JUDGMENT : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, arising out of a controversy concerning the participation of a newly established nursing college in the counselling process for the Academic Session 2025–26. 1.1. The prayer clauses read as under: "It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the writ petition and: - i) by an appropriate, writ, order or direction, the respondent Rajasthan University of Health Sciences (RUHS) may kindly be directed to allot 200 students in B.Sc. Nursing course to the petitioner for academic session 2025-26 by conducting counseling with all consequential directions; ii) by an appropriate, writ, order or direction, in the alternative and without prejudice to the above, the petitioner may kindly be permitted to admit the students in B.Sc. nursing Course as per the requisite statutory qualifying criteria at its own level; iii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, if during the pendency of the present writ petition, the last date for admission is expired then the same may kindly be extended for a reasonable time; iv) Any other appropriate writ or order or direction which this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner. (v) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner." 2. The factual matrix of the present case in brief is that the petitioner is a newly established nursing institution which sought permission to commence the B.Sc. Nursing Course with a sanctioned intake for the Academic Session 2025–26. Upon inspection by the competent authorities, the institution was found to be compliant with the prescribed infrastructural, academic and statutory requirements. 2.1. Pursuant thereto, the State Government granted No Objection Certificate (NOC) in favour of the petitioner on 13.11.2025, permitting establishment of the college with the approved intake capacity. Thereafter, the petitioner also obtained the requisite recognition/affiliation on 19.11.2025 (provisional) from the competent authority, i.e. the Rajasthan Nursing Council, in accordance with the statutory framework governing nursing education. 2.2. However, when the centralized counselling process for admission to the B.Sc. Thereafter, the petitioner also obtained the requisite recognition/affiliation on 19.11.2025 (provisional) from the competent authority, i.e. the Rajasthan Nursing Council, in accordance with the statutory framework governing nursing education. 2.2. However, when the centralized counselling process for admission to the B.Sc. Nursing Course for the Academic Session 2025–26 was conducted by the Rajasthan University of Health Sciences (RUHS), the petitioner-institution was not included in the counselling seat matrix and was consequently not permitted to participate in the counselling process for allotment of students. 3. The dispute in the present case, thus, concerns the exclusion of the institution by the Rajasthan University of Health Sciences (RUHS) from the centralized counselling process for admission and allotment of students for the purpose of B.Sc. Nursing Course for the Academic Session 2025–26, despite the petitioner having obtained NOC from the State Government and recognition/affiliation from the competent nursing authorities after completion of due inspection and other formalities in regard thereto. The issue for determination is thus whether RUHS was legally justified in denying the participation of the institution in the counselling process for the aforesaid Session. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner-institution was granted No Objection Certificate by the respondent-State and upon inspection, obtained recognition/affiliation from the competent authorities in accordance with the governing statutory framework. Having fulfilled all prescribed requirements for commencement of the B.Sc. Nursing Course for the Academic Session 2025–26, the petitioner was fully entitled to participate in the centralized counselling process conducted by the respondent-Rajasthan University of Health Sciences (RUHS) for allotment of students. 4.1. It was contended that despite the existence of these statutory approvals, the petitioner was excluded from the counselling process without any adverse order, communication, or justification. Such exclusion, in the face of valid NOC, recognition and affiliation, is arbitrary, suffers from non-application of mind, and is contrary to the obligation of the authorities concerned to act in a fair and transparent manner. 4.2. Learned counsel further submitted that once the NOC, recognition and affiliation were granted, the petitioner had a legitimate expectation that students would be allotted to them through the regulated counselling mechanism. The subsequent refusal to permit participation, or to conduct an additional round of counselling, frustrates this legitimate expectation without any lawful basis. 4.3. 4.2. Learned counsel further submitted that once the NOC, recognition and affiliation were granted, the petitioner had a legitimate expectation that students would be allotted to them through the regulated counselling mechanism. The subsequent refusal to permit participation, or to conduct an additional round of counselling, frustrates this legitimate expectation without any lawful basis. 4.3. It was also submitted that the institution in question has been established after making substantial infrastructural and administrative investments, including development of laboratories, teaching facilities, hostel accommodation, and appointment of qualified faculty strictly in accordance with statutory norms. Denial of students for the current academic session would render the entire infrastructure idle, cause irreparable institutional loss, and operate against public interest by reducing the intake of trained nursing professionals in the State. 4.4. It was submitted that the interim order dated 19.09.2025 passed by this Hon’ble Court in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 945/2025, specifically directed that institution possessing valid NOCs shall be permitted to participate in the counseling process and that the petitioner, being fully compliant with all statutory requirements, stands on a stronger footing, and denial of similar treatment amounts to hostile discrimination. 