ALOK SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed impugning the order dated 28.8.2014 issued under the hand of Joint Secretary, Medical and Health (Group -3) Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur directing that the students be not allocated inter -alia to the petitioner college till further orders for reason of it being under investigation by the Anti Corruption Bureau (hereinafter 'the ACB') for criminal culpability in obtaining recognition from the Indian Nursing Council (hereinafter 'the INC').
(2.) BEFORE addressing on the merits of the writ petition it would be in place to record that earlier writ petition No. 9333/2014 was filed before this Court by the petitioner College challenging the order dated 28.8.2014 (as under challenge herein) and praying for the same relief. On the petitioner's earlier petition (SBCW P. No. 9333/2014) being listed before this Court with connected matters, this Court hearing the matter at the relevant time directed constitution of a Committee comprised of an Advocate of this Court Shri Rishabh Khandelwal and Shri Radhey Shyam Sethi, Joint Director, Medical and Health Department to make inspection of various institutions then before the Court and submit a report with regard to their being compliant or not with the INC norms/ guidelines for grant of recognition to B.Sc Nursing Courses. A report was there -upon filed before this Court on 31.10.2014 inter -alia qua the petitioner College. Objections to the said report were filed. However on the matter coming up before this Court on 4.12.2014 counsel appearing for the petitioner College prayed for withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to file afresh if the occasion so arose. The writ petition was therefore dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.
(3.) THE present writ petition purports to have been filed in terms of the liberty granted by this Court. It has been stated that since the withdrawal of SBCW P. No. 9333/2014 on 4.12.2014, there has been change in circumstances which warrants a re -look as the case of the petitioner College for setting aside the order dated 28.8.2014 issued under the hand of Joint Secretary, Medical and Health (Group -3) Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. The change Sr. Counsel Shri R.N Mathur submitted is that, for one, of the 8 institutions to which the order dated 28.8.2014 pertains, six institutions have the benefit of interim orders passed at the Principal Seat of this Court at Jodhpur such as in SBCW P. Nos. 597/2015 and 9013/2014 where -under the institutions to which allocation of students was prohibited by the State Government have been allowed to admit students into B.Sc (Nursing) Course as the order dated 28.8.2014 qua such institutions has been stayed. Sr. Counsel submitted that aside of everything else the petitioner College in the circumstances is entitled to similar interim protection as granted by the Principal Seat at Jodhpur to other Colleges similarly situate for reasons of the comity of courts and parity even qua interim orders. Sr. Counsel submitted that it is well settled that mere pendency of a criminal investigation cannot be prejudicial to the rights of a citizen/ organisation and until one is held to be guilty no disability can attach. It is further submitted that in the investigation into the FIR against the petitioner College, the I.O has recommended filing of a closure report finding no wrong doing/ criminal culpability as alleged and hence the petitioner College has a prima facie case which undercuts the suspicion and allegations which resulted in the passing of the impugned order dated 28.8.2014. Sr. Counsel further submitted that the Indian Nursing Council Act is a regulatory statute and the petitioner College is ready and willing to rectify the short -comings in compliance with the guidelines/ para -meters for recognition of B.Sc (Nursing) Course as found by the Committee constituted by this this Court in SBCW P. No. 9333/2014 within a time frame of two months. It is submitted that the order dated 28.8.2014 is thus liable to be quashed and set aside and the petitioner College with subsisting recognition of its B.Sc (Nursing) Course from INC and affiliation to RUHS should be allowed to admit students into B.Sc. (Nursing) Course 2014 -15 as per the approved induction capacity. Mr. S.K Gupta -learned AAG appearing for the State and Mr. Ashish Kumar Singh counsel appearing for the respondent RUHS have submitted that there has been no substantial change in the circumstances after withdrawal of the earlier writ petition (No.9333/2014 on 4.12.2014) by the petitioner College nor a fresh cause of action accrued to the petitioner College. It has been submitted that this Court while granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition had categorically stated that such a petition could be filed if the occasion so arose. It has been submitted that the purport of the aforesaid order was that the petitioner College could approach this Court in the event of fresh cause of action arising such as by way of a representation filed against the order dated 28.8.2014 to the State being dismissed. Counsel have further submitted that as the petitioner College has approached this Court on the ground of parity with those allegedly similarly situate, it was for it to show that the Principal Seat at Jodhpur while passing the orders in SBCW P. No. 597/2015 on 14.1.2015 was made aware of the earlier proceedings taken before this Court by the aforesaid institutions where -upon a committee of an Advocate of this Court as also Joint Director of the Medical and Health Department had been constituted for inspection of the Colleges/ institutions for ascertaining facts with regard to their compliance with the para -meters and standards/ guidelines of the INC for grant of recognition for B.Sc (Nursing) Course/s. It has been submitted that the issue of parity can only be agitated if the underlying facts are identical and absent identical facts, the ground of parity or for that matter the principle of comity of the Court/s in passing the interim order/s cannot be pressed. It has been submitted that the assertion of the Sr. counsel for the petitioner that the proposal of the I.O for filing a negative report in the pending FIR against the petitioner College is conclusive and equivalent to filing of a negative report on allegation of offences is not the correct statement of law. Counsel submits that the Investigating Officer in crime No. 85/2013 (ACB) against the petitioner College has indeed recommended filing of a negative report against the petitioner College but the said recommendation on the face of it is subject to legal opinion and confirmation by the higher authorities at the Police Headquarter. It has been submitted that the Code of Criminal Procedure does not contemplate an interim negative report and the only report of relevance is the final report whether negative or positive as filed in Court. Learned AAG has submitted that in this view of the matter it is presumptive on the part of the petitioner College that it has been absolved for all its doing in the alleged fraudulent obtaining of recognition by the INC in the year 2007 -08. It has been further submitted that this Court should also take into consideration the fact that the State Government's NOC for running of B.Sc (Nursing) Course in the State of Rajasthan is central to the enterprise and where the State Government has for a reasonable and valid reason, such as pending investigations and serious allegations against the petitioner College, decided to keep the NOC in abeyance and restrained the induction of students in B.Sc Nursing Part -I Course run by the petitioner College, this Court in the exercise of its extra -ordinary equitable jurisdiction should not intervene even if a legal ground is made out - more so if the consequences of intervention would be revival of a course, recognition whereof was prima -facie fraudulently obtained in collusion with the officers of the INC despite absence of the requisite infrastructure and satisfaction of para -meters as detailed in the INC's own guidelines for grant of recognition. This fact, learned AAG submitted transpires from the report of the Committee appointed by this Court following an inspection.;