Rajasthan HC Dismisses Newly Approved Nursing Colleges' Plea For Late Entry Into 2025–26 Counselling; NOC Obtained After Process Concludes Cannot Reopen Closed Admission Cycle
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Rajasthan, Division Bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Sandeep Shah, dismissed writ petitions filed by newly established nursing colleges that sought inclusion in the centralized counselling process for the B.Sc. Nursing Course for the academic session 2025–26. The colleges had obtained their No Objection Certificates and statutory recognition only after the counselling rounds had already concluded and the academic session was well underway. The Court held that statutory permission to establish an institution does not translate into an entitlement to student allotment through a counselling process that has run its course. Directing fresh rounds of counselling or permitting institutional admissions at such a late stage, the Court observed, would inevitably disrupt the ongoing academic schedule and lower educational standards. The Court further issued a prospective direction requiring NOC applications by institutions to be decided at least 45 days before the commencement of the first counselling round in future sessions.
The petitioners contended that despite fulfilling infrastructural and statutory requirements, they were excluded from the counselling seat matrix prepared by the Rajasthan University of Health Sciences. They argued that the exclusion was arbitrary, as they had legitimate expectation of student allotment once approvals were granted. They relied on prior notifications and interim orders permitting additional counselling rounds in earlier sessions.
The respondents submitted that counselling commenced in July 2025 and concluded by November 2025, with over 90% of seats filled and classes already underway. They cited Supreme Court precedents restricting counselling to four rounds and stressed that inclusion of new institutions after commencement of classes would disrupt the academic schedule. They also referred to the Indian Nursing Council communication fixing 30 November 2025 as the final cut-off date for admissions.
The Court recorded: “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 the notified schedule, had already concluded, the seat matrix stood exhausted, and the academic session had substantially progressed.”
It stated: “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.”
The Court observed: “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.”
It further recorded: “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.”
The Court noted: “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.”
It referred to Supreme Court precedents: “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.”
The Court stated: “Though the judgments in Madhu Singh and D.Y. Patil Medical College were rendered in the context of belated admissions of the students concerned, the underlying principle applies with equal force here. What cannot be permitted namely midstream admission of students, cannot be permitted indirectly by allowing midstream inclusion of institutions resulting in the same consequence.”
It also recorded: “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.”
The Court held: “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.”
Accordingly the Court directed: "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."
"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."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Akhilesh Rajpurohit, Mr. Sourabh Rajpurohit, Mr. Hardik Vyas
For the Respondents: Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG with Ms. Aditi Sharma, Mr. Vinay Kothari, Mr. Bhavyadeep Singh
Case Title: Aryaman Nursing College & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Neutral Citation: [2026:RJ-JD:5975-DB]
Case Number: D.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 610/2026, 615/2026, 618/2026, 465/2026
Bench: Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati, Justice Sandeep Shah
