Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Fortune Foundation vs The State Of Rajasthan on 11 February, 2026
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.23307/2025
1. Fortune Foundation having its registered office at 302,
Vinayak Complex, New Fatehpura, Udaipur, Rajasthan, through
its Authorized Signatory Jitendra Audichya s/o Shri Chhagan Lal
Audichya, aged about 27 years
2. Geetanjali Institute of Nursing, Village Bhakrota Kalan,
Jaipur, Rajasthan, through its Authorized Signatory Jitendra
Audichya s/o Shri Chhagan Lal Audichya, aged about 27 years
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Medical And Health Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Rajasthan Nursing Council, Through Its Registrar, B -
39, Sardar Patel Marg C Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Rajasthan University Of Health Sciences, Jaipur,
Through Its Registrar, Having Its Office At Sector-18,
Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akhilesh Rajpurohit
Mr. Sourabh Rajpurohit
Mr. Hardik Vyas
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG with
Ms. Aditi Sharma
Mr. Vinay Kothari with
Mr. Bhavyadeep Singh
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA
Judgment
1. Date of conclusion of arguments 12.01.2026
2. Date on which judgment was reserved 12.01.2026
3. Whether the full judgment or only the
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 02:47:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/02/2026 at 10:09:34 PM)
(2 of 19)
operative part is pronounced: Full Judgment
4. Date of pronouncement 11.02.2026
Reportable
Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, arising out of a controversy concerning
the participation of a newly established nursing college in the
counselling process for the Academic Session 2025-26.
1.1. The prayer clauses read as under:
“It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon’ble
Court may kindly be pleased to allow the writ petition and: –
i) by an appropriate, writ, order or direction, the
respondent Rajasthan University of Health Sciences
(RUHS) may kindly be directed to allot 200 students in
B.Sc. Nursing course to the petitioner for academic
session 2025-26 by conducting counseling with all
consequential directions;
ii) by an appropriate, writ, order or direction, in the
alternative and without prejudice to the above, the
petitioner may kindly be permitted to admit the students
in B.Sc. nursing Course as per the requisite statutory
qualifying criteria at its own level;
iii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, if during
the pendency of the present writ petition, the last date
for admission is expired then the same may kindly be
extended for a reasonable time;
iv) Any other appropriate writ or order or direction which
this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the facts
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 02:47:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/02/2026 at 10:09:34 PM)
(3 of 19)and circumstances of the case may kindly be awarded in
favour of the petitioner.
(v) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to
the petitioner.”
2. The factual matrix of the present case in brief is that the
petitioner is a newly established nursing institution which sought
permission to commence the B.Sc. Nursing Course with a
sanctioned intake for the Academic Session 2025-26. Upon
inspection by the competent authorities, the institution was found
to be compliant with the prescribed infrastructural, academic and
statutory requirements.
2.1. Pursuant thereto, the State Government granted No
Objection Certificate (NOC) in favour of the petitioner on
13.11.2025, permitting establishment of the college with the
approved intake capacity. Thereafter, the petitioner also obtained
the requisite recognition/affiliation on 19.11.2025 (provisional)
from the competent authority, i.e. the Rajasthan Nursing Council,
in accordance with the statutory framework governing nursing
education.
2.2. However, when the centralized counselling process for
admission to the B.Sc. Nursing Course for the Academic Session
2025-26 was conducted by the Rajasthan University of Health
Sciences (RUHS), the petitioner-institution was not included in the
counselling seat matrix and was consequently not permitted to
participate in the counselling process for allotment of students.
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 02:47:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/02/2026 at 10:09:34 PM)
(4 of 19)
3. The dispute in the present case, thus, concerns the exclusion
of the institution by the Rajasthan University of Health Sciences
(RUHS) from the centralized counselling process for admission and
allotment of students for the purpose of B.Sc. Nursing Course for
the Academic Session 2025-26, despite the petitioner having
obtained NOC from the State Government and
recognition/affiliation from the competent nursing authorities after
completion of due inspection and other formalities in regard
thereto. The issue for determination is thus whether RUHS was
legally justified in denying the participation of the institution in the
counselling process for the aforesaid Session.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that
the petitioner-institution was granted No Objection Certificate by
the respondent-State and upon inspection, obtained
recognition/affiliation from the competent authorities in
accordance with the governing statutory framework. Having
fulfilled all prescribed requirements for commencement of the
B.Sc. Nursing Course for the Academic Session 2025-26, the
petitioner was fully entitled to participate in the centralized
counselling process conducted by the respondent-Rajasthan
University of Health Sciences (RUHS) for allotment of students.
