Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Private Physiotherapy, Nursing And … vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 April, 2026
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2026:RJ-JD:14461-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Writ Misc Application No. 149/2026
Private Physiotherapy, Nursing And Para Medical Institution
Society, Jaipur, Nursing And Para Medical Institution Society,
Jaipur Through Its Authorised Signatory Pramod Pal S/o Yashpal,
Aged About 47 Years Having Its Branch Office At Plot No. 273,
Subhash Nagar, Pal Road, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.(Res No. 3 In Saw
No. 945/2025)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Medical And
Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan Secretariat
Jaipur.
2. The Rajasthan Nursing Council Jaipur, Through Its
Registrar, B 39, Sardar Patel Marg, C Scheme, Jaipur
3. Skill Development Trust, (Maharaja Agarsen College Of
Nursing) Bikaner Road Suratgarh District Sri Ganganagar
Rajasthan Through Secretary Shri Naveen Khemka Son
Shri Govind Ram Khemka Age 41 Years Resident Of
Govind Ram Khemka E 11, Basant Vihar Colony Suratgarh
Sri Ganganagar.
4. Rajasthan University Of Health And Sciences, Jaipur,
Having Its Office At Sector 18, Kumbha Marg, Pratap
Nagar, Jaipur, Rajsthan, Through Shri Harphool Pankaj S/
o Bhairun Ram Aged About 57 Years,registrar, Ruhs,
Jaipur (Rajasthan) 302033. (Appellant In Title Of Saw
No.945/2025).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.N. Mathur, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Himanshu Choudhary,
Mr. Reddy Amar and Mr. Abhishek
Mewara
Dr. Sachin Acharya, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Chayan Bothra
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG Assisted by
Mr. B.S. Sodha
Mr. Vinay Kothari (through VC)
Mr. Ayush Goyal
Mr. Bhavyadeep Singh
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA
Judgment
(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 03:08:13 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/04/2026 at 07:21:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14461-DB] (2 of 15) [WMAP-149/2026]
1. Date of conclusion of arguments 27.03.2026
2. Date on which judgment was reserved 27.03.2026
3. Whether the full judgment or only the
operative part is pronounced: Full Judgment
4. Date of pronouncement 09.04.2026
Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. The present Writ Miscellaneous Application has been
preferred by the applicant seeking the following reliefs:
“In view of the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove, it
is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may
graciously be pleased to:
A. Clarify and/or suitably modify the order dated 10.11.2025
(Annex-A5) passed by this Hon’ble Court in the present
proceedings to the limited extent that the same may not
operate as a bar on the filling up of the vacant seats in B.Sc.
Nursing / Post Basic B.Sc. Nursing / GNM / allied courses by
the member institutions of the Applicant Federation, strictly in
accordance with the applicable regulatory framework and
within the timeline prescribed by the competent authorities;
B. Direct the respondent University to permit and facilitate the
filling up of the vacant seats in the member institutions of the
Applicant Federation in accordance with law and in terms of
the regulatory extension granted by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court and the Indian Nursing Council;
C. Direct the respondent University to scrutinize and verify the
documents and eligibility of the students admitted by the
member institutions, in conformity with the regulations and
guidelines of the Indian Nursing Council, and thereafter grant
enrolment/registration to such eligible students and proceed
further in accordance with law;
D. Pass appropriate directions to the respondent University to
process and recognize the admissions made by the member
institutions strictly within the extended admission timeline, so
that the admitted students may be permitted to participate in
the forthcoming academic activities and examinations;
E. Pass such other and further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
present case.”
2. Brief facts of the case are that admissions to B.Sc. Nursing,
Post Basic B.Sc. Nursing and GNM courses for the academic
session 2025-26 in the State of Rajasthan were being conducted
(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 03:08:13 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/04/2026 at 07:21:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14461-DB] (3 of 15) [WMAP-149/2026]
through a centralized counselling process under the aegis of the
Rajasthan University of Health Sciences (RUHS). During the
course of counselling, disputes arose regarding participation of
certain institutions whose No Objection Certificates (NOCs) from
the State Government were either pending or under consideration,
which led to filing of writ petitions before the learned Single
Judge.
