IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a valid NOC must be honored, and arbitrary denial of affiliation based on provisional claims is legally unsustainable.

ORDER :

Dinesh Mehta, J.

1. The case in hands is a classic example of harassment meted out to the petitioner-institution by the respondents for none of its fault.

2. The facts narrated briefly are that the petitioner – Saloni Institute of Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred to as ‘the petitioner - institution’) was having No Objection Certificate (for short ‘NOC’) for the purpose of starting B.Sc. Nursing Course, issued by the Rajasthan University of Health Science (hereinafter referred to as ‘the RUHS’) and by the State Government.

3. On account of an inspection conducted by the Anti Corruption Bureau, a ban was imposed by the State Government by order dated 28.08.2014 and accordingly the petitioner was directed not to give admission to the students.

4. In due course of time, the Anti Corruption Bureau filed negative Final Report, whereafter, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court (being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 898/2015), wherein an interim order was passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 20.01.2015 and a direction was issued to the respondent - RUHS to enroll the students of the petitioner provisionally.

5. Petitioner’s aforesaid writ petition was subsequently allowed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 28.03.2017.

6. Regardless of above order, the respondent State and the RUHS did neither enroll the students of the petitioner nor did they permit the petitioner to grant admission, for which writ petitions came to be filed by the petitioner for every successive year viz. S.B. CWP Nos. 15046/2021, 13683/2022, 17991/2022 and 10376/2023.

7. All the aforementioned writ petitions were heard conjointly and allowed by order dated 18.10.2023 with the following directions:

“9. It is also most pertinent to note that while the State was directed to decide the representation of the petitioner-institution by an interim order passed in one of the writ petitions, the State has taken a considered decision and has continued the NOC bypassing a conscious order, which results into a definite stand of the State that the petitioner-institution as on today has a valid NOC. The order dated 19.10.2023 for continuance of the valid NOC, which is said to be in consonance with the new policy dated 07.06.2022, is taken on record.

10. In view of above, the petitioner-institution is directed to deposit the complete due fee as undertaken. The interim orders made allowing the petitioners/students in various sessions from 2019 to 2022-23 with scholarship, enrollments, revaluations & examinations benefits shall be allowed. The petitioner-Institution shall also be allowed to take the students for the academic sessions 2023-24, in accordance with the NOC granted by the State on 19.10.2023.

11. Thus, it is categorically held that as on today, the petitioner-institution has a complete legal status of NOC upto the Session of 2023-24 and until the NOC granted by the State vide order dated 19.10.2023 remains in currency. All the legal benefits shall be accordingly granted to the petitioner-institution as well as its students.

12. The present petitions stand disposed of accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of.”

8. During the course of hearing of those writ petitions, the respondent – RUHS stated that the petitioner – institution has to deposit affiliation fee amounting to Rs.24,39,000/- for the period interregnum, which the petitioner has indisputably paid on 06.11.2023.

9. In spite of the aforesaid, the respondent – RUHS did not enroll the petitioner for admission of students for the Session 2024-25, for which the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court, by way of filing the petition instant.

10. Mr. Shreyansh Mardia, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondents are unnecessarily harassing the petitioner and not granting the annual affiliation for no reasons and rhymes.

11. Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent – State could not point o