The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a series of petitions brought by newly established nursing colleges that sought to be included in the counselling process for seat allotment in the academic session 2025–26, after the requisite No Objection Certificates and statutory recognition had been granted to them only after the counselling exercise had already concluded and the academic session had progressed considerably. The bench, presided over by Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati, observed that allowing an extension of timelines or conducting a fresh round of counselling at such an advanced stage would disrupt the academic schedule and compromise educational standards. The court clarified that while the grant of approvals enabled the institutions to become lawfully established, it did not automatically entitle them to participate in a counselling process that had already been completed. The petitions arose from the fact that despite obtaining the necessary NOCs and recognition or affiliation from the State, the petitioning colleges were not included in the counselling rounds conducted by the Rajasthan University of Health Sciences for seat allotment.
The petitioners contended that once the NOC and recognition were granted, they had a legitimate expectation that students would be allotted to them, arguing that exclusion from the counselling process would render the infrastructure they had set up idle and result in irreparable loss. They also argued that the treatment meted out to them was discriminatory and violative of constitutional guarantees of equality. In opposition, the State informed the court that the counselling for the relevant academic session had concluded in November 2025 and classes had commenced in August 2025, whereas the petitioners had obtained the NOCs and recognitions only in December 2025. The State maintained that inclusion of fresh students at this late stage would disturb the academic process, compromise educational standards, and operate against the public interest.
Upon considering the submissions, the High Court observed that the crux of the petitioners’ grievance stemmed not from their exclusion during the active counselling period but from the timing of the grant of approvals. The court highlighted that the statutory scheme clearly drew a distinction between the permission to establish an institution through an NOC and recognition and the allotment of students through a structured counselling mechanism. It emphasized that while the former allowed an institution to lawfully conduct the course, the latter was regulated by a time-bound counselling mechanism based on a seat matrix finalized prior to the commencement of counselling. The court noted that the right to establish an institution could not be equated with a right to insist on student allotment for an academic session whose counselling had already concluded.
In support of its reasoning, the court referred to a precedent involving the Supreme Court’s observations in another case, which underscored the importance of adhering to a notified admission schedule and a time-bound counselling framework in professional courses to preserve certainty, fairness, and academic discipline. Accordingly, the High Court opined that once the counselling was concluded in accordance with the approved scheme, it could not be reopened merely to accommodate institutions seeking belated participation. The court also held that granting the relief sought by the petitioners, such as directing additional counselling or institutional admissions at this stage, would inevitably result in the admission of students after substantial completion of the curriculum, thereby disturbing the academic schedule and diluting educational standards.
The court further rejected the petitioners’ claim of legitimate expectation on the ground that no NOC had been obtained by them during the period when counselling rounds were underway. Similarly, the plea of discrimination and violation of the constitutional guarantee of equality was also rejected, with the court observing that no material had been placed before it to demonstrate that any institution lacking an NOC had been permitted to participate in the counselling process. On this basis, the High Court dismissed the petitions and refused to mandate fresh counselling or remedial measures for the academic session already in progress.
Despite dismissing the petitions, the High Court issued prospective directions to prevent similar disputes in future academic sessions and to ensure orderly administration. The court directed that for subsequent sessions, applications from bona-fide institutions seeking an NOC to participate in the counselling process should be considered at least 45 days prior to the commencement of the first round of counselling. This prospective requirement was framed to ensure that genuine institutions did not suffer prejudice due to procedural delays. The court further held that in the event the prescribed timeline of 45 days was not adhered to, the State would be liable to compensate the affected institutions by awarding costs proportionate to the delay in processing their applications. The High Court’s ruling reaffirmed the principle that once counselling has been conducted in accordance with the approved schedule, it cannot be reopened merely to accommodate later approvals, as doing so would undermine the integrity of the academic calendar and educational standards.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.