2.1. The learned Single Judge, by way of interim orders passed in
the said writ petitions, permitted such institutions to participate in
the counselling process. Aggrieved thereby, RUHS preferred a
batch of Special Appeals before this Hon’ble Court. The Hon’ble
Division Bench, vide order dated 19.09.2025 passed in D.B.
Special Appeal (Writ) No. 945/2025 and connected matters,
modified the interim orders and directed that only those
institutions which had been granted valid NOCs by the State
Government shall be permitted to participate in the counselling
process, and that counselling shall proceed after the issue of NOCs
is duly finalized.
2.2. Thereafter, in subsequent proceedings arising out of the said
appeals, including a batch of Writ Miscellaneous Applications, this
Hon’ble Court, vide order dated 10.11.2025, directed that in the
event the University proposes to conduct any further rounds of
counselling or to fill up the seats, it shall seek permission from
this Hon’ble Court.
2.3. It is averred in the present application that despite multiple
rounds of centralized counselling conducted by RUHS, a
(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 03:08:13 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/04/2026 at 07:21:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14461-DB] (4 of 15) [WMAP-149/2026]
substantial number of seats in nursing courses remained vacant.
In the meantime, the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Indian
Nursing Council extended the last date for admission up to
31.12.2025, thereby permitting filling up of vacant seats within
the extended regulatory timeline.
2.4. The grievance raised in the present application is that the
respondent-University, relying upon the order dated 10.11.2025,
issued a communication restraining institutions from filling up
vacant seats at their own level, even in respect of those
institutions which possessed valid NOCs and were otherwise
compliant with the regulatory framework. It is contended that in
such circumstances, the applicant-institutions granted provisional
admissions to eligible candidates within the extended timeline,
which are now not being recognized.
3. Mr. R.N. Mathur, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Himanshu
Choudhary, Mr. Reddy Amar and Mr. Abhishek Mewara & Dr. Sachin
Acharya, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Chayan Bothra, learned
counsels for the applicant submitted that the applicant is a
registered society representing various private nursing and para-
medical institutions in the State, which are duly established and
possess valid statutory approvals, including No Objection
Certificates (NOCs), recognition and affiliation from the competent
authorities, and have been participating in the centralized
counselling process in accordance with the governing framework.
3.1. It was submitted that the grievance raised in the present
application is confined only to those institutions which were
(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 03:08:13 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/04/2026 at 07:21:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14461-DB] (5 of 15) [WMAP-149/2026]
already fully compliant and possessed valid NOCs during the
counselling process, and had duly participated in all rounds of
counselling conducted by the respondent-University. It is
contended that the present application does not concern
institutions whose approvals were pending or granted belatedly,
but only such institutions whose eligibility stood crystallized prior
to or during the counselling process.
3.2. Learned counsel submitted that the order dated 19.09.2025
passed by this Hon’ble Court in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.
945/2025 clearly permitted participation of institutions holding
valid NOCs and did not impose any restriction upon such
compliant institutions. It is further submitted that the subsequent
order dated 10.11.2025 was issued in the context of institutions
whose NOCs were pending, and cannot be construed as a blanket
embargo restraining all institutions, including those already
holding valid NOCs, from filling vacant seats.
3.3. It is further submitted that despite completion of all rounds of
centralized counselling, a substantial number of seats remained
vacant. In the meantime, the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as
the Indian Nursing Council extended the last date for admission up
to 31.12.2025, thereby permitting filling up of vacant seats within
the extended regulatory framework.
3.4. Learned counsel contended that in view of the regulatory
extension and to prevent wastage of sanctioned seats, the
applicant-institutions granted admissions to eligible candidates
strictly within the extended timeline, from amongst candidates
(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 03:08:13 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/04/2026 at 07:21:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14461-DB] (6 of 15) [WMAP-149/2026]
who had already participated in the centralized entrance process
and fulfilled all eligibility criteria. It is submitted that such
admissions were not dehors the rules, but were in consonance
with the regulatory framework and at best constitute procedural
irregularities.
