in W.P. (C) No.1587 of 2010 the unsuccessful petitioner therein preferred the instant writ appeal. 2. The appellant is a student of General Nursing and Midwifery Integrated Course in a private school imparting such training. It appears that initially the duration of the course was three years, but sometime in the year 2005, the Indian Nursing Council, a statutory body functioning under the provisions of the Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947, took a decision to enhance the duration of the course from three to 3½ years. In the extended period of six months, the students undergoing training are required to undergo 'internship'. The further details of the same may not be necessary for the purpose of this case. It is also necessary to mention that the W.A.No.1018 of 2010 - 2 - performance of the students at the internship is also separately assessed, both on the basis of the written examination and viva voce. However, such an assessment, in so far as the internship is concerned, was being made by the respective training institutes from the year 2005 onwards until the Council took a decision on 21.10.2009. By virtue of the decision dated 21.10.2009 the Council decided that the assessment would thenceforth be conducted by the Council. 3. The issue in the writ petition is whether the marks obtained by the appellant herein as assessed by the institute where the appellant was being trained with regard to the performance of the appellant in the internship are required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the grade of the appellant. Admittedly, under the Rules of the Council, trainees securing 80% and above marks are required to be graded as trainees who successfully completed the training with distinction. W.A.No.1018 of 2010 - 3 - 4. The question is whether for deciding the fact whether a particular trainee secured more than 80% marks or not, whether the marks obtained by such trainees in the assessment of the performance during the internship are also required to be taken into consideration. The Council by its decision referred to above decided not to take such marks into consideration on more than one ground. Firstly that since the assessment is made by individual institutions there is no uniform standard in making the assessment and therefore it will be unjust to take into consideration the marks secured by a candidate on the basis of such an assessment. Secondly, the assessment made by individual training institutes is giving scope for complaints of arbitrariness in making the assessment. 5. In our opinion, the decision of the Council to exclude from consideration the marks secured by the trainees during the period of their internship cannot be said to be either irrational or illegal in the light of the explanation given by the W.A.No.1018 of 2010 - 4 - Council mentioned above. Such a decision was uniformly applied to all the students of the batch to which the appellant belongs. In the circumstances, we do not see any reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal. The writ appeal is therefore dismissed at the admission stage. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice P.N.Ravindran, Judge vns