Raj HC refuses mid-session inclusion of nursing colleges in counselling, holds seat matrix cannot be altered after rounds conclude

Jaipur/Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has held that permission to establish an educational institution through grant of No Objection Certificate (NOC) and recognition does not confer a right to insist upon student allotment in a concluded academic session, and that the centralized counselling seat matrix finalized prior to commencement of counselling cannot be altered once counselling rounds stand concluded. The Court further held that after completion of the prescribed counselling rounds, the Rajasthan University of Health Sciences (RUHS) becomes functus officio qua the seat matrix for that academic session.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Sandeep Shah was deciding a batch of writ petitions led by D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 618/2026 (Maa Jijabai College of Nursing vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.), along with connected petitions filed by other newly established nursing colleges.

The petitions arose from exclusion of the petitioners from participation in the centralized counselling process for admission to the B.Sc. Nursing Course for Academic Session 2025–26, despite grant of NOC by the State Government and recognition by the Rajasthan Nursing Council in December 2025.

The Court recorded the undisputed chronology emerging from the record: counselling commenced in July 2025; classes commenced on 18.08.2025; counselling rounds concluded on 04.11.2025; NOC was granted to the petitioners on 05.12.2025; and recognition was granted on 23.12.2025. The Court held that by the time the petitioners attained full eligibility for inclusion in the seat matrix, the counselling process had already concluded and the academic session had substantially progressed.

The Court held that the statutory scheme governing nursing education draws a clear distinction between establishment permission and student allotment through centralized counselling. While grant of NOC and recognition enables lawful conduct of the course, allotment of students is regulated through a time-bound counselling mechanism based on a seat matrix finalized before commencement of counselling. The counselling guidelines stipulate that only institutions possessing valid NOC and recognition at the time of preparation of the seat matrix are eligible for inclusion in counselling for that academic session.

It was held that no provision under the governing statute, rules or counselling guidelines permits RUHS to alter or expand the seat matrix once counselling rounds have commenced, and after conclusion of counselling on 04.11.2025, RUHS became functus officio in respect of the seat matrix for Academic Session 2025–26.

The Court rejected the contention that additional rounds of counselling could be directed by referring to previous academic years. Relying upon Nihila P.P. vs The Medical Counseling Committee (SLP (C) No. 10487/2021 decided on 16.12.2021), the Court held that sanctity of the notified admission schedule and time-bound counselling framework must be strictly adhered to and that midstream inclusion cannot be claimed as of right.

The Court further recorded that theory and practical classes commenced on 18.08.2025 and nearly 70% of the first semester curriculum had already been completed, with examinations scheduled for March/April 2026. It held that directing additional counselling or permitting institutional-level admissions at that stage would disturb the academic schedule and compromise educational standards.

Reliance was placed upon Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh, (2002) 7 SCC 258 and D.Y. Patil Medical College v. Medical Council of India, (2015) 10 SCC 51, wherein the Supreme Court emphasized strict adherence to academic calendars and deprecated midstream admissions. The Court held that 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 Court also took note of the communication dated 22.10.2025 issued by the Indian Nursing Council extending the last date of admission only up to 30.11.2025 and stipulating that students admitted after 30.10.2025 would be treated as irregular batch. It held that the cut-off date for admissions, being fixed by the statutory regulator, cannot be extended by the Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

The pleas of legitimate expectation and discrimination were rejected on the ground that the petitioners did not possess valid NOC during the currency of counselling and that no material was placed to show inclusion of any similarly situated institution lacking NOC during counselling.

Accordingly, the writ petitions were dismissed.

After pronouncement of judgment, the petitioners sought indication of a suitable timeline for future sessions so that institutions are not rendered ineligible due to delay in grant of approvals. In addition to dismissing the petitions for the current session, the Court issued a prospective direction that, for the next academic session, applications submitted by bona fide institutions seeking NOC for participation in centralized counselling shall be considered and decided at least 45 days prior to commencement of the first round of counselling. It was further directed that in the event of deviation from the said timeline, the State shall be liable to compensate the affected institutions by way of costs proportionate to the delay. The Court clarified that the stipulation of 45 days shall not be construed as a mandate for grant of NOC and that decision to grant or refuse NOC shall be taken strictly in accordance with law.

Case Title
Aryaman Nursing College & Ors. vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Lead case: Maa Jijabai College of Nursing vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.)

Case Numbers
D.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 610/2026, 615/2026, 618/2026 & 465/2026

Court
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur

Bench
Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Justice Sandeep Shah

Date of Judgment
11.02.2026

Advocates
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 with Mr. Bhavyadeep Singh

Judgments Relied Upon

Nihila P.P. vs The Medical Counseling Committee (SLP (C) No. 10487/2021, decided on 16.12.2021)
Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh, (2002) 7 SCC 258
D.Y. Patil Medical College v. Medical Council of India, (2015) 10 SCC 51

Judgments Distinguished

The interim orders dated 19.09.2025 and 10.11.2025 passed in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 945/2025 were held inapplicable to the petitioners as those directions were conditional upon possession of valid NOC during the currency of counselling and did not mandate reopening of a concluded counselling process.