Raj HC stays RUHS B.Sc Nursing counselling schedule, flags unexplained NOC delay by State

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has restrained the Rajasthan University of Health Sciences from implementing its newly notified CUET-2026 counselling and admission schedule for B.Sc Nursing, D.Pharm and B.P.T. courses, holding that proceeding with admissions while hundreds of institutions’ pending No Objection Certificate applications remain undecided would cause the petitioner-institutions irreparable prejudice.

Justice Mukesh Rajpurohit, hearing a bunch of writ petitions led by Vivekanand Vidya Ashram Sansthan and connected with over two dozen similar petitions filed by nursing and paramedical institutions from across the state, noted that applications for NOCs had remained pending with the State for more than one and a half years despite repeated assurances of a final decision.

The Court observed:

“Prima facie, the conduct of the respondent authorities in simultaneously withholding a decision on the pending applications for NOCs while initiating the admission process cannot be countenanced, particularly in view of the directions issued by the Division Bench in Fortune Foundation’s case (supra), requiring timely consideration of applications seeking No Objection Certificates before commencement of the counselling process.”

The present bunch of writ petitions was filed seeking directions to the State, the Rajasthan Nursing Council and connected authorities to decide long-pending applications for grant of NOCs for B.Sc Nursing and GNM courses. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that pursuant to guidelines issued by the State Government on Oct 15, 2024 for establishment of nursing colleges and schools, the petitioner-institutions had developed the requisite infrastructure and applied for NOCs, and that although Clause 10 of the guidelines mandated time-bound disposal of such applications within 90 days, the applications had not been decided even after a lapse of more than a year and a half.

In the lead matter, the Court had earlier directed the respondents to place on record a compliance report of its order dated Jan 14, 2025, failing which the Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Department, was directed to appear in person. The Principal Secretary subsequently appeared through video conferencing on Feb 25, 2026 and informed the Court that, owing to the large number of applications received, the matter had been referred to a Higher Level Committee for a final policy decision. The Court thereafter directed the Principal Secretary to file a detailed personal affidavit; when this was found incomplete, further directions followed. The record placed before the Court showed that of 676 applications received pursuant to the 2024 guidelines, NOCs had been granted to only 73 institutions, with no explanation offered for why the remaining applications continued to await a policy decision.

The Court also took note of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Fortune Foundation & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.23307/2025), decided on Jan 12, 2026, which had directed that applications of bona fide institutions seeking NOCs for participation in the centralised counselling process be considered and decided at least 45 days prior to the commencement of the first round of counselling, failing which the State would be liable to compensate affected institutions by way of costs proportionate to the delay.

On May 22, 2026, on the assurance of the learned Advocate General that neither the counselling process had commenced nor any notification issued, and that a final decision would be taken by the State Government and apprised to the Court on the next date, the matter was posted for Jun 29, 2026, also to consider compliance with the directions in Fortune Foundation. On the last date of hearing, counsel for the petitioners produced the notification dated Jun 11, 2026 issued by the Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, notifying the RUHS CUET-2026 Counselling and Allotment Schedule. It was submitted that commencing the counselling process without first deciding the long-pending NOC applications would cause the petitioner-institutions to lose another academic year, defeating the very object of the litigation, and that operation of the notification ought to be stayed.

The Additional Advocate General, N.S. Rajpurohit, on instructions from Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Joint Secretary, Group-3, who was present in person before the Court, submitted that the matter was under active consideration of the State Government, that an appropriate decision would be taken at the earliest, and sought two weeks’ time.

The Court held that the delay on the part of the State in deciding the NOC applications remained unexplained despite repeated opportunities and specific assurances extended from time to time. It further observed that while it had earlier refrained from interfering with the counselling process solely on the Advocate General’s assurance that no notification had been issued, the notification dated Jun 11, 2026 now demonstrated that the counselling schedule had in fact been notified, and that permitting the counselling process to proceed before adjudication of the pending NOC applications would cause irreparable prejudice to institutions whose applications had remained pending solely on account of inaction by the respondent authorities.

Accordingly, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in order to safeguard the interests of the petitioner-institutions pending a lawful decision on their applications, the Court directed that the operation and implementation of the RUHS CUET-2026 Counselling and Allotment Schedule, notified on Jun 11, 2026, shall remain in abeyance qua admission to the courses of B.Sc Nursing, D.Pharm and B.P.T., till the next date of hearing. The matter has been listed for Jul 15, 2026.

Title: Vivekanand Vidya Ashram Sansthan v State of Rajasthan (with connected writ petitions)

Case No.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5711/2025 and connected matters

Counsel for petitioner: Shreyansh Mardia, Jyoti Choudhary, Ankur Mathur, Divya Bapna, Harshvardhan Thanvi, Rishabh Purohit, Harsh Chordia, Mukul Krishna Vyas, Kunal Jaiman, Vikas Bijarnia

Counsel for respondent: N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG, assisted by Ruchi Parihar, Sher Singh Rathore and Bhuvnesh Kumar