The Rajasthan High Court dismissed writ petitions by agricultural colleges challenging the refusal to extend their temporary No Objection Certificates (NOCs) for B.Sc. Agriculture courses for the academic session 2026-27, holding that compliance with the six-year period for obtaining ICAR accreditation under Clause 8.4 of the Agriculture Policy 2022 does not exempt institutions from meeting the substantive conditions prescribed under Clause 8.2 for NOC extension after four years.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, seven agricultural colleges established and operated by registered societies or trusts, sought continuation of their temporary NOCs to participate in the JET-2026 counselling process for admission to B.Sc. Agriculture courses for the academic session 2026-27. The respondents declined extension of these NOCs based on non-compliance with specific conditions of the Agriculture Policy/Procedure dated 20.09.2022.
Key Facts
- The petitioner-institutions were granted initial temporary NOCs for conducting B.Sc. Agriculture courses during academic sessions commencing in 2021-22 or 2022-23, with sanctioned intake capacities of 60/120 students.
- SKD Agriculture College (WP No. 26056/2026) obtained its first NOC on 24.08.2023 for the 2022-2023 session.
- Shree Vinayak College of Agriculture (WP No. 26067/2026) obtained its first NOC on 01.08.2022 for the 2022-2023 session.
- Shree Jitendra Godaras SLBS Krishi Mahavidyalaya (WP No. 26070/2026) obtained its first NOC on 09.09.2022 for the 2022-2023 session.
- Shrinathji College of Agriculture (WP No. 26071/2026) obtained its first NOC on 31.08.2022 for the 2022-2023 session.
- Apex Institute of Agriculture and Research (WP No. 26279/2026) obtained its first NOC on 23.08.2023 for the 2022-2023 session.
- Bright Career Agriculture College (WP No. 26281/2026) obtained its first NOC on 01.08.2022 for the 2022-2023 session.
- Sorabh Agriculture College (WP No. 26282/2026) obtained its first NOC on 01.08.2022 for the 2022-2023 session.
- The State Government introduced the Agriculture Policy/Procedure dated 20.09.2022, which came into force with effect from 22.09.2022 (Clause 35).
- Clause 8.4 of the Policy stipulates that institutions must obtain ICAR accreditation within six academic years from the date of issuance of their first temporary NOC.
- Clause 8.2 outlines mandatory conditions for extension of temporary NOCs after completion of four years, including: (i) submission of ICAR accreditation application (8.2.1); (ii) appointment of qualified teaching and non-teaching staff per ICAR standards (8.2.2); (iii) payment of salaries through banking channels (8.2.5); (iv) compliance with statutory deductions including PF and employee insurance (8.2.6); and (v) development and maintenance of an updated website displaying student allotment details (8.2.9).
- The impugned orders dated 10.10.2026 declined extension of NOCs for the 2026-27 session, recording non-compliance with specific sub-clauses of 8.2 for each institution:
- SKD Agriculture College: Non-compliance with Clauses 8.2.1 and 8.2.2
- Shree Vinayak College: Non-compliance with Clauses 8.2.1 and 8.2.2
- Shree Jitendra Godaras College: Non-compliance with Clauses 8.2.1 and 8.2.2
- Shrinathji College: Non-compliance with Clauses 8.2.1, 8.2.2, and 8.2.9
- Apex Institute: Non-compliance with Clauses 8.2.1 and 8.2.2
- Bright Career College: Non-compliance with Clauses 8.2.1, 8.2.2, 8.2.5, and 8.2.6
- Sorabh Agriculture College: Non-compliance with Clauses 8.2.1 and 8.2.2
- The petitioners contended that even if the Policy of 2022 applied, the six-year period under Clause 8.4 had not expired as of the impugned orders (10.10.2026), citing their first NOC dates ranging from 01.08.2022 to 24.08.2023.
- The petitioners further argued that the Policy could not be applied retrospectively since their initial NOCs were granted prior to its implementation.
- The respondents asserted that the petitioners had submitted affidavits undertaking compliance with the Policy's conditions and acknowledging that non-compliance would permit cancellation of NOCs.