3.5. It was further submitted that as per the regulatory scheme of
the Indian Nursing Council, admissions made between 01.11.2025
and 31.12.2025 are treated as an “irregular batch”, with provision
for separate classes and examinations, thereby indicating that
such admissions are permissible within the extended timeline and
are liable to be recognized.
3.6. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent-
University failed to evolve any mechanism or provide any portal
for submission of admitted students’ details after conclusion of
counselling, which is otherwise the consistent past practice. It is
contended that due to such inaction, the applicant-institutions
could not furnish the list of admitted students in the prescribed
manner, despite making representations to the University in this
regard.
3.7. It is submitted that the admissions were thus made bona fide
within the regulatory timeline and subject to verification, and the
applicant is seeking only a limited relief of permitting scrutiny and
verification of such admissions, and grant of provisional enrolment
to eligible students.
3.8. Learned counsel further submitted that the students so
admitted are otherwise meritorious and eligible, having
(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 03:08:13 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/04/2026 at 07:21:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14461-DB] (7 of 15) [WMAP-149/2026]
participated in the entrance process, and had no role in the
litigation or administrative inaction. It is contended that non-
recognition of such admissions would result in irreparable
prejudice to the students by depriving them of an academic year.
3.9. It was also submitted that the action of the respondent-
University in permitting institutional level admissions in other
allied courses such as Para-Medical, Pharmacy and BPT, while
denying the same for nursing courses, is arbitrary and violative of
Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
3.10. Learned counsel further sought to distinguish the judgment
in Fortune Foundation v. State of Rajasthan (D.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 23307/2025, decided on 11.02.2026) by
submitting that the said case pertained to institutions which had
obtained NOCs after completion of counselling and sought
participation in the counselling process, whereas in the present
case, the institutions were already eligible, had participated in
counselling, and are only seeking recognition of admissions made
against vacant seats within the extended regulatory timeline.
3.11. On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, it is prayed
that appropriate clarification/modification be issued to the order
dated 10.11.2025 to the limited extent that it may not operate as
a bar on filling up of vacant seats by duly compliant institutions,
and that the admissions so made be directed to be scrutinized and
processed in accordance with law.
3.12. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in:
(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 03:08:13 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/04/2026 at 07:21:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14461-DB] (8 of 15) [WMAP-149/2026]
1. Index Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre vs.
The State of Madhya Pradesh and ors. [Civil Appeal Nos. 867,
868, 869 of 2021, SLP © Nos. 179, 1109, 1274 of 2021
decided on 03.02.2021]
2. S. Tirupathi Rao vs. M. Lingamaiah & Ors. [Civil Appeal
Nos. ___ of 2024 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 19748-19749
of 2022] decided on 22.07.2024]
3. Ramkrishna Medical College Hospital & Research Centre
vs. State fo Madhya Pradesh (Civil Appeal No. 12235 of 2024
@ Special Leave Petition © No. 11785 of 2024 with other
connected matter decided on 07.11.2024)
4. Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, Additional Advocate General assisted by
Mr. B.S. Sodha & Mr. Vinay Kothari (through VC) with Mr. Ayush
Goyal and Mr. Bhavyadeep SinghPer contra, learned counsel for
the respondent State and Rajasthan University of Health Sciences
submitted that the present application is wholly misconceived, not
maintainable and deserves dismissal.
4.1. It is submitted that the present application is nothing but a
circuitous attempt to secure reliefs which already stand declined
by this Hon’ble Court in Fortune Foundation (Supra). The
applicant federation seeks to reopen concluded issues under the
guise of clarification, which amounts to abuse of process of law.
4.2. Learned counsel submitted that the core principle laid down in
Fortune Foundation (supra) is not confined to cases of belated
NOCs, but extends to the broader doctrine that once the
counselling process has concluded and the academic session has
substantially progressed, no fresh admissions can be permitted,
whether directly or indirectly.
(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 03:08:13 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/04/2026 at 07:21:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14461-DB] (9 of 15) [WMAP-149/2026]
4.3. It is submitted that the present case, though projected
differently, in substance seeks regularization of admissions made
after completion of counselling and during an advanced stage of
the academic session, which squarely falls within the mischief
addressed in Fortune Foundation (supra).
