IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.21251 of 2025 M/s. Samaleswari College of Nursing, Bargarh …. Petitioner Represented by Adv.– Mr. Subhankar Rout, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties Represented by Adv.– Mr. Subha Bikash Panda, AGA (for O.P. No.1) Mr. R.C. Mohanty, Advocate (for O.P. Nos.2 & 3) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO Order No. ORDER 01.08.2025 (Hybrid mode) 01. 1. Petitioner-Institution has approached this Court by filing the writ petition being aggrieved by the letter/notification dated 04.06.2025 issued by the Opposite Party No.3-Registrar, Odisha Nurses & Midwives Registration Council, DME&T, Odisha, Bhubaneswar. In the said letter, the Institutions that are not recommended for the academic Session 2025-26 at Sl. No.140, the Petitioner’s Institution finds place not recommend for General Nursing and Midwifery (GNM). In the last column, the “reason for not recommendation” is indicated i.e. i) The building and it’s location as shown during online inspection mismatched during physical inspection, ii) The building that is shown during physical reinspection is under construction & have no fire safety certificate. iii) The documents regarding BCC, Rent Agreement, Building Photo, Building Plan & other necessary documents could not be produced during physical inspection, iv) Only three classroom with furniture are available. Labs and Library are not found during physical inspection. Specific findings have been given indicating that the Petitioner-Institution has not complied the same. 2. It is submitted by Mr. Rout, learned counsel for the Petitioner that the physical inspection was made on 12.03.2025 by the Authorities, the said day being the day before the major holiday i.e. “Dola” in Odisha, staff were not available and certain aspects that could have been shown to the inspecting authorities could not be brought to their notice, for which the Petitioner-Institution has not been recommended. On being asked, it is submitted that thereafter, the Petitioner-Institution approached the Authorities by making oral request, that has not yielded any result. 3. Learned AGA, upon advance copy served appears and waives notice on behalf of Opposite Party No.1. Learned counsel Mr. R.C. Mohanty, who usually appears on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 & 3 appears upon advance copy served and waives notice. Vakalatnama filed by Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel be taken on record. 4. It is submitted by Mr. Mohanty that the inspection and the findings cannot be doubted. But the statement on behalf of the Petitioner-Institution that they have rectified the shortcomings can be considered by the authority in accordance with law if the Petitioner-Institution approaches. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, the learned AGA and Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, we dispose of this writ petition directing that the Petitioner-Institution shall approach the Authorities by 6th August, 2025 with detailed presentation including all such documents/soft copies relied upon by the petitioner regarding compliance of all requirements for getting recommended to conduct GNM course for the academic session, 2025-26. The authority shall do well to consider and cause physical inspection/verification, if so advised, within ten days thereafter. After such inspection, the authority shall take a decision and thereafter intimate the same to the Petitioner-Institution within five days. 6. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (Manash Ranjan Pathak) Judge (Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo) Judge. Narayan/Ranjeeta