Bombay High Court Orders Action Against Nursing Colleges for Illegal Admissions; Directs Refund of Fees and ₹1 Lakh Compensation to Students
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Division Bench of Justices Ravindra V. Ghuge and Ashwin D. Bhobe, directed firm action against several nursing colleges across Maharashtra for admitting ineligible students to the Auxiliary Nurse Midwifery (ANM) and General Nursing and Midwifery (GNM) courses in breach of eligibility norms. The Court upheld the cancellation of such admissions by the Indian Nursing Council and ordered the colleges to refund the entire fees collected and pay ₹1 lakh compensation to each affected student. The Bench also instructed authorities to initiate proceedings against the erring managements for violating regulatory standards.
The petitions arose after the Indian Nursing Council (INC) and the Maharashtra State Board of Nursing and Paramedical Education (the Board) cancelled the admissions of students admitted to the first semester of the three-year ANM and GNM courses during the 2024-2025 academic session. The cancellation followed a verification process initiated by the INC, which found that several students were admitted without the requisite educational qualifications prescribed under the applicable guidelines.
The petitioners contended that they were admitted to the GNM and ANM courses by recognized nursing colleges after passing their Higher Secondary Certificate (HSC) examinations. They alleged that the Board’s subsequent cancellation of their admissions, several months after commencement of classes, was arbitrary and unfair. The petitioners also claimed that similar admissions had been approved in previous years, and that they should not be penalized for errors committed by the colleges.
The State Board argued that the admissions violated the eligibility requirements published in the guidelines dated 18 June 2024, which mandated 10+2 education with English and a minimum of 40% marks in the vocational stream of Health Care Science. The INC, by its letter dated 24 February 2025, clarified that only specific vocational subjects—such as Yoga Anatomy and Physiology, Ophthalmic Techniques, Medical Laboratory Technology, Auxiliary Nursing and Midwifery, and X-Ray Technician—could qualify students for ANM or GNM programs.
During the hearing, the Board’s Registrar submitted that the petitioners’ subjects, including “Computer Technique,” “Crop Science,” “Accounting and Office Management,” and “Electrical Technology,” were unrelated to healthcare studies and hence did not meet the eligibility criteria. The Board characterized the admissions as “illegal,” asserting that college managements had willfully admitted ineligible students to fill seats, contrary to statutory standards under the Maharashtra State Board of Nursing and Paramedical Education Act, 2013.
Earlier, an interim order dated 29 July 2025 allowed the petitioners to appear for the first semester examinations pending final adjudication. However, the Court had expressly recorded that such permission would not create any equity if the petitions were ultimately dismissed.
The Court recorded that “though a candidate may have done his HSC from the Arts or Commerce faculty with a Vocational stream, only those with subjects mentioned in the communication of 24 February 2025 could be admitted for ANM/GNM programs.” It observed that the eligibility criteria were unambiguous and publicly available before the admission process commenced.
Addressing the petitioners’ plea for parity with previous batches, the Court referred to established jurisprudence, noting that “the very idea of equality enshrined in Article 14 is a concept clothed in positivity based on law.” Citing the Supreme Court’s judgement in Tinku v. State of Haryana (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3292), the Bench reiterated that “no direction can be issued mandating the State to perpetuate any illegality or irregularity committed in favour of a person.” The judgment further recorded, “Passing of an illegal order wrongfully conferring some right or claim on someone does not entitle a similar claim to be put forth before a court nor would court be bound to accept such plea.”
Justice Ghuge, speaking for the Bench, stated that judicial equity cannot override legal requirements. The order stated that “if such claims are entertained and directions issued, that would not only be against the tenets of justice but would negate its ethos resulting in the law being a casualty culminating in anarchy and lawlessness.” The Court added, “The Court cannot ignore the law, nor can it overlook the same to confer a right or a claim that does not have legal sanction.”
The Bench also addressed the colleges’ conduct, observing that managements appeared to have admitted students solely to maximize enrollment despite clear statutory instructions. It recorded that the Board’s verification drive revealed that ninety students were admitted illegally, out of which twenty-two petitioners had approached the Court while sixty-eight others withdrew from the program. The Court noted, “It would be injustice to those who have lost their admissions because of such illegal admissions. The managements seem to have got emboldened by continuing to admit students who otherwise are ineligible to be admitted.”
The Court distinguished between cases where illegality is discovered at the inception of a course and those where students have already completed their studies, stating that “no equities are created in favour of the Petitioners” since the cancellations occurred during their first semester. It remarked that to allow continuation of such admissions “would be a mockery of the admission process.”
The Bench further cited its earlier decision in Areeb Hasan Ansari and Others v. State of Maharashtra (W.P. No. 1771 of 2023), where penalties were imposed on colleges admitting students without required caste validity certificates. Referring to that precedent, the Court reiterated that similar accountability measures were warranted against institutions admitting unqualified candidates to nursing programs.
The judgment stated that “the admissions of all the Petitioners stand cancelled.” It further directed that the results of examinations taken under interim orders “shall not be declared for forty-five days to the extent of these Petitioners only.” The Court ordered the answer sheets of the petitioners to be preserved for forty-five days, after which the physical copies were to be destroyed while scanned copies would remain preserved for the statutory period.
“The competent authority shall initiate action against these Managements for having illegally admitted the students, by following the due procedure laid down in law.” The Court instructed that such inquiry must include “scrutiny of all admissions for a period of five preceding years” and, where illegally admitted students were already in advanced stages of their courses, “their admissions be protected and appropriate strict action be taken against the Managements and also erring officials of any statutory bodies.”
“The Managements shall return the entire fees collected from the Petitioners, within forty-five days from today. The Managements shall pay Rs.1 lakh to each of the Petitioners, towards damages for the loss of one year, within forty-five days.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Pratik Balasaheb Rahade and Ms. Sakshi Thombre
For the Respondents: Ms. Sonali Pawar i/b Mr. Sandeep Dere; Mr. Ajit Hon; Mr. P.P. Kakade, Additional Government Pleader, assisted by Mr. V.G. Badgujar and Mrs. G.R. Raghuwanshi, Assistant Government Pleaders.
Case Title: Nandini Prakash Ingawale & Others v. State of Maharashtra & Others (and connected petitions)
Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:43711-DB
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 5697 of 2025 and connected matters
Bench: Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe
