Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Maa Jijabai College Of Nursing vs State Of Rajasthan on 11 February, 2026
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2026:RJ-JD:5975-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 610/2026
Aryaman Nursing College, Under The Management Of Rajdhani
Foundation Trust Through Its President Nitin Talesara S/o Dilip
Talesara, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Flat No. 602, Coral
Tower, Somdatt Landmark, Civil Lines, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Medical Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Nursing Council, Through Its Registrar, B-39,
Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Rajasthan University Of Health Science, Through Its
Registrar, Kumbha Marg, Sector 18, Pratap Nagar,
Tonkroad, Jaipur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 615/2026
Mld College Of Nursing Education, Kekri, Under The
Management Of Shri Mishri Lal Dubey Memorial Sansthan,
Kekri, District Ajmer Through Its Secretary Chandra Prakash
Dubey S/o Shri Mishri Lal Dubey, Aged About 64 Year Resident
Of Plot No. 125, Ward No. 2, Master Colony, Kekri, District
Ajmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Medical And Health Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan.
2. Rajasthan Nursing Council, Through Its Registrar, B-39,
Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Rajasthan University Of Health Science, Through Its
Registrar, Kumbha Marg, Sector-18, Pratap Nagar,
Tonkroad, Jaipur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 618/2026
Maa Jijabai College Of Nursing, Under The Management Of Maa
Jijabai Shikshan Sansthan Through Its Chairman Sunil Sharma
S/o Girdhari Lal Sharma, Aged About 43 Years Resident Of
Ward 8, Railway Station Road, Chomu, District Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 01:12:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/02/2026 at 09:37:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5975-DB] (2 of 19) [CW-610/2026]
Medical Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Nursing Council, Through Its Registrar, B 39,
Sardar Patel Marg, C Scheme, Jaipur.
3. The Rajasthan University Of Health Science, Through Its
Registrar, Kumbha Marg, Sector 18, Pratap Nagar,
Tonkroad, Jaipur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 465/2026
Ayushman Institute Of Medical Science And College Of
Nursing, Through Shri Gopinath Gulab Devi Pradhan Memorial
Charitable Trust, Through Its Secretary Rajendra Prasad
Choudhary S/o Shri Banshidhar Choudhary, Aged About 37
Years, R/o Fagodiya Ki Dhani, Pachar, District Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Medical And
Health (Group-Iii) Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
2. Rajasthan Nursing Council, Through Its Registrar, B-
39, Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
3. Rajasthan University Of Health And Science, Through
Its Registrar, Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
4. Office Of The Secretary, Common Counselling Board,
2025, Rajasthan University Of Health Sciences, Jaipur.
5. Private Physiotherapy, Nursing And Para Medical
Institution Society, Office Jodhpur Through Its
Secretary Plot No. 273, Subhas Nagar, Pal Road,
Jodhpur, 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
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 01:12:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/02/2026 at 09:37:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5975-DB] (3 of 19) [CW-610/2026]
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Judgment
1. Date of conclusion of arguments 13.01.2026 & 22.01.2026
2. Date on which judgment was reserved 13.01.2026 & 22.01.2026
3. Whether the full judgment or only the
operative part is pronounced: Full Judgment
4. Date of pronouncement 11.02.2026
Reportable
Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. The instant writ petitions have been filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India raising common questions of fact and
law. Owing to the overlapping issues involved, all four petitions
were heard together and are being decided by this common order.
The first three writ petitions (CW Nos. 610/2026, 615/2026 &
618/2026) were heard and reserved on 13.01.2026, whereas the
fourth writ petition (CW No. 465/2026) was heard subsequently
and reserved on 22.01.2026.
2. These writ petitions arise out of a common controversy
concerning the participation of newly established nursing colleges
in the counselling process for the Academic Session 2025-26.
3. For the present analogous adjudication, this Court considers
it appropriate to treat D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 618/2026 (Maa
Jijabai College of Nursing vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) as the
lead case. Accordingly, the factual matrix, prayer clauses, and
submissions of the parties are being noticed with reference to the
said lead case.