4.1. It was contended that despite the existence of these
statutory approvals, the petitioner was excluded from the
counselling process without any adverse order, communication, or
justification. Such exclusion, in the face of valid NOC, recognition
and affiliation, is arbitrary, suffers from non-application of mind,
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 02:47:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/02/2026 at 10:09:34 PM)
(5 of 19)
and is contrary to the obligation of the authorities concerned to
act in a fair and transparent manner.
4.2. Learned counsel further submitted that once the NOC,
recognition and affiliation were granted, the petitioner had a
legitimate expectation that students would be allotted to them
through the regulated counselling mechanism. The subsequent
refusal to permit participation, or to conduct an additional round
of counselling, frustrates this legitimate expectation without any
lawful basis.
4.3. It was also submitted that the institution in question has
been established after making substantial infrastructural and
administrative investments, including development of laboratories,
teaching facilities, hostel accommodation, and appointment of
qualified faculty strictly in accordance with statutory norms. Denial
of students for the current academic session would render the
entire infrastructure idle, cause irreparable institutional loss, and
operate against public interest by reducing the intake of trained
nursing professionals in the State.
4.4. It was submitted that the interim order dated 19.09.2025
passed by this Hon’ble Court in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.
945/2025, specifically directed that institution possessing valid
NOCs shall be permitted to participate in the counseling process
and that the petitioner, being fully compliant with all statutory
requirements, stands on a stronger footing, and denial of similar
treatment amounts to hostile discrimination.
4.5. Reliance was placed on past practice to show that the
counselling schedule can be pragmatically adjusted where
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 02:47:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/02/2026 at 10:09:34 PM)
(6 of 19)
circumstances so warrant. Reference was made to the notification
dated 09.02.2024 issued by respondent-RUHS, whereby a Round-
5 counselling was conducted for the Academic Session 2023-24,
and to the notification dated 10.01.2026 issued by the State of
Haryana extending the stray round of counselling. It was therefore
submitted that holding additional rounds of counselling is neither
impermissible nor unprecedented when required to accommodate
duly approved institution and to avoid wastage of sanctioned
seats.
4.6. On the strength of the above submissions, learned counsel
prays that appropriate directions deserve to be issued either for
conducting an additional round of counselling for allotment of
students to the petitioner institution or, in the alternative, for
permitting the petitioner to admit students against the sanctioned
intake for the Academic Session 2025-26.
5. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted
that the counseling process for admission to the B.Sc. Nursing
Course for the Academic Session 2025-26 commenced in July,
2025. In the first round itself, more than 60% of the seats were
filled. The second and third rounds of counseling stood concluded
by 28.10.2025, and the final round was completed on 04.11.2025.
It was submitted that more than 90% of the total seats for the
said course have already been filled through this counseling
process conducted by the respondent-RUHS.
5.1. Learned counsel places reliance on the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nihila P.P. vs. The
Medical Counseling Committee (MCC) & Ors. (Special Leave
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 02:47:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/02/2026 at 10:09:34 PM)
(7 of 19)
to Appeal (C) No. 10487/2021, decided on 16.12.2021), wherein
it has been specifically laid down that only four rounds of
counseling are permissible. All four rounds in the present case
stand concluded.
5.2. It was further submitted that theory and practical classes for
the B.Sc. Nursing Course commenced from 18.08.2025, and by
now nearly 70% of the first semester curriculum has already been
completed. The remaining academic schedule is underway and
examinations are scheduled for March/April, 2026. At this stage,
inclusion of fresh students would seriously disrupt the academic
process and would also compromise educational standards and
operate against public interest.
5.3. It was urged that directing a further round of counseling at
this stage would directly interfere with the academic schedule,
which has repeatedly been deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in a catena of judgments. Reliance is placed on Medical
Council of India v. Madhu Singh [(2002) 7 SCC 258] and D.Y.
Patil Medical College v. Medical Council of India & Ors.
[(2015) 10 SCC 51], wherein strict adherence to the academic
calendar and counseling schedule has been emphasized.
5.4. Learned counsel further submitted that the Indian Nursing
Council, vide communication dated 22.10.2025, after considering
representations from various stakeholders, extended the last date
of admission for ANM, GNM and B.Sc. Nursing Courses only up to
30.11.2025, while categorically declaring that students admitted
after 30.10.2025 would be treated as an irregular batch. It was
further made explicit that no request for further extension would
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 02:47:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/02/2026 at 10:09:34 PM)
(8 of 19)
be entertained and that strict action would follow in case of non-
adherence to the cut-off date.
