The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan has refused to direct fresh counselling or allow direct admissions for four newly established nursing colleges that were left out of the 2025–26 B.Sc. Nursing admission process.
In a detailed judgment delivered on February 11, 2026, a Division Bench held that once the counselling rounds are over and classes have substantially progressed, courts cannot disturb the academic schedule.
Read also:- Gujarat HC Clears Way for Police Recruit, Says Minor, Quashed FIR Can’t Block Appointment
The ruling came in a batch of writ petitions led by Maa Jijabai College of Nursing vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Background of the Case
Four newly set up nursing colleges - including Aryaman Nursing College, MLD College of Nursing Education, Maa Jijabai College of Nursing, and Ayushman Institute of Medical Science and College of Nursing - approached the High Court.
They argued that:
- They had received No Objection Certificates (NOCs) from the State Government in December 2025.
- They obtained recognition from the Rajasthan Nursing Council later that month.
- Despite fulfilling infrastructure and faculty requirements, they were not included in the centralized counselling conducted by the Rajasthan University of Health Sciences (RUHS).
The colleges requested the court to either:
- Direct an additional round of counselling for allotment of students, or
- Permit them to admit students on their own for the academic session 2025–26.
However, the court noted a crucial timeline:
- Counselling began in July 2025
- Classes started on August 18, 2025
- Counselling ended on November 4, 2025
- NOCs were granted on December 5, 2025
- Recognition followed on December 23, 2025
By the time approvals came, counselling had already concluded and classes were well underway.
What the Colleges Argued
Senior counsel for the petitioners told the bench that the institutions had invested heavily in infrastructure, laboratories, hostels, and faculty. Denying them students for the current year would cause “irreparable loss.”
They also cited earlier court orders and examples from previous years where additional counselling rounds were conducted.
The petitioners claimed they had a “legitimate expectation” that once approvals were granted, they would be allotted students through the centralized process.
The State and RUHS’ Stand
The State and RUHS opposed the plea. They informed the court that:
- More than 90% of seats had already been filled.
- Nearly 70% of the first semester syllabus had been completed.
- Examinations were scheduled for March/April 2026.
They relied on Supreme Court rulings stressing strict adherence to academic calendars.
The court was also told that the Indian Nursing Council had fixed November 30, 2025 as the last date for admissions, warning that no further extension would be granted.
Read also:- Supreme Court Clears Siddhartha Reddy in Actress Pratyusha Death Case, Says No Proof of Abetment
Court’s Observations
The Division Bench drew a clear distinction between two things:
- Permission to establish a college
- Allotment of students through counselling
“The right to establish an institution cannot be equated with a right to insist upon student allotment for a concluded academic session,” the bench observed.
The judges said the issue was not about illegal exclusion, but about timing.
By the time the colleges became eligible, the counselling process had already ended. The court held that RUHS became “functus officio” - meaning it no longer had authority to alter the seat matrix once counselling concluded.
Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the bench emphasized that midstream admissions disrupt academic discipline.
Quoting from earlier rulings, the court noted that allowing admissions after substantial completion of a course would “disturb the courses and also work as a handicap to the candidates themselves.”
The bench added that courts should not tinker with cut-off dates fixed by statutory regulators.
Read also:- Supreme Court Clears Siddhartha Reddy in Actress Pratyusha Death Case, Says No Proof of Abetment
On Legitimate Expectation and Discrimination
The court rejected the plea of legitimate expectation. It said interim protections in earlier cases applied only to institutions that possessed valid NOCs during the counselling process.
On discrimination, the bench clarified that Article 14 does not permit “negative equality.” There was no evidence that any college without NOC during counselling had been included.
Though sympathetic to the financial hardship faced by the institutions, the court said such considerations could not override regulatory timelines.
Read also:- Telangana HC Quashes FIR Against Abundance Café Hookah Lounge, Says Police Cannot Act Without
The Decision
The High Court dismissed all four writ petitions.
It held that:
- Counselling for 2025–26 had concluded lawfully.
- Academic sessions had substantially progressed.
- The cut-off date fixed by the Indian Nursing Council could not be extended.
- No additional round of counselling could be ordered.
However, the court issued a prospective direction. For future academic sessions, authorities must decide NOC applications at least 45 days before the first counselling round begins.
The court clarified that this timeline does not guarantee approval but ensures timely decision-making.
With these observations, the writ petitions stood dismissed.
Case Title: Maa Jijabai College of Nursing vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Case No.: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 618/2026 (with connected matters)
Decision Date: 11 February 2026