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 01:12:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/02/2026 at 09:37:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5975-DB] (4 of 19) [CW-610/2026]
3.1. The prayer clauses in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 618/2026
read as under:
“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition
may kindly be allowed and by appropriate writ, order or
direction;
i) The Respondent Rajasthan University of Health
Sciences may kindly be directed to allot 60 students in
Bsc nursing course to the petitioner institution for
academic session 2025-26 by conducting another round
of counselling or any other mode of admission with all
consequential directions
ii) By an appropriate rate order of directions in the
alternate and without prejudice to the aforesaid 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) If during the pendency of the litigation, 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
is favourable to the petitioner institute in the facts and
circumstances of the case any may kindly be granted to
the petitioner.”
4. The factual matrix of the present case in brief is that the
petitioner is a newly established nursing institutions 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.
4.1. Pursuant thereto, the State Government granted No
Objection Certificate (NOC) in favour of the petitioner on
05.12.2025, permitting establishment of the college with the
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 01:12:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/02/2026 at 09:37:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5975-DB] (5 of 19) [CW-610/2026]
approved intake capacity. Thereafter, the petitioner also obtained
the requisite recognition/affiliation on 23.12.2025 from the
competent authority, i.e. the Rajasthan Nursing Council, in
accordance with the statutory framework governing nursing
education.
4.2. 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.
5. The dispute in the present case, thus, concerns the exclusion
of the institutions 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 petitioners having
obtained NOCs 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 institutions in
the counselling process for the aforesaid Session.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that
the petitioners-institutions were granted No Objection Certificates
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
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 01:12:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/02/2026 at 09:37:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5975-DB] (6 of 19) [CW-610/2026]
B.Sc. Nursing Course for the Academic Session 2025-26, the
petitioners were fully entitled to participate in the centralized
counselling process conducted by the respondent-Rajasthan
University of Health Sciences (RUHS) for allotment of students.
6.1. It was contended that despite the existence of these
statutory approvals, the petitioners were excluded from the
counselling process without any adverse order, communication, or
justification. Such exclusion, in the face of valid NOCs, recognition
and affiliation, is arbitrary, suffers from non-application of mind,
and is contrary to the obligation of the authorities concerned to
act in a fair and transparent manner.
6.2. Learned counsel further submitted that once the NOCs,
recognition and affiliation were granted, the petitioners 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.
6.3. It was also submitted that the institutions in question have
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.
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 01:12:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/02/2026 at 09:37:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5975-DB] (7 of 19) [CW-610/2026]
6.4. 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 institutions possessing valid
NOCs shall be permitted to participate in the counseling process
and that the petitioners, being fully compliant with all statutory
requirements, stand on a stronger footing, and denial of similar
treatment amounts to hostile discrimination.
6.5. Reliance was placed on past practice to show that the
counselling schedule can be pragmatically adjusted where
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 institutions and to avoid wastage of sanctioned
seats.
6.6. 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 petitioners’ institutions or, in the alternative, for
permitting the petitioners to admit students against the
sanctioned intake for the Academic Session 2025-26.
7. 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
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 01:12:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/02/2026 at 09:37:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5975-DB] (8 of 19) [CW-610/2026]
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.
7.1. 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
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.
7.2. 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.
7.3. 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.
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 01:12:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/02/2026 at 09:37:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5975-DB] (9 of 19) [CW-610/2026]
7.4. 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
be entertained and that strict action would follow in case of non-
adherence to the cut-off date.
7.5. 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.
8. 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 05.12.2025
Recognition granted 23.12.2025
9.1. From the aforesaid chronology, it becomes evident that by
the time the petitioners attained full eligibility for inclusion in the
seat matrix, the counselling process, conducted in accordance with
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 01:12:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/02/2026 at 09:37:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5975-DB] (10 of 19) [CW-610/2026]
the notified schedule, had already concluded, the seat matrix
stood exhausted, and the academic session had substantially
progressed. The grievance of the petitioners, 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
petitioners are confronted not with exclusion, but with the
consequence of chronology.