5.5. In view of the above factual and legal position, learned
counsel submitted that neither a fresh round of counseling nor
permission for institutional-level admissions can be granted at this
stage to the petitioners, as the same would be contrary to the
binding academic schedule, regulatory directives, and the law laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record, this Court proceeds to examine the
matter. At the outset, from the record, the following undisputed
chronology emerges :
EVENT DATE
Counseling commenced by RUHS July, 2025
Classes commenced 18.08.2025
Counseling rounds concluded 04.11.2025
NOC granted to Petitioner 13.11.2025
Provisional Recognition granted 19.11.2025
6.1. From the aforesaid chronology, it becomes evident that by
the time the petitioner attained full eligibility for inclusion in the
seat matrix, the counselling process, conducted in accordance with
the notified schedule, had already concluded, the seat matrix
stood exhausted, and the academic session had substantially
progressed. The grievance of the petitioner, therefore, does not
stem from any exclusion during the subsistence of counselling, but
from the timing of the grant of statutory approvals in relation to
the completion of the counselling process. In essence, the
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 02:47:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/02/2026 at 10:09:34 PM)
(9 of 19)
petitioner is confronted not with exclusion, but with the
consequence of chronology.
7. This Court finds that the statutory scheme draws a clear
distinction between (i) permission to establish an institution
through NOC and recognition, and (ii) allotment of students
through centralized counseling. While the former enables an
institution to lawfully conduct the course, the latter is regulated
exclusively through a time-bound counseling mechanism based on
a seat matrix finalized before commencement of counseling.
8. The scheme operates under the framework of the Rajasthan
University of Health Sciences Act and the Statutes framed
thereunder, read with the regulatory control exercised by the
Rajasthan Nursing Council and the Indian Nursing Council. The
counseling guidelines issued by RUHS, traceable to this statutory
framework, uniformly stipulate that only those institutions which
possess valid NOC and recognition at the time of preparation of
the seat matrix are eligible for inclusion in counseling for that
academic session.
8.1. 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 concluded on
04.11.2025, RUHS became functus officio qua the seat matrix for
Academic Session 2025-26. The petitioner, therefore, seek a
direction which the statutory scheme itself does not empower
RUHS to implement.
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 02:47:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/02/2026 at 10:09:34 PM)
(10 of 19)
8.2. It can thus be stated that the right to establish an institution
cannot be equated with a right to insist upon student allotment for
a concluded academic session. This distinction is foundational to
the present controversy and answers the principal grievance of the
petitioner.
8.3. In this backdrop, also the plea that, in a previous academic
year, an additional round of counseling was undertaken does not
advance the petitioners’ case.
8.4. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nihila P.P.
(supra), the sanctity of the notified admission schedule and the
time-bound counseling framework in professional courses must be
scrupulously adhered to in order to preserve certainty, fairness,
and academic discipline. The number and nature of counseling
rounds depend upon the seat matrix, vacancies, and academic
exigencies of the concerned year, and cannot be relied upon as a
precedent to claim, as of right, midstream inclusion.
8.5. Once the prescribed rounds of counseling stand concluded in
accordance with the approved scheme, the process cannot be
reopened dehors the schedule merely to accommodate institutions
seeking belated participation. The petitioners’ contention,
therefore, runs contrary to the settled legal position that the
counseling mechanism is structured, time-bound, and incapable of
alteration beyond the statutory framework governing the
admission process.
9. This Court further acknowledges the fact as borne out from
the record, that theory and practical classes for the B.Sc. Nursing
Course commenced from 18.08.2025. By the time the present
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 02:47:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/02/2026 at 10:09:34 PM)
(11 of 19)
petition was considered, nearly 70% of the first semester
curriculum had already been completed and that the academic
schedule was in full operation, with examinations scheduled in
March/April, 2026.
9.1. The prayer of the petitioner for directing an additional
counselling or institutional admissions at this stage would
necessarily result in admission of students after substantial
completion of the curriculum, thereby disturbing the academic
schedule and compromising educational standards.
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized the
sanctity of academic schedules and counselling timelines in
professional courses.
10.1.In Madhu Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court observed
as under:
“18. In State of U.P. v. Dr Anupam Gupta [1993 Supp (1)
SCC 594] the view in Dr Subodh case [1993 Supp (1) SCC
593] was reiterated. It was observed as under : (SCC p. 603,
para 12)
“12. It is next contended by Shri Yogeshwar Prasad
that the courses were started from 30-10-1990 and in
terms of the orders of this Court it shall be deemed to
have been commenced from 2-5-1990, the direction
as given in the impugned judgments for admission
after more than a year, is illegal. To maintain
excellence in the academic courses, the delay defeats
the claim for admission, though posts are vacant. In
Pramod Kumar Joshi (Dr) v. Medical Council of
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 02:47:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/02/2026 at 10:09:34 PM)
(12 of 19)India [(1991) 2 SCC 179] this Court held that the
course for the year 1991 is almost completed
and it would not be proper to allow admission
belatedly. In Subodh Nautiyal (Dr) v. State of U.P.
