Rajasthan HC Refuses Late Entry Of Newly Approved Nursing Colleges Into 2025–26 Counselling; Says Academic Schedule Can't Be Reopened
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the petitions filed by newly established nursing colleges, seeking participation in the counselling process for 2025-26 academic session, in light of the fact that the requisite NOC and statutory recognition were obtained by such colleges after the counselling process was concluded and the academic session had progressed substantially.
The bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati held that allowing extension of timelines, or announcing another round of counselling, would disturb the academic schedule and compromise educational standards. It was opined that approvals only allowed the institutions to get established without creating any right to student allotment once the counselling was over.
At the same time, in the interest of orderly administration, the Court issued prospective directions to the effect that for the next academic session, applications of bona-fide institutions seeking NOC for participation in counselling process, shall be considered atleast 45 days prior to commencement of first round of counselling.
The Court was hearing a bunch of petitions filed by newly established nursing colleges who were not included in counselling conducted by RUHS for seat allotment, despite getting the requisite NOC and recognition/affiliation from the State.
It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that once the NOC and recognition was granted, they had legitimate expectation that students would be allotted to them. It was argued that denying participation in the counselling process would render entire infrastructure idle and cause irreparable loss to them. It was further submitted that the treatment was violative of Art. 14.
On the contrary, it was submitted by the State that the counselling concluded in November 2025, and the classes also commended in August 2025, while the NOC and recognitions were granted to the petitioners only in December 2025.
Hence, inclusion of any fresh students at this stage would disrupt the academic process and compromise educational standards, and operate against public interest.
After hearing the contentions, the Court observed that in light of the chronological sequence of events, the grievance of the petitioners was not arising from their exclusion during subsistence of counselling but due to timing of grant of approvals.
The Court held that there was a clear distinction drawn by the statutory scheme between the permission to establish an institution through NOC and recognition, and allotment of students through counselling.
“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…right to establish an institution cannot be equated with a right to insist upon student allotment for a concluded academic session.”
The Court further made a reference to the Supreme Court case of Nihila P.P. vs. The Medical Counseling Committee (MCC) & Ors. which held that sanctity of notified admission schedule and time bound counselling framework in professional courses had to be strictly followed to preserve certainty, fairness and academic discipline.
Hence, the Court opined that once the counselling was concluded in accordance with approved scheme, it could not be reopened merely to accommodate institutions seeking belated participation.
“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.”
The Court further rejected the argument of legitimate expectation in light of the fact that no NOC was obtained by the colleges during the period when the counselling rounds were underway.
Similarly, the plea of discrimination and violation of Art. 14 was also rejected, opining that no material was placed to show that any institution lacking NOC was allowed to participate in the counselling.
Accordingly, the petition was rejected.
However, Court issued prospective direction, as mentioned above, so that genuine institutions were not prejudiced due to procedural delays in future academic sessions.
It was held that in case the stipulated timeline of 45 days was not followed, the State shall be liable to compensate the affected institutions by giving costs proportionate to the delay.
Title: Aryaman Nursing College v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 68