10. 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.
11. 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.
11.1.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
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 01:12:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/02/2026 at 09:37:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5975-DB] (11 of 19) [CW-610/2026]
04.11.2025, RUHS became functus officio qua the seat matrix for
Academic Session 2025-26. The petitioners, therefore, seek a
direction which the statutory scheme itself does not empower
RUHS to implement.
11.2. 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
petitioners.
11.3.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.
11.4.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.
11.5.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.
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 01:12:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/02/2026 at 09:37:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5975-DB] (12 of 19) [CW-610/2026]
12. 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
petitions were 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.
12.1.The prayer of the petitioners 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.
13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized the
sanctity of academic schedules and counselling timelines in
professional courses.
13.1.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
India [(1991) 2 SCC 179] this Court held that the(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 01:12:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/02/2026 at 09:37:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5975-DB] (13 of 19) [CW-610/2026]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
candidates into those vacant seats cannot be
sustained.”
(italicized for emphasis)
13.2.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,(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 01:12:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/02/2026 at 09:37:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5975-DB] (14 of 19) [CW-610/2026]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] )”
13.3.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 institutions
resulting in the same consequence. The present case, though
concerning participation of institutions, ultimately results in the
same consequence of midstream admissions, which the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has consistently deprecated.
14. 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 petitioners were
conditional upon institutions possessing valid NOCs during the
currency of counseling.
14.1. 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
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 01:12:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/02/2026 at 09:37:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5975-DB] (15 of 19) [CW-610/2026]
open or be reopened to accommodate institutions whose
approvals fructified after the conclusion of counseling.
15. 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.
15.1. 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
beyond the prescribed timeline would run contrary to the explicit
directives of the statutory regulator.
16. The third relief sought by the petitioners 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
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 01:12:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/02/2026 at 09:37:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5975-DB] (16 of 19) [CW-610/2026]
nor this Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, can extend the same
on equitable considerations.
16.1.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 petitioners would,
therefore, run directly contrary to the regulatory mandate and the
law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
17. The plea of legitimate expectation and reliance on the
interim orders passed by this Court do not assist the petitioners
in the present factual matrix, as the petitioners 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.
18. 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.
19. Considerations such as infrastructural investment by the
petitioners 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
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 01:12:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/02/2026 at 09:37:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5975-DB] (17 of 19) [CW-610/2026]
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 institutions who have already acted upon the
notified schedule.
20. This Court, therefore, records the following conclusions:
(i) The dispute is confined to the non-inclusion of
petitioner- institutions in centralized counselling for the
Academic Session 2025-26.
(ii) The petitioners obtained NOCs (05.12.2025) and
recognition (23.12.2025) after counselling had concluded
(04.11.2025) and after commencement of classes
(18.08.2025). Their grievance arises from the timing of
approvals.
(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.
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 01:12:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/02/2026 at 09:37:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5975-DB] (18 of 19) [CW-610/2026]
(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.
21. 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.
22. Consequently, the present writ petitions stand dismissed.
All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
23. After pronouncement of the judgment, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners submitted that although, for the
present academic session, the petitioners 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
bona fide institutions are not rendered ineligible to participate in
the counselling process merely due to delay in grant of No
Objection Certificates and statutory recognitions.
23.1.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.
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 01:12:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/02/2026 at 09:37:53 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5975-DB] (19 of 19) [CW-610/2026]
24. 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.
25. Accordingly, this Court directs that, for the next academic
session, applications submitted by bona fide institutions seeking
No Objection Certificates 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
be liable to compensate the affected institutions by way of costs
proportionate to the delay so occasioned.
25.1.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.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
SKant/-
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 01:12:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 12/02/2026 at 09:37:53 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)