[1993 Supp (1) SCC 593] there was a delay of four
months in giving admission, and this Court held that,
‘even according to Mr Pandey the course has
started in September for the session. This is
technical course and to admit a student four
months after the commencement would not at all
be correct’.”
(italicized for emphasis)
In para 14, the desirability of commencing the course
on schedule and completing the same within the
schedule was stressed in the following words : (SCC p.
604)
“14. Considering from this point of view, to maintain
excellence the courses have to be commenced on
schedule and be completed within the schedule, so that
the students would have full opportunity to study full
course to reach their excellence and come at par
excellence. Admission in the midstream would
disturb the courses and also work as a handicap
to the candidates themselves to achieve
excellence. Considering from this pragmatic point of
view we are of the considered opinion that vacancies of
the seats would not be taken as a ground to give
admission and direction by the High Court to admit the
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 02:47:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/02/2026 at 10:09:34 PM)
(13 of 19)
candidates into those vacant seats cannot be
sustained.”
(italicized for emphasis)
10.2. Similarly, in D.Y. Patil Medical College (supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated:
“17… Sanctity to the time schedule has to be
attached. It is too late in the day, insofar as the
present academic session is concerned, to give any
direction. This Court has highlighted the importance
of cut-off date for starting the professional courses,
particularly medical courses, and repeatedly
impressed upon that such deadline should be
tinkered with. (See Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh
[Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2012) 7 SCC 433 :
(2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 367 : 4 SCEC 555] and Maa Vaishno
Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. State of U.P. [(2013) 2 SCC
617 : 4 SCEC 775] )”
10.3. Though the judgments in Madhu Singh (supra) and D.Y.
Patil Medical College (supra), were rendered in the context of
belated admissions of the students concerned, the underlying
principle applies with equal force here. 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. The present case,
though concerning participation of institution, ultimately results in
the same consequence of midstream admissions, which the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently deprecated.
11. This Court further finds that the interim orders dated
19.09.2025 and 10.11.2025 passed by this Court in D.B. Special
Appeal (Writ) No. 945/2025, relied upon by the petitioner were
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 02:47:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/02/2026 at 10:09:34 PM)
(14 of 19)
conditional upon institutions possessing valid NOCs during the
currency of counseling.
11.1. A careful reading of the orders dated 19.09.2025 and
10.11.2025 shows that the directions were intended to ensure
participation of those institutions which possessed valid NOCs at
the time when counseling was in progress. The expression used in
the order dated 10.11.2025, namely, that “counseling shall
proceed after NOCs have been duly dealt with”, cannot be
interpreted to mean that the counseling process must remain
open or be reopened to accommodate institutions whose
approvals fructified after the conclusion of counseling.
12. This Court further takes note of the significance of the
communication dated 22.10.2025 issued by the Indian Nursing
Council, whereby, after considering representations from States,
colleges and universities, the last date of admission for ANM, GNM
and B.Sc. Nursing Courses was extended only up to 30.11.2025.
The said communication categorically stipulates that students
admitted after 30.10.2025 would be treated as an irregular batch
and further declares that no request for any further extension
shall be entertained and strict action shall follow in case of non-
adherence to the cut-off date.
12.1. In view of the above regulatory mandate, issued by the
Indian Nursing Council fixing the outer limit for admissions
reinforces that regulatory discipline itself contemplates strict
adherence to cut-off dates. Any direction by this Court to conduct
a fresh round of counselling or to permit institutional admissions
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 02:47:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/02/2026 at 10:09:34 PM)
(15 of 19)
beyond the prescribed timeline would run contrary to the explicit
directives of the statutory regulator.
13. The third relief sought by the petitioner is for extension of
the last date of admission in the event the cut-off has expired.
This prayer also cannot be entertained. The last date for
admission to the B.Sc. Nursing Course is not an administrative
timeline fixed by RUHS, but a regulatory cut-off prescribed by the
Indian Nursing Council in exercise of its statutory powers
governing nursing education across the country. Once such cut-off
date is notified by the statutory regulator, neither the University
nor this Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, can extend the same
on equitable considerations.