4.4. As regards the reliance placed by the applicant on the
extension granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Indian
Nursing Council, learned counsel submitted that such extension
cannot be read in isolation or as conferring an independent right
upon institutions to admit students dehors the statutory
counselling mechanism.
4.5. It is submitted that the extension of timeline merely enlarged
the outer limit for admissions within the regulatory framework, but
did not dilute or override the mandatory requirement that
admissions must be undertaken in accordance with the centralized
counselling process or with due authorization of the competent
authority.
4.6. Learned counsel submitted that even assuming that
institutional level admissions were permissible within the extended
timeline, the same could not have been undertaken in violation of
the specific order dated 10.11.2025 passed by this Hon’ble Court,
which clearly mandated that any further filling up of seats would
require prior permission of this Hon’ble Court.
4.7. It is submitted that admittedly, no such permission was
sought by the applicant institutions before proceeding to grant
admissions. Therefore, the admissions are not merely irregular but
(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 03:08:13 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/04/2026 at 07:21:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14461-DB] (10 of 15) [WMAP-149/2026]
are in direct contravention of a subsisting judicial order, which by
itself disentitles the applicant from any equitable relief.
4.8. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant
institutions did not furnish the list of admitted students to RUHS
within time nor subjected such admissions to scrutiny and
enrollment as required under the governing framework. Thus,
even procedurally, the admissions lack legitimacy.
4.9. It is contended that the plea that the case stands on a
different footing from Fortune Foundation (supra) is
misconceived. In both situations, the ultimate consequence sought
is identical, namely, permitting or regularizing admissions after
the counselling process has concluded and the academic session
has substantially progressed.
4.10. Learned counsel submitted that in Fortune Foundation
(supra), this Hon’ble Court has categorically held that midstream
admissions, whether by reopening counselling or by permitting
institutions to admit students at their own level, cannot be allowed
once a substantial portion of the course has been completed.
4.11. It is submitted that permitting the present relief would
effectively result in the same impermissible consequence, namely,
admission of students after completion of a substantial part of the
academic curriculum, thereby compromising educational standards
and defeating the sanctity of the admission schedule.
4.12. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant’s
reliance on alleged past practice or permissions in other courses is
wholly irrelevant, as nursing courses are governed by a distinct
(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 03:08:13 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/04/2026 at 07:21:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14461-DB] (11 of 15) [WMAP-149/2026]
statutory and regulatory framework, which mandates strict
adherence to timelines and procedure.
4.13. It is also submitted that the plea of equity on behalf of
students cannot override the settled legal position that admissions
made in violation of statutory provisions and judicial orders cannot
be regularized.
4.14. Learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in:
(i) Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh & Ors.[(2002)
7 SCC 258], wherein it has been held that midstream
admissions disturb academic discipline and cannot be
permitted; and
(ii) D.Y. Patil Medical College v. Medical Council of India &
Ors. [(2015) 10 SCC 51], wherein the sanctity of the
academic schedule and cut-off dates has been
emphasized.
4.15. It is thus submitted that the extension granted by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court does not legitimize admissions made in
violation of the counselling framework or the specific orders of this
Hon’ble Court, and therefore, the present case is fully covered by
the ratio of Fortune Foundation (supra).
4.16. On the strength of the aforesaid submissions, it is prayed
that the present application be dismissed.
(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 03:08:13 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/04/2026 at 07:21:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14461-DB] (12 of 15) [WMAP-149/2026]
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record as well as the precedents cited at the
bar.
6. At the outset, this Court finds that the controversy raised in
the present application stands squarely covered by the judgment
rendered by this Hon’ble Court in Fortune Foundation (Supra),
and no distinguishing feature has been demonstrated so as to
warrant a departure therefrom.
6.1. This Court observes that the issues arising in the present
case are identical to those adjudicated in Fortune Foundation
(supra), namely, whether after conclusion of the centralized
counselling process and substantial progression of the academic
session, institutions can either seek additional admissions or claim
recognition of admissions made at their own level dehors the
counselling mechanism.
