Rajasthan HC Halts Statewide BSc Nursing Counselling Over Unresolved NOCs

Jaipur, Rajasthan – In a significant move impacting thousands of medical aspirants, the Rajasthan High Court has imposed a statewide stay on the counselling process for B.Sc. Nursing admissions for the 2025-26 academic year. The division bench, comprising Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Bipin Gupta, intervened to halt the entire process until the crucial issue of No Objection Certificates (NOCs) for participating colleges is resolved by the State Government.

The court's order came in a special appeal filed by the Rajasthan University of Health and Sciences (RUHS) against an interim order by a single-judge bench. The initial order had permitted the Deepshikha Kala Sansthan (Regional Nursing College) to participate in the counselling for 50 seats, despite the institution lacking a valid NOC from the State Government and the requisite affiliation from RUHS.

The division bench, while staying the single judge's order and the entire counselling process, acknowledged the gravity of its decision. The court observed that while it would "ordinarily have hesitated" to halt a major public admission process, the order was necessary "to prevent deviations in the Nursing Courses and avoid creation of conflicting rights." This pre-emptive measure aims to protect students from potential admission into institutions that may not meet statutory requirements, thereby safeguarding the integrity of the state's nursing education framework.

---

Background of the Dispute: The Primacy of Regulatory Compliance

The legal battle originated when Deepshikha Kala Sansthan filed a writ petition after being aggrieved by the State Government's failure to grant it an NOC. The college sought a judicial directive compelling RUHS to provide affiliation and allow its participation in the counselling process. The single-judge bench granted interim relief, directing RUHS to permit the college to be included in the counselling schedule.

Challenging this interim relief, RUHS, represented by counsel Vinay Kothari, filed a special appeal. The university’s primary contention rested on its own statutory framework, specifically Ordinance 80 of RUHS . The university argued that this ordinance makes a valid NOC from the State Government a mandatory prerequisite for any college seeking affiliation.

"It was argued by RUHS that as per Ordinance 80 of RUHS, NOC was required by a college for getting its affiliation. In its absence, it was not legally permissible for the College to undertake any nursing course," one of the source reports noted.

RUHS contended that allowing colleges without the necessary approvals to participate in counselling would introduce significant discrepancies and irregularities into the admission process. This could lead to a chaotic situation where students are allocated seats in unapproved institutions, creating conflicting rights and jeopardizing their academic careers.

Significantly, the State Government, through Additional Advocate General Narendra Singh Rajpurohit, supported the university's stance. The AAG informed the court that his instructions were also to allow counselling only after the NOCs had been properly addressed and finalized.

The Division Bench's Rationale: Preventing Conflicting Rights

Finding the unified position of RUHS and the State Government to be reasonable, the division bench agreed that proceeding with counselling under the circumstances was untenable. The court's primary concern was the potential fallout for students who might be admitted to colleges whose regulatory status was still in question.

The bench’s observation highlights a crucial judicial balancing act: weighing the public interest in timely admissions against the imperative of upholding regulatory standards in professional education. By prioritizing the finalization of NOCs, the court aims to ensure that every institution participating in the counselling process is legally and statutorily compliant. This prevents a scenario where students' admissions could be later invalidated, leading to protracted litigation and academic disruption.

The court’s order reflects a broader principle in administrative and education law: that procedural and regulatory requirements are not mere formalities but are essential safeguards for maintaining quality and legality in professional courses like nursing.

The court has directed the State to resolve the NOC issues expeditiously, "preferably within two weeks," and has listed the matter for further hearing thereafter. It also provided a procedural opening, allowing any party to move an application for resuming counselling once the NOCs are cleared.

Legal Implications and Broader Impact

This order has wide-ranging implications for educational institutions, regulatory bodies, and students across Rajasthan.

1. Reinforcing Regulatory Authority: The High Court's decision strongly reinforces the authority of statutory bodies like RUHS and the State Government in enforcing compliance with affiliation norms. It underscores that judicial intervention, particularly at the interim stage, should not bypass fundamental regulatory prerequisites.

2. Protecting Student Interests: While the stay causes a temporary delay for aspirants, its long-term objective is to protect them. By ensuring all participating colleges are fully approved, the court prevents students from becoming unwitting victims of administrative lapses or disputes between institutions and regulatory bodies.

3. A Cautionary Tale for Institutions: The case serves as a stark reminder to educational institutions that seeking judicial remedy to circumvent regulatory processes may not succeed, especially when such processes are statutorily mandated to ensure educational standards.

4. Pressure on State Administration: The directive to resolve NOC issues within a two-week timeframe places the onus squarely on the State Government to streamline its approval processes. This judicial push may compel administrative bodies to act more efficiently, addressing a common bottleneck in the establishment and operation of educational institutions.

The case, titled Rajasthan University Of Health And Sciences v. The State Of Rajasthan (D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1080/2025) , now awaits the State's compliance report. The future of the B.Sc. Nursing admissions for the 2025-26 session hinges on the swift resolution of these pending regulatory approvals.