- The JET-2026 counselling notification was dated 12.10.2026, with the counselling process commencing on 14.10.2026, and the last date for depositing the Online Option Form fee being 19.10.2026 at 12:00 Midnight.
Procedural History
- The writ petitions (SBCWP Nos. 26056/2026 through 26282/2026) were filed challenging the impugned orders dated 10.10.2026.
- The matters were heard together due to common questions of fact and law.
- Reserved on: 18/10/2026 (12:15 PM)
- Pronounced on: 18/10/2026 (10:20 PM)
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioners:
- Reliance on Clause 8.4 to claim an unconditional right to NOC extension until expiry of the six-year period for obtaining ICAR accreditation.
- Contention that the Policy of 2022 cannot be applied retrospectively as their initial NOCs were granted before its commencement.
- Argument that the impugned orders were premature and arbitrary since the six-year period had not expired.
For the Respondents:
- Reliance on Clauses 8.2.1, 8.2.2, 8.2.5, 8.2.6, and 8.2.9 as independent mandatory conditions for NOC extension after four years.
- Assertion that temporary NOCs issued after the Policy's commencement expressly required compliance with these conditions, to which the petitioners had acquiesced via affidavits.
- Contention that Clause 8.4 must be read harmoniously with Clause 8.2, not in isolation.
- Argument that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any circumstance preventing compliance with the Policy's requirements.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- Quashing and setting aside of the impugned orders dated 10.10.2026 and the Agriculture Policy 2022 (to the extent challenged).
- Direction to respondents to permit participation in the JET-2026 counselling process for admission to B.Sc. Agriculture courses for the academic session 2026-27.
- Consideration of allotment of eligible candidates against sanctioned intake capacity of 60 seats.
- Consequential directions for continuation/extension of temporary NOCs and interim protection during pendency.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether agricultural colleges could claim an entitlement to extension of their temporary NOCs for the 2026-27 academic session based solely on the unexpired six-year period under Clause 8.4 of the Agriculture Policy 2022, without satisfying the substantive conditions prescribed under Clause 8.2 for NOC extension after completion of four years.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioners
The petitioners primarily relied on Clause 8.4 of the Agriculture Policy 2022, arguing that it prescribed a period of six academic years from the date of the first temporary NOC for obtaining ICAR accreditation, during which extension of the NOC could not be denied. They contended that since their first NOCs were issued between 01.08.2022 and 24.08.2023, the six-year period had not expired as of the impugned orders dated 10.10.2026, thereby creating an indefeasible right to NOC extension. They further argued that the Policy could not be applied retrospectively to their case, as their initial NOCs were granted prior to the Policy's commencement on 22.09.2022, citing the principle that substantive rights cannot be impaired by subsequent legislation. The petitioners emphasized that the respondents' refusal to extend NOCs based on alleged non-compliance with Clause 8.2 conditions was premature and arbitrary, as the time period for accreditation remained available.
For the Respondents
The respondents countered that Clause 8.2 of the Policy independently prescribes mandatory conditions for extension of temporary NOCs after four years, which must be satisfied irrespective of the time period under Clause 8.4. They argued that Clauses 8.2.1 (ICAR accreditation application), 8.2.2 (qualified staff appointment), 8.2.5 (salary payment through banking channels), 8.2.6 (statutory deductions and biometric attendance), and 8.2.9 (website maintenance) are distinct regulatory requirements not contingent upon the accreditation timeline. The respondents highlighted that the petitioners had submitted affidavits undertaking compliance with these conditions and acknowledging that non-compliance would permit lawful cancellation of NOCs, thereby estopping them from challenging the very conditions they had accepted. They contended that Clause 8.4 must be read harmoniously with Clause 8.2, giving effect to both the accreditation timeline and the extension conditions, and that the petitioners' failure to demonstrate any impediment to compliance negated their claim of arbitrariness.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by noting that all writ petitions raised common questions of fact and law arising from similar impugned orders and were accordingly heard and decided together. It examined the interplay between Clause 8.4 (prescribing a six-year period for obtaining ICAR accreditation) and Clause 8.2 (laying down conditions for NOC extension after four years). The Court held that a conjoint reading of these provisions reveals that extension of a temporary NOC is subject to fulfillment of the conditions under Clause 8.2 and is not an automatic consequence of the passage of time. It emphasized that Clause 8.4, even if construed as prescribing a six-year period for accreditation, cannot be interpreted in isolation to render the independent requirements under Clauses 8.2.1, 8.2.2, 8.2.5, 8.2.6, and 8.2.9 redundant or inoperative.