6.2. This Court further observes that the present application,
though styled as one seeking clarification/modification of the order
dated 10.11.2025, in substance seeks regularization of admissions
made after conclusion of counselling, which is nothing but an
indirect attempt to secure the relief expressly declined in Fortune
Foundation (supra).
6.3. This Court finds that in Fortune Foundation (supra), it has
been categorically held:
“1. No provision under the governing statute, rules, statutes,
or counseling guidelines permits RUHS to alter, expand, or
modify this seat matrix once counseling rounds have
commenced. Consequently, once counseling rounds stood(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 03:08:13 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/04/2026 at 07:21:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14461-DB] (13 of 15) [WMAP-149/2026]concluded on 04.11.2025, RUHS became functus officio qua
the seat matrix for Academic Session 2025-26 ”
6.4. This Court observes that permitting recognition of
admissions made at the institutional level would necessarily
amount to altering a concluded seat matrix, which is
impermissible in law.
6.5. This Court further observes that the Hon’ble Division Bench
has clearly held:
“The right to establish an institution cannot be equated with a
right to insist upon student allotment for a concluded
academic session.”
6.6. This Court finds that the applicant seeks to assert precisely
such a right, which stands negated by the aforesaid authoritative
pronouncement.
6.7. This Court further observes that the Hon’ble Court has
expressly held:
“What cannot be permitted directly, namely midstream
admission of students, cannot be permitted indirectly by
allowing midstream inclusion of an institution resulting in the
same consequence.”
6.8. This Court finds that the admissions sought to be regularized
herein are midstream admissions in effect, having been made
after conclusion of counselling, and thus fall squarely within the
prohibition laid down.
6.9. This Court further observes that the academic session has
substantially progressed and the Hon’ble Court has held:
(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 03:08:13 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/04/2026 at 07:21:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14461-DB] (14 of 15) [WMAP-149/2026]“With the academic session substantially progressed, any
direction for additional counselling or institutional admissions
would disturb academic discipline and educational standards.”6.10. This Court finds that the same factual position obtains in the
present case, and therefore, no indulgence can be granted.
6.11. This Court further finds that the conduct of the applicant-
institutions disentitles them to any equitable relief. Despite the
clear direction contained in the order dated 10.11.2025 that in
case the University proposes to proceed with further counselling or
filling of seats, it shall seek permission from this Court,
admittedly, no such application seeking permission was moved
prior to making the impugned admissions. This Court further
observes that the admissions were thus undertaken unilaterally
and in conscious disregard of the subsisting judicial directions, and
therefore, cannot be clothed with legality at a subsequent stage.
6.12.This Court also finds that the applicant-institutions failed to
furnish the list of such admitted students to the respondent-
University within the relevant time, nor were such students ever
subjected to scrutiny or enrollment by RUHS in accordance with
the statutory framework. This Court observes that in absence of
timely disclosure and verification, no vested or enforceable right
can accrue either in favour of the institutions or the students so
admitted.
6.13.This Court further observes that the regulatory cut-off date
for admissions cannot be extended or circumvented, as held in
Fortune Foundation (supra). This Court finds that the reliance
placed on extension of timelines by the Hon’ble Supreme Court or
(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 03:08:13 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/04/2026 at 07:21:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14461-DB] (15 of 15) [WMAP-149/2026]
the Indian Nursing Council does not assist the applicant, inasmuch
as such extension cannot validate admissions made dehors the
prescribed counselling mechanism and in violation of judicial
directions.
6.14.This Court further observes that the pleas of legitimate
expectation, hardship and discrimination stand rejected in Fortune
Foundation (supra), and no new circumstance has been shown to
take a different view. This Court thus finds that the present
application is a clear attempt to regularize admissions made in
contravention of the statutory scheme as well as binding judicial
directions.
6.15. Consequently, in view of the binding precedent laid down in
Fortune Foundation (supra), coupled with the conduct of the
applicant as noticed hereinabove, this Court does not find any
merit in the present application.
6.16.The present Writ Miscellaneous Application stands
dismissed.
(BIPIN GUPTA),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
SKant/-
(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 03:08:13 PM)
(Downloaded on 09/04/2026 at 07:21:54 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
