Introduction:

In Aryaman Nursing College v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions, reported as 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 68, the Rajasthan High Court examined whether newly established nursing colleges that obtained No Objection Certificate and statutory recognition after conclusion of the counselling process could claim participation in seat allotment for the 2025 to 2026 academic session. The matter was heard by Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati, who was tasked with balancing institutional interests against the sanctity of the academic calendar and the structured counselling framework governing professional courses. The petitioners, a group of newly established nursing colleges, approached the Court after being excluded from the counselling process conducted by the Rajasthan University of Health Sciences for allocation of seats. Although they had eventually secured the requisite No Objection Certificate and recognition or affiliation from the State authorities, these approvals were granted only after the counselling rounds had concluded and the academic session had substantially progressed. The petitioners sought directions to allow them participation through an additional counselling round or institutional admissions, contending that denial of inclusion would render their infrastructure idle and cause serious financial loss. The High Court, while dismissing the petitions, clarified the distinction between permission to establish an institution and entitlement to student allotment in a concluded academic session. At the same time, it issued prospective directions to ensure timely consideration of applications in future sessions so that bona fide institutions would not suffer due to administrative delay.

Arguments of the Petitioners:

On behalf of the petitioners, it was contended that once the State granted the No Objection Certificate and statutory recognition or affiliation, the institutions acquired a legitimate expectation of being included in the counselling process. Counsel argued that the approvals were not merely symbolic but conferred operational status enabling the colleges to conduct nursing courses. Therefore, exclusion from seat allotment defeated the very purpose of granting recognition. It was submitted that the counselling process, being an administrative mechanism, should not override the substantive right of a duly recognized institution to receive students. The petitioners emphasized that substantial investments had been made in infrastructure, faculty recruitment and compliance with regulatory norms. If students were not allotted, the entire academic and financial planning of the institutions would collapse, resulting in irreparable harm. It was further argued that the refusal to accommodate them was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, as similarly situated institutions were allegedly treated more favorably in previous years. The petitioners submitted that the Court, exercising its writ jurisdiction, could direct the authorities to conduct an additional round of counselling or permit institutional level admissions without disturbing the larger framework. They contended that educational advancement and expansion of nursing capacity in the State were matters of public interest and that inclusion of newly recognized institutions would serve the larger goal of increasing trained healthcare manpower. According to them, rigid adherence to timelines without accommodating genuine institutions amounted to mechanical application of rules, undermining fairness and equity.

Arguments of the State:

Opposing the petitions, the State authorities submitted that the counselling process for the 2025 to 2026 academic session had concluded in November 2025 and that classes had commenced as early as August 2025. The No Objection Certificates and recognitions in favour of the petitioners were granted only in December 2025, well after the counselling rounds were completed and the academic session had substantially progressed. The State contended that the seat matrix for counselling is finalized prior to commencement of the process and is based on institutions that possess valid approvals at that time. Inclusion of institutions that obtained approvals subsequently would require reopening of the entire process, thereby unsettling admissions already finalized. It was argued that such disruption would compromise academic discipline, cause uncertainty among students and dilute educational standards. The State emphasized that the statutory scheme clearly distinguishes between grant of permission to establish an institution and the regulated mechanism of counselling for seat allotment. Recognition allows an institution to exist and conduct courses prospectively, but does not automatically entitle it to claim seats in a completed session. Reliance was placed on judicial precedent emphasizing strict adherence to notified admission schedules in professional courses to preserve fairness and transparency. The State further refuted the allegation of discrimination, asserting that no institution lacking a valid No Objection Certificate during the subsistence of counselling had been permitted participation. Therefore, the exclusion of the petitioners was a consequence of timing and not arbitrary treatment.

Court’s Judgment:

After considering the rival submissions, Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati examined the chronological sequence of events and the statutory framework governing nursing admissions. The Court observed that the grievance of the petitioners did not arise from wrongful exclusion during the subsistence of counselling, but from the fact that their approvals were granted only after the counselling process had concluded. The Court drew a clear distinction between the right to establish and operate an institution and the right to insist upon allotment of students in a particular academic session. It held that while the No Objection Certificate and recognition enable an institution to lawfully conduct the course, the allotment of students is regulated exclusively through a time bound counselling mechanism based on a seat matrix finalized before commencement of counselling. The Court categorically stated that the right to establish an institution cannot be equated with a right to insist upon student allotment for a concluded academic session. In support of this reasoning, the Court referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Nihila P P versus The Medical Counseling Committee and others, wherein it was emphasized that sanctity of the notified admission schedule and adherence to time bound counselling are essential to maintain certainty, fairness and academic discipline in professional education. Applying these principles, the Court held that once the counselling process had concluded in accordance with the approved scheme, it could not be reopened merely to accommodate institutions seeking belated participation. The prayer for directing an additional counselling round or permitting institutional admissions at that 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 rejected the plea of legitimate expectation, noting that the petitioners had not obtained the requisite approvals during the period when counselling rounds were underway and therefore could not claim any enforceable expectation of participation. The allegation of violation of Article 14 was also dismissed in the absence of any material demonstrating discriminatory treatment. However, recognizing the need for orderly administration and to avoid similar controversies in future, the Court issued prospective directions that applications of bona fide institutions seeking No Objection Certificates for participation in counselling shall be considered at least forty five days prior to commencement of the first round of counselling in the next academic session. The Court further observed that if the stipulated timeline is not adhered to, the State would be liable to compensate affected institutions by awarding costs proportionate to the delay. Thus, while dismissing the petitions for the current academic year, the Court sought to streamline the process prospectively to ensure that genuine institutions are not prejudiced by procedural delays in future sessions.