The Rajasthan High Court has reinforced that undue administrative delay in granting No Objection Certificates for nursing courses violates the fundamental right to education, particularly when such delays disrupt academic calendars and deprive institutions of their operational autonomy. This order establishes a clear temporal boundary for regulatory bodies, transforming procedural timeliness into a legal obligation.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Keshav Nursing College in Bhilwara, operates under the Porwal Hospital Sewa Samiti and seeks approval to run B.Sc. Nursing and GNM courses for the academic session 2025-26. The institution submitted a formal application for a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to multiple regulatory authorities, including the Rajasthan Nursing Council, Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, and the State Medical and Health Department. Despite the application being filed well in advance, no decision was rendered by the deadline for third-round counseling, jeopardizing the college’s ability to admit students.
Procedural History
- October 2024: Petitioner submitted NOC application with all requisite documents (Annexure 2)
- November 2024 to December 2025: Repeated follow-ups by petitioner; no substantive response from authorities
- January 2026: Writ petition filed before the High Court seeking direction for timely disposal
- 27 January 2026: Court heard limited prayer and issued final order
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a direction to the respondents to decide the NOC application within a stipulated timeframe, ensuring the institution could proceed with admissions for the 2025-26 academic year without further disruption.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether prolonged inaction by regulatory authorities on an application for a No Objection Certificate for nursing courses constitutes a violation of the right to education under Article 21A and Article 14 of the Constitution, particularly when such delay undermines institutional planning and student rights.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the right to establish and administer educational institutions under Article 19(1)(g) includes the right to timely regulatory clearance. Reliance was placed on P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra to assert that regulatory bodies must act within reasonable timeframes. The petitioner emphasized that the delay was not due to non-compliance but due to administrative apathy, which caused irreparable harm to academic continuity.
For the Respondent
The State and regulatory authorities did not file a written counter-affidavit or appear to contest the petition substantively. The absence of a defense implied tacit acknowledgment of procedural lapse, and the Court noted that no legal ground was advanced to justify the delay.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the NOC as a precondition for lawful operation of nursing courses, which are governed by the Indian Nursing Council Act and state-level regulations. It held that while authorities have the right to scrutinize compliance, they do not have the right to indefinite delay. The Court observed that educational institutions operate on fixed academic cycles, and failure to act within a reasonable time effectively nullifies the institution’s right to plan and execute its educational mandate.
"The right to education is not merely the right to access education, but also the right to have educational institutions function without arbitrary or unreasonable administrative obstruction."
The Court rejected the notion that regulatory discretion permits silence. It emphasized that administrative inaction, when it causes substantive harm to educational continuity, amounts to arbitrariness under Article 14. The Court further clarified that its direction was not to dictate the outcome of the application but to enforce the duty to decide.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that regulatory authorities must decide NOC applications within 30 days of receipt, failing which such delay violates constitutional guarantees. The writ petition was disposed of with a mandatory direction for timely adjudication, without prejudice to the merits of the application.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Timely Decision Is a Legal Duty
- Educational institutions may now invoke this judgment to demand statutory timelines for NOC, affiliation, or recognition applications
- Regulatory bodies must record reasons for any delay beyond 30 days, or risk judicial intervention
- Silence or non-decision cannot be treated as implied consent or rejection
Academic Calendars Are Legally Significant
- Delays that coincide with admission cycles (e.g., counseling rounds) are presumed prejudicial
- Institutions can seek interim relief if deadlines are breached, even before final NOC issuance
- Courts will treat academic disruption as irreparable harm, warranting urgent intervention
Regulatory Discretion Has Limits
- Authorities retain power to reject applications on substantive grounds
- But discretion cannot be exercised through procedural stalling or non-communication
- The burden shifts to the authority to justify delay, not to the institution to chase responses
