The Rajasthan High Court has affirmed that students cannot be penalized for institutional procedural lapses when their admission was expressly permitted by judicial order. In a significant ruling, the Court directed that 50 students who completed their B.Sc. Nursing course under its interim direction must be granted full academic benefits, regardless of whether the college had obtained prior statutory approvals.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, M.B. College of Para Medical and Nursing Education, Kota, sought permission to admit 50 students to the B.Sc. Nursing course for the academic session 2021-22. The college lacked formal affiliation from the Rajasthan University of Health and Science (RUHS), approval from the Rajasthan Nursing Council (RNC), and necessary NOCs from the State Government. Consequently, the respondents refused to include the college in the centralized counselling process for admissions.
Key Facts
- The petitioner applied for permission to increase intake from 30 to 50 seats in B.Sc. Nursing for 2021-22.
- The application was rejected by RNC and RUHS on grounds of non-compliance with infrastructure and regulatory norms.
- The petitioner filed the writ petition on 15.07.2021 seeking inclusion in the counselling process.
- On 27.10.2021, the High Court passed an interim order directing the respondents to include the petitioner-college in the counselling process for 50 seats.
- The Court further directed the petitioner to deposit enhanced fees with RUHS.
- In compliance with the interim order, the petitioner admitted 50 students to the B.Sc. Nursing course for 2021-22.
- The three-year degree course for these students was completed by 30.06.2024.
- Despite completion of the course, the respondents have not granted enrollment, declared results, or issued degrees.
Procedural History
- 15.07.2021: Writ Petition No. 15077/2021 filed before the Rajasthan High Court.
- 27.10.2021: Interim order passed directing inclusion in counselling and deposit of fees.
- 30.06.2024: 50 students completed the B.Sc. Nursing course.
- 13.03.2026: Final hearing and disposal of writ petition.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought directions to the respondents to:
- Recognize the admission of 50 students for the 2021-22 batch.
- Grant enrollment, declare results, and issue degrees.
- Provide all other consequential benefits under law.
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner: Argued that students were admitted under a valid court order and have completed their course in good faith. Denial of degrees would violate their fundamental right to education and cause irreparable harm.
Respondents: Contended that the college lacked statutory permissions and affiliation, rendering the admissions illegal. Granting degrees would set a precedent undermining regulatory frameworks.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether students who completed a degree course under a court-ordered admission, despite the institution’s lack of prior statutory approvals, are entitled to academic benefits such as degree issuance and result declaration.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel for the petitioner relied on the principle that students are innocent third parties who cannot be held liable for institutional non-compliance. Citing State of U.P. v. Raj Kumar and P. Srinivasan v. Union of India, it was argued that when a court permits admission, the resulting academic journey must be protected. The students fulfilled all academic requirements and deserve recognition. Denial of degrees would violate Article 21 of the Constitution, which protects the right to education and dignity.
For the Respondent
Counsel for the respondents argued that statutory norms under the Indian Nursing Council Act, 1947, and RUHS regulations are mandatory. Without affiliation and NOC, the college had no legal authority to conduct the course. Granting degrees in such circumstances would nullify regulatory oversight and encourage procedural bypasses.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged the respondents’ concern regarding regulatory compliance but emphasized that the students, who had no role in securing admission, must not suffer for institutional irregularities. The interim order dated 27.10.2021 was a judicial directive issued after due consideration, and the petitioner acted in good faith in compliance.
"The students have completed their course in accordance with the academic calendar and curriculum prescribed by the University. To deny them degrees now, merely because the institution lacked prior formal approval, would be a gross injustice to the students who have no fault in the matter."
The Court distinguished between the legality of the institution’s conduct and the rights of the students. It held that while the college may be required to regularize its status retroactively, the students’ acquired rights cannot be extinguished. The Court further noted that the respondents had not challenged the interim order, nor had they appealed it, indicating acquiescence to the admission process.
The Court also observed that the regulatory bodies (RNC, RUHS, State Government) retain the power to examine and decide on the college’s application for retrospective approval, but such examination must not prejudice the students who have already completed their studies.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court directed the Rajasthan University of Health and Science to immediately grant enrollment, declare results, and issue degrees to all 50 students admitted in the 2021-22 batch. The State Government and Rajasthan Nursing Council were directed to consider the college’s application for retrospective permission and affiliation for the 50 seats in a time-bound manner, within 12 weeks. Costs of Rs. 50,000 were imposed on the respondents for causing unnecessary litigation.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Student Rights Trump Institutional Non-Compliance
- Practitioners representing students in similar cases must argue that judicial orders granting admission create enforceable rights, irrespective of institutional defects.
- Denial of degrees or results to students who completed coursework under court orders violates Article 21 and constitutes arbitrary state action.
- Courts are likely to prioritize student welfare over procedural technicalities when students are blameless.
Regulatory Bodies Must Act Proactively, Not Retrospectively
- Institutions must regularize permissions, but regulatory authorities cannot use non-compliance to punish students.
- Applications for retrospective affiliation or NOC must be decided within strict timelines (e.g., 12 weeks as ordered here).
- Deliberate delay by authorities in processing such applications may attract costs and contempt proceedings.
Precedent for Allied Courses
This judgment sets a binding precedent for B.Sc. Nursing, BPT, BMLT, and other para-medical courses where admission is governed by state councils and universities. Similar petitions for degree issuance in other states may now cite this ruling to compel recognition of completed academic cycles.