4.5. Reliance was placed on past practice to show that the counselling schedule can be pragmatically adjusted where circumstances so warrant. Reference was made to the notification dated 09.02.2024 issued by respondent-RUHS, whereby a Round– 5 counselling was conducted for the Academic Session 2023–24, and to the notification dated 10.01.2026 issued by the State of Haryana extending the stray round of counselling. It was therefore submitted that holding additional rounds of counselling is neither impermissible nor unprecedented when required to accommodate duly approved institution and to avoid wastage of sanctioned seats. 4.6. On the strength of the above submissions, learned counsel prays that appropriate directions deserve to be issued either for conducting an additional round of counselling for allotment of students to the petitioner institution or, in the alternative, for permitting the petitioner to admit students against the sanctioned intake for the Academic Session 2025–26. 5. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the counseling process for admission to the B.Sc. Nursing Course for the Academic Session 2025–26 commenced in July, 2025. In the first round itself, more than 60% of the seats were filled. The second and third rounds of counseling stood concluded by 28.10.2025, and the final round was completed on 04.11.2025. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the counseling process for admission to the B.Sc. Nursing Course for the Academic Session 2025–26 commenced in July, 2025. In the first round itself, more than 60% of the seats were filled. The second and third rounds of counseling stood concluded by 28.10.2025, and the final round was completed on 04.11.2025. It was submitted that more than 90% of the total seats for the said course have already been filled through this counseling process conducted by the respondent-RUHS. 5.1. Learned counsel places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nihila P.P. vs. The Medical Counseling Committee (MCC) & Ors. (Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 10487/2021, decided on 16.12.2021), wherein it has been specifically laid down that only four rounds of counseling are permissible. All four rounds in the present case stand concluded. 5.2. It was further submitted that theory and practical classes for the B.Sc. Nursing Course commenced from 18.08.2025, and by now nearly 70% of the first semester curriculum has already been completed. The remaining academic schedule is underway and examinations are scheduled for March/April, 2026. At this stage, inclusion of fresh students would seriously disrupt the academic process and would also compromise educational standards and operate against public interest. 5.3. It was urged that directing a further round of counseling at this stage would directly interfere with the academic schedule, which has repeatedly been deprecated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments. Reliance is placed on Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh [ (2002) 7 SCC 258 ] and D.Y. Patil Medical College v. Medical Council of India & Ors. [ (2015) 10 SCC 51 ], wherein strict adherence to the academic calendar and counseling schedule has been emphasized. 5.4. Learned counsel further submitted that the Indian Nursing Council, vide communication dated 22.10.2025, after considering representations from various stakeholders, extended the last date of admission for ANM, GNM and B.Sc. Nursing Courses only up to 30.11.2025, while categorically declaring that students admitted after 30.10.2025 would be treated as an irregular batch. It was further made explicit that no request for further extension would be entertained and that strict action would follow in case of non-adherence to the cut-off date. 5.5. Nursing Courses only up to 30.11.2025, while categorically declaring that students admitted after 30.10.2025 would be treated as an irregular batch. It was further made explicit that no request for further extension would be entertained and that strict action would follow in case of non-adherence to the cut-off date. 5.5. In view of the above factual and legal position, learned counsel submitted that neither a fresh round of counseling nor permission for institutional-level admissions can be granted at this stage to the petitioners, as the same would be contrary to the binding academic schedule, regulatory directives, and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court proceeds to examine the matter. At the outset, from the record, the following undisputed chronology emerges : Event Date Counseling commenced by RUHS July, 2025 Classes commenced 18.08.2025 Counseling rounds concluded 04.11.2025 NOC granted to Petitioner 13.11.2025 Provisional Recognition granted 19.11.2025 6.1. From the aforesaid chronology, it becomes evident that by the time the petitioner attained full eligibility for inclusion in the seat matrix, the counselling process, conducted in accordance with the notified schedule, had already concluded, the seat matrix stood exhausted, and the academic session had substantially progressed. The grievance of the petitioner, therefore, does not stem from any exclusion during the subsistence of counselling, but from the timing of the grant of statutory approvals in relation to the completion of the counselling process. In essence, the petitioner is confronted not with exclusion, but with the consequence of chronology. 7. This Court finds that the statutory scheme draws a clear distinction between (i) permission to establish an institution through NOC and recognition, and (ii) allotment of students through centralized counseling. While the former enables an institution to lawfully conduct the course, the latter is regulated exclusively through a time-bound counseling mechanism based on a seat matrix finalized before commencement of counseling. 8. The scheme operates under the framework of the Rajasthan University of Health Sciences Act and the Statutes framed thereunder, read with the regulatory control exercised by the Rajasthan Nursing Council and the Indian Nursing Council. 