IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 957 of 2007 Date of decision: 1st July, 2008 Sant Thakur Singh Research & Education Society (Regd.) Rattia, District Fatehabad (Haryana) through Dr. Balbir Singh. … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Arvind Kashyap, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, AAG Haryana for the State. Mr. Amrit Pal, Advocate for respondent No.4. Mr. Manish Jolly, Advocate for respondent No.5. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. Present writ petition has been filed by Sant Thakur Singh Research & Education Society (Regd.) Rattia, District Fatehabad (Haryana) through Dr. Balbir Singh, praying that the respondent State Government be directed to issue Essentiality Certificate, which is necessary for establishing and starting Nursing Training School to impart training in Auxiliary Nursing Midwife/ Multi Purpose Health Worker (Female) (ANM/ MPHW(F) by the petitioner society. This Court, on October 12, 2007, noticed contention of the State that the petitioner society does not fulfill the conditions for grant of Essentiality Certificate to start Nursing Training School. It has been stated Civil Writ Petition No. 957 of 2007 in a written statement that in terms of new policy dated 19th June, 2007, petitioner society:- (i) Is not owner of four acre land. (ii) The petitioner-society did not furnish bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.25 lakhs. (iii) The registration of the petitioner-society is less than five years. (iv) The petitioner-society has not proper clinical facilities. (v) The petitioner-society has not supplied site plan prepared by an authorized architect. (vi) The petitioner-society does not deposit the inspection fee of Rs.20,000,00 with the respondents. (vii) The petitioner-society has not proper means of transportation. (viii) The cost project does not bear signature/ name of petitioner- society. Therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. In para 6 of the written statement, it has been also stated as under: “6. That in reply to Para No.5 of writ petition, it is respectfully submitted here that an inspection was conducted by a team comprising of Civil Surgeon Fatehabad and principle tutor GNM Training School and headed by Smt. Vedo Devi Deputy Director Nursing Office of Director General Health Services, Haryana, Panchkula. The inspection team submitted its inspection report to respondent No.2 who further submitted to competent authority respondent No.1 who after examining the inspection report, returned the same to the respondent No.2 with remarks that inspection should be conducted by Director Health Services, Haryana. Thereafter the respondent No.1 decided to frame a new policy in this regard hence the matter remained undecided. The new policy 2 Civil Writ Petition No. 957 of 2007 came in existence on 19.06.2007. Thus respondent No.1 who is competent authority examined the case of the petitioner- Society, for the grant of NOC, for opening Nursing Training School in the light of the new policy and found that the petitioner-society does not fulfill the conditions, for grant of NOC prescribed in the policy Annexure R1.” Petitioner had filed replication and had stated that petitioner had applied on 14.02.2006 and therefore, his case cannot be dealt with under the new policy. It has been further stated that similarly situated respondent No. 6 and 7 were granted NOC on 12.01.2007. It will be apposite here to reproduce preliminary objections raised in the replication: “1. That in reply to preliminary submission it is stated that the petitioner society had applied for No Objection Certificate on 14.02.2006. The case of petitioner society was to be considered as per the norms/ guidelines in existence prior to the coming of New Policy dated 19.06.2007. The petitioner filed present writ petition on 19.01.2007. Whereas the New Policy come into existence on 19.06.2007 much later after the filing of the present writ petition. The petitioner fulfilled all the requirements under the old set of scheme/ guidelines. The other similarly situated Institutions who had applied prior to the coming of policy dated 19.06.2007 like the petitioner were granted No Objection Certificate under the Old guidelines. Prerna Senior Secondary School Sirsa had applied for M.P.H.W. (F) School on 26.1.2006 for grant of N.O.C. and was granted N.O.C. on 12.1.2007. In the same manner Balaji Shiksha Samiti Sunderpura, Narwana, Distt. Jind applied for N.O.C. for M.P.H.W. (F) on 30.8.2006 and was granted N.O.C. on 12.1.2007. It is stated here that the petitioner had applied for N.O.C. prior to these institutions, but their cases were considered before the petitioner. The case of the petitioner was delayed with ulterior motive. Hence the case of the petitioner is liable to be considered as per the old guidelines/ policy. It is incorrect that the writ petition is liable to 3 Civil Writ Petition No. 957 of 2007 be dismissed as it does not fulfill the requirements as laid down under the new Policy.” During the course of arguments, counsel for the petitioner has stated that intentionally, case of the petitioner was not dealt with and therefore, new policy of 19th June, 2007 will not be applicable to the petitioner and petitioner cannot be asked to fulfill the conditions laid down in new policy dated 19th June, 2007. From the pleadings, it is made out that the policy dated 19th June, 2007 is for the better management, infrastructure and in the interest of students. Therefore, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner as we find no merit in the same. Present petition is dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE [ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA] JUDGE July 1, 2008 rps 4