Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court (Justices Ravindra V. Ghuge and Ashwin D. Bhobe) held that illegal admissions to Nursing Colleges cannot be regularised merely because similarly situated ineligible students were allowed to continue in previous years. The Court categorically stated that “equity cannot be extended to perpetuate illegality”, dismissing the petitions of 22 nursing students whose admissions to the General Nursing and Midwifery (GNM) course were cancelled by the Maharashtra State Board of Nursing and Paramedical Education.
The Court directed:
- Cancellation of all petitioners’ admissions.
- Non-declaration of exam results for 45 days.
- Refund of fees and compensation of ₹1 lakh per petitioner by the respective college managements.
- Departmental action against errant college managements and officials responsible for the illegal admissions.
Facts
The petitioners were students admitted to the three-year GNM course during the 2024–25 academic year. They had been admitted under the Vocational Stream of Higher Secondary Education, but their subjects—such as Computer Techniques, Accounting, Electrical Technology, Crop Science, and Automobile Technology—did not fall under the prescribed “Health Care Science” vocational stream mandated for GNM admissions.
After an inspection and document verification exercise conducted by the Board and the Indian Nursing Council (INC), it was discovered that 90 students across various colleges were admitted without requisite qualifications. The Board, therefore, cancelled these admissions in early 2025.
The petitioners approached the High Court, claiming that they were allowed to attend classes for months, paid the full first-year fees of ₹60,000 each, and were later barred from exams. The Court initially granted an ad-interim order allowing them to appear for the exams but directed that their results not be declared until final adjudication.
Issues
- Whether the Court should condone or regularise admissions granted to students who do not fulfill statutory eligibility criteria.
- Whether the cancellation of admissions by the State Board was valid when similar illegal admissions in previous years were not cancelled.
- Whether the nursing colleges or the students bore responsibility for the violation of eligibility norms.
Petitioners’ Arguments
The petitioners contended that they had been admitted after due verification by their respective colleges and the Board, and that similar admissions in previous academic years (since 2012) had been regularised. They argued that it was the responsibility of the colleges and Board to verify eligibility before confirming admission, and that students should not suffer for institutional lapses.
They highlighted that many other ineligible students from earlier batches were allowed to complete the course and obtain diplomas. Citing the principle of parity, they argued that they should not be singled out for cancellation. They also claimed to have acted in good faith, relying on the colleges’ representations and the official admission portal.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State Board and the INC maintained that the petitioners’ admissions were illegal, not merely irregular, since they lacked the required vocational subjects under “Health Care Science” as per the 2024–25 guidelines.
The Board argued that the colleges deliberately flouted statutory norms under the Maharashtra State Board of Nursing and Paramedical Education Act, 2013, by admitting ineligible candidates to fill vacant seats. The verification drive held between January and March 2025 confirmed that these students had subjects entirely unrelated to healthcare—such as Crop Science, Automobile Technology, and Accounting.
The State submitted that permitting such students to continue would undermine the integrity and credibility of nursing education, especially when these courses directly impact public health and patient safety.
Analysis of the Law
The Court referred to Section 24 of the Maharashtra State Board of Nursing and Paramedical Education Act, 2013, which empowers the Board to regulate standards for selection, infrastructure, staffing, and eligibility for nursing institutions.
The Board’s guidelines dated 18 June 2024 explicitly required candidates to have passed 10+2 with English and 40% marks in the vocational stream “Health Care Science”, including subjects such as Medical Laboratory Technology, Radiology, Child Healthcare, Ophthalmic Techniques, or Auxiliary Nursing and Midwifery.
Since the petitioners’ subjects were wholly unrelated to health sciences, their admissions violated the mandatory criteria. The Court noted that both the INC and the State Board had a statutory duty to maintain uniform academic standards in nursing education, and any deviation would compromise the profession’s credibility.
Precedent Analysis
- Tinku v. State of Haryana (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3292) – The Supreme Court held that courts cannot issue directions to perpetuate illegality merely because similar illegal actions were taken earlier. The concept of equality under Article 14 cannot be invoked to enforce illegal claims. “The Court will not compel the authority to repeat that illegality over again.”
- Areeb Hasan Ansari v. State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court, 2023) – The Division Bench imposed costs on colleges that admitted students without valid caste certificates, holding that institutional violations cannot prejudice students but must be rectified through regulatory action.
- National Medical Commission v. Annasaheb Chudaman Patil Memorial Medical College (2023) – The Supreme Court imposed ₹2.5 crores penalty on a college for admitting ineligible students, underscoring the seriousness of maintaining admission integrity in professional education.
These precedents collectively reinforced the principle that courts must not condone illegality even if committed in past years, and that responsibility lies with educational institutions that flout statutory norms.
Court’s Reasoning
The Bench observed that the petitioners admittedly did not possess the prescribed vocational qualifications and therefore had no legal right to continue in the course. The Court remarked that even though previous batches may have benefited from similar irregular admissions, that cannot justify repeating the illegality.
Quoting the Supreme Court in Tinku, the Court said:
“No direction can be issued mandating the State to perpetuate any illegality or irregularity committed in favour of a person… The court will not compel the authority to repeat that illegality over again.”
The judges further emphasized that condoning such admissions would amount to mocking the entire admission process, depriving genuinely eligible candidates of their rightful seats. The Court also acknowledged the culpability of the college managements, directing strong administrative action against them.
Conclusion
All writ petitions were dismissed. The Court upheld the cancellation of the petitioners’ admissions and directed:
- Admissions cancelled with immediate effect.
- Exam results withheld for 45 days, after which answer sheets could be destroyed (soft copies retained).
- Colleges to refund full fees and pay ₹1 lakh compensation per petitioner within 45 days.
- State authorities to conduct an inquiry into all admissions of the past five years and take strict action against erring managements and officials.
- Admissions of students in advanced years (e.g., third year) were protected to avoid disruption, but institutional accountability was mandated.
Implications
This ruling sends a strong signal against academic malpractices and institutional complacency. The Court reaffirmed that:
- “Courts cannot grant legitimacy to illegality merely out of sympathy.”
- Students cannot claim equity based on past irregularities.
- Regulatory authorities must ensure transparent verification to uphold the sanctity of professional nursing education.
The judgment reinforces judicial intolerance for systemic corruption in admissions and prioritizes the integrity of healthcare education over individual hardship.