8. The scheme operates under the framework of the Rajasthan University of Health Sciences Act and the Statutes framed thereunder, read with the regulatory control exercised by the Rajasthan Nursing Council and the Indian Nursing Council. The counseling guidelines issued by RUHS, traceable to this statutory framework, uniformly stipulate that only those institutions which possess valid NOC and recognition at the time of preparation of the seat matrix are eligible for inclusion in counseling for that academic session. 8.1. No provision under the governing statute, rules, statutes, or counseling guidelines permits RUHS to alter, expand, or modify this seat matrix once counseling rounds have commenced. Consequently, once counseling rounds stood concluded on 04.11.2025, RUHS became functus officio qua the seat matrix for Academic Session 2025–26. The petitioner, therefore, seek a direction which the statutory scheme itself does not empower RUHS to implement. 8.2. It can thus be stated that the right to establish an institution cannot be equated with a right to insist upon student allotment for a concluded academic session. This distinction is foundational to the present controversy and answers the principal grievance of the petitioner. 8.3. In this backdrop, also the plea that, in a previous academic year, an additional round of counseling was undertaken does not advance the petitioners’ case. 8.4. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nihila P.P. (supra), the sanctity of the notified admission schedule and the time-bound counseling framework in professional courses must be scrupulously adhered to in order to preserve certainty, fairness, and academic discipline. The number and nature of counseling rounds depend upon the seat matrix, vacancies, and academic exigencies of the concerned year, and cannot be relied upon as a precedent to claim, as of right, midstream inclusion. 8.5. Once the prescribed rounds of counseling stand concluded in accordance with the approved scheme, the process cannot be reopened dehors the schedule merely to accommodate institutions seeking belated participation. The petitioners’ contention, therefore, runs contrary to the settled legal position that the counseling mechanism is structured, time-bound, and incapable of alteration beyond the statutory framework governing the admission process. 9. This Court further acknowledges the fact as borne out from the record, that theory and practical classes for the B.Sc. Nursing Course commenced from 18.08.2025. The petitioners’ contention, therefore, runs contrary to the settled legal position that the counseling mechanism is structured, time-bound, and incapable of alteration beyond the statutory framework governing the admission process. 9. This Court further acknowledges the fact as borne out from the record, that theory and practical classes for the B.Sc. Nursing Course commenced from 18.08.2025. By the time the present petition was considered, nearly 70% of the first semester curriculum had already been completed and that the academic schedule was in full operation, with examinations scheduled in March/April, 2026. 9.1. The prayer of the petitioner for directing an additional counselling or institutional admissions at this stage would necessarily result in admission of students after substantial completion of the curriculum, thereby disturbing the academic schedule and compromising educational standards. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized the sanctity of academic schedules and counselling timelines in professional courses. 10.1.In Madhu Singh (supra) , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under: "18. In State of U.P. v. Dr Anupam Gupta [1993 Supp (1) SCC 594] the view in Dr Subodh case [1993 Supp (1) SCC 593] was reiterated. It was observed as under : (SCC p. 603, para 12) “12. It is next contended by Shri Yogeshwar Prasad that the courses were started from 30-10-1990 and in terms of the orders of this Court it shall be deemed to have been commenced from 2-5-1990, the direction as given in the impugned judgments for admission after more than a year, is illegal. To maintain excellence in the academic courses, the delay defeats the claim for admission, though posts are vacant. In Pramod Kumar Joshi (Dr) v. Medical Council of India [ (1991) 2 SCC 179 ] this Court held that the course for the year 1991 is almost completed and it would not be proper to allow admission belatedly. In Subodh Nautiyal (Dr) v. State of U.P. [1993 Supp (1) SCC 593] there was a delay of four months in giving admission, and this Court held that, ‘even according to Mr Pandey the course has started in September for the session. This is technical course and to admit a student four months after the commencement would not at all be correct’. This is technical course and to admit a student four months after the commencement would not at all be correct’. (italicized for emphasis) In para 14, the desirability of commencing the course on schedule and completing the same within the schedule was stressed in the following words : (SCC p. 604) “14. Considering from this point of view, to maintain excellence the courses have to be commenced on schedule and be completed within the schedule, so that the students would have full opportunity to study full course to reach their excellence and come at par excellence. Admission in the midstream would disturb the courses and also work as a handicap to the candidates themselves to achieve excellence. Considering from this pragmatic point of view we are of the considered opinion that vacancies of the seats would not be taken as a ground to give admission and direction by the High Court to admit the candidates into those vacant seats cannot be sustained.” (italicized for emphasis) 10.2. Similarly, in D.Y. Patil Medical College (supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated: “17... Sanctity to the time schedule has to be attached. It is too late in the day, insofar as the present academic session is concerned, to give any direction. This Court has highlighted the importance of cut-off date for starting the professional courses, particularly medical courses, and repeatedly impressed upon that such