The Court drew support from Unni Krishnan, J.P. and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, (1993) 1 SCC 645, wherein it was held that the right to establish an educational institution does not, by itself, confer a right to recognition or affiliation. It stressed that such conditions must be construed and applied stricto sensu, and that educational institutions seeking regulatory approval must demonstrate compliance with prescribed standards. The Court observed that the interest of students and the larger public interest in maintaining quality of professional education must remain paramount, and institutions cannot claim entitlement to continue operations at the cost of prescribed standards.
Crucially, the Court rejected the petitioners' retrospective application argument, holding that the inquiry is not merely whether the Policy can be applied retrospectively, but whether the requirements sought to be enforced operate prospectively in respect of NOC extension and were applicable to the petitioners under the governing regulatory framework. It noted that even after the Policy came into force, temporary NOCs were extended subject to fulfillment of conditions, and the petitioners had not demonstrated any circumstance preventing compliance. The Court further held that the petitioners' subsequent challenge to conditions they had previously acquiesced to via affidavits attracts the principles of acquiescence and approbation-reprobation, and they cannot be permitted to disregard attached conditions merely because compliance became inconvenient.
The Court concluded that the petitioners failed to establish that the impugned orders declining NOC extension warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution, as they had not satisfied the mandatory conditions under Clause 8.2 despite the availability of time under Clause 8.4.
The Verdict
The writ petitions (SBCWP Nos. 26056/2026 through 26282/2026) were dismissed. No order as to costs was passed. The Court held that the petitioners' entitlement to extension of temporary NOCs is subject to fulfillment of the conditions under Clause 8.2 of the Agriculture Policy 2022, and mere availability of time under Clause 8.4 does not exempt compliance with substantive requirements such as ICAR accreditation application, qualified staff appointment, salary payment through banking channels, statutory deductions, and website maintenance.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Compliance with Substantive Conditions Is Non-Negotiable
Practitioners must advise educational institutions seeking regulatory approvals or extensions that temporal availabilities (e.g., periods for obtaining accreditation) do not override substantive compliance requirements. Institutions must proactively fulfill all conditions prescribed under relevant regulatory frameworks - such as staff qualifications, financial compliance, and infrastructural standards - well before seeking extensions, as courts will not permit delay tactics based solely on unexpired timelines.
Acquiescence Estops Subsequent Challenge
Where institutions have undertaken compliance with regulatory conditions via affidavits and accepted benefits thereunder, they cannot later challenge the very conditions they acknowledged. Legal teams should ensure such undertakings are precise and avoid creating estoppel situations where subsequent non-compliance is sought to be excused by retrospective policy challenges.
Harmonious Reading of Statutory Schemes
Courts will read interconnected statutory provisions (like Clauses 8.2 and 8.4 here) harmoniously to give effect to both temporal and substantive requirements. Lawyers must argue that time-bound exemptions do not render conditionalities otiose, and that regulatory schemes operate as integrated wholes where conditions govern eligibility irrespective of time periods.
Public Interest Trumps Institutional Convenience
The judgment reinforces that student welfare and public interest in quality professional education supersede institutional claims to regulatory benefits. Advocates must frame arguments around how compliance safeguards educational standards, rather than focusing solely on institutional hardship or procedural technicalities.
Prospective Application Is Key
Challenges to regulatory policies must focus on whether requirements apply prospectively to the relief sought, not merely on the policy's retrospective application. Success hinges on demonstrating that the policy's terms were applicable to the institution's situation at the time the regulatory benefit (e.g., NOC extension) was sought.
