1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.3852 of 2008. Mrs. Bodhi Gangaram Barua Vs. The Indian Nursingh Council and others. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances,Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri M. D. Modak, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. Bharti Dangre, Addl. G.P. for State. Coram: B. H. Marlapalle and A. H. JOSHI, JJ. Dated: 30th SEPTEMBER 2008. Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner. The order passed by the Respondent no.2 University on 30-4-2008, which in fact, has been addressed to the Principal of the Respondent NO.3. As per the said order, in the meeting held on 5-3-2008, it was decided that as per the ordinance No.01/2002 (Amended) of the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences and rule 58 therein, a student who failed in two subjects would not be permitted for 2 admission in the second year. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the communication dated nil and purportedly issued by the Indian Nursing Council, New Delhi and addressed to the Principal of Respondent No.3 College, wherein it is stated, inter alia, that the candidate failing in more than two subjects will not be permitted to the second year. Placing reliance on this communication, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the petitioner has failed in two subjects as per the Councils guidelines, she was admitted in the second year, and she has not been allowed to appear for the examination. Learned Counsel also referred to the decision of this Court in the case of Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Vs. Vibhavari Dilip Pawar, 2003-Bom CR-5-440 in support of his submission that though the ordinance of the Respondent No.2 University supports the impugned 3 communication, the University ought to fall in line with the guidelines issued by the Council, and take steps to amend the Ordinance in conformity with the guidelines of the Council. Undoubtedly, the guidelines of the Council would be required to be followed by the University so far as the prescribed minimum standards are concerned, and if the University desires to rely upon its own rule to prescribe better conditions to improve the standard, it cannot be prevented from doing so, and there is no legal bar so long as the University's ordinance prevails as of now. The impugned communication does not call for any interference. Hence, the petition is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE Sbm