13.1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has [in Madhu Singh (supra)
and D.Y. Patil Medical College (supra)] held that Courts ought
not to tinker with cut-off dates and academic schedules in
professional courses, as doing so disturbs the entire admission
framework and academic discipline. Any direction to extend the
last date of admission for accommodating the petitioner would,
therefore, run directly contrary to the regulatory mandate and the
law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
14. The plea of legitimate expectation and reliance on the
interim orders passed by this Court do not assist the petitioner in
the present factual matrix, as the petitioner did not possess the
NOC during the period when the counseling rounds were
underway. The interim protection was available only to the
institutions holding valid NOCs at the relevant time.
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 02:47:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/02/2026 at 10:09:34 PM)
(16 of 19)
15. The plea of discrimination is equally misconceived. Even
assuming that some other institution was permitted participation,
Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not contemplate
negative equality. No material is placed to show that any
institution lacking NOC during counselling was included by RUHS.
Therefore, the participation of institutions’ in earlier orders of this
Court was strictly contingent upon possession of valid NOCs at the
relevant time.
16. Considerations such as infrastructural investment by the
petitioner or alleged hardship, is a consequence of the timing of
grant of approvals by the competent authorities and not of any
illegality or arbitrariness on the part of RUHS, which acted strictly
in accordance with the counselling framework. Though
sympathetic, it cannot form the basis for issuing directions which
would unsettle the settled admission process and affect the larger
body of students and institution who have already acted upon the
notified schedule.
17. This Court, therefore, records the following conclusions:
(i) The dispute is confined to the non-inclusion of
petitioner- institution in centralized counselling for the
Academic Session 2025-26.
(ii) The petitioner obtained NOC (13.11.2025) and
provisional recognition (19.11.2025) after counselling had
concluded (04.11.2025) and after commencement of
classes (18.08.2025). Their grievance arises from the
timing of approvals.
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 02:47:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/02/2026 at 10:09:34 PM)
(17 of 19)
(iii) The statutory scheme separates establishment
permission from student allotment; the seat matrix
finalized before counselling cannot be altered midstream,
and after its conclusion RUHS is functus officio, precluding
any claim for inclusion in a concluded session.
(iv) The interim orders relied upon were conditional upon
possession of valid NOCs during counselling and do not
mandate reopening of the process.
(v) With the academic session substantially progressed,
any direction for additional counselling or institutional
admissions would disturb academic discipline and
educational standards.
(vi) The cut-off date for admissions is fixed by the Indian
Nursing Council and cannot be extended by this Court.
(vii) The pleas of legitimate expectation and discrimination
are untenable, and the hardship alleged is not attributable
to any illegality on the part of RUHS. When the present
position is weighed against the imperative of imparting
knowledge, particularly where nearly 70% of a professional
course already stands completed, the balance necessarily
tilts in favour of feasibility and the preservation of
academic quality, considerations which this Court cannot
lightly overlook.
18. Thus, in view of the above, this Court does not find it a fit
case so as to warrant any interference in the writ jurisdiction.
19. Consequently, the present writ petition stands dismissed.
All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 02:47:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/02/2026 at 10:09:34 PM)
(18 of 19)
20. After pronouncement of the judgment, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner submitted that although, for the
present academic session, the petitioner could not be permitted to
participate in the counselling process on account of the chronology
of grant of approvals, a suitable timeline may be indicated by this
Court for the ensuing academic sessions so that a bona fide
institution is not rendered ineligible to participate in the
counselling process merely due to delay in grant of No Objection
Certificates and statutory recognitions.
20.1.Learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the
respondents, submitted that in the event such a direction is
issued, the authorities concerned shall duly adhere to the same.
21. In light of the aforesaid submissions, and in addition to the
judgment already pronounced, whereby the writ petitions stand
dismissed, this Court deems it appropriate to issue the following
prospective direction in the interest of orderly administration of
the admission process, so that genuine institutions are not
prejudiced on account of procedural delay in future academic
sessions.
22. Accordingly, this Court directs that, for the next academic
session, application submitted by a bona fide institution seeking
No Objection Certificate from the respondents for the purpose of
participation in the centralized counselling process for admission
and allotment of students to the B.Sc. Nursing Course shall be
considered and decided at least 45 days prior to the
commencement of the first round of counselling. In the
event of any deviation from the aforesaid timeline, the State shall
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 02:47:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/02/2026 at 10:09:34 PM)
(19 of 19)
be liable to compensate the affected institutions by way of costs
proportionate to the delay so occasioned.
22.1.It is clarified that the stipulation of 45 days shall not be
construed as a mandate for grant of NOC. The decision to grant or
refuse NOC shall be taken strictly in accordance with law.
(BIPIN GUPTA),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
SKant/-
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 02:47:55 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/02/2026 at 10:09:34 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)