deadline should be tinkered with . (See Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh [Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2012) 7 SCC 433 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 367 : 4 SCEC 555] and Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. State of U.P. [ (2013) 2 SCC 617 : 4 SCEC 775] )” 10.3. Though the judgments in Madhu Singh (supra) and D.Y. Patil Medical College (supra) , were rendered in the context of belated admissions of the students concerned, the underlying principle applies with equal force here. What cannot be permitted directly, namely midstream admission of students, cannot be permitted indirectly by allowing midstream inclusion of an institution resulting in the same consequence. The present case, though concerning participation of institution, ultimately results in the same consequence of midstream admissions, which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently deprecated. 11. What cannot be permitted directly, namely midstream admission of students, cannot be permitted indirectly by allowing midstream inclusion of an institution resulting in the same consequence. The present case, though concerning participation of institution, ultimately results in the same consequence of midstream admissions, which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently deprecated. 11. This Court further finds that the interim orders dated 19.09.2025 and 10.11.2025 passed by this Court in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 945/2025, relied upon by the petitioner were conditional upon institutions possessing valid NOCs during the currency of counseling. 11.1. A careful reading of the orders dated 19.09.2025 and 10.11.2025 shows that the directions were intended to ensure participation of those institutions which possessed valid NOCs at the time when counseling was in progress. The expression used in the order dated 10.11.2025, namely, that “counseling shall proceed after NOCs have been duly dealt with”, cannot be interpreted to mean that the counseling process must remain open or be reopened to accommodate institutions whose approvals fructified after the conclusion of counseling. 12. This Court further takes note of the significance of the communication dated 22.10.2025 issued by the Indian Nursing Council, whereby, after considering representations from States, colleges and universities, the last date of admission for ANM, GNM and B.Sc. Nursing Courses was extended only up to 30.11.2025. The said communication categorically stipulates that students admitted after 30.10.2025 would be treated as an irregular batch and further declares that no request for any further extension shall be entertained and strict action shall follow in case of non-adherence to the cut-off date. 12.1. In view of the above regulatory mandate, issued by the Indian Nursing Council fixing the outer limit for admissions reinforces that regulatory discipline itself contemplates strict adherence to cut-off dates. Any direction by this Court to conduct a fresh round of counselling or to permit institutional admissions beyond the prescribed timeline would run contrary to the explicit directives of the statutory regulator. 13. The third relief sought by the petitioner is for extension of the last date of admission in the event the cut-off has expired. This prayer also cannot be entertained. The last date for admission to the B.Sc. Nursing Course is not an administrative timeline fixed by RUHS, but a regulatory cut-off prescribed by the Indian Nursing Council in exercise of its statutory powers governing nursing education across the country. This prayer also cannot be entertained. The last date for admission to the B.Sc. Nursing Course is not an administrative timeline fixed by RUHS, but a regulatory cut-off prescribed by the Indian Nursing Council in exercise of its statutory powers governing nursing education across the country. Once such cut-off date is notified by the statutory regulator, neither the University nor this Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, can extend the same on equitable considerations. 13.1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has [in Madhu Singh (supra) and D.Y. Patil Medical College (supra) ] held that Courts ought not to tinker with cut-off dates and academic schedules in professional courses, as doing so disturbs the entire admission framework and academic discipline. Any direction to extend the last date of admission for accommodating the petitioner would, therefore, run directly contrary to the regulatory mandate and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 14. The plea of legitimate expectation and reliance on the interim orders passed by this Court do not assist the petitioner in the present factual matrix, as the petitioner did not possess the NOC during the period when the counseling rounds were underway. The interim protection was available only to the institutions holding valid NOCs at the relevant time. 15. The plea of discrimination is equally misconceived. Even assuming that some other institution was permitted participation, Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not contemplate negative equality. No material is placed to show that any institution lacking NOC during counselling was included by RUHS. Therefore, the participation of institutions' in earlier orders of this Court was strictly contingent upon possession of valid NOCs at the relevant time. 16. Considerations such as infrastructural investment by the petitioner or alleged hardship, is a consequence of the timing of grant of approvals by the competent authorities and not of any illegality or arbitrariness on the part of RUHS, which acted strictly in accordance with the counselling framework. Though sympathetic, it cannot form the basis for issuing directions which would unsettle the settled admission process and affect the larger body of students and institution who have already acted upon the notified schedule. 17. This Court, therefore, records the following conclusions: (i) The dispute is confined to the non-inclusion of petitioner- institution in centralized counselling for the Academic Session 2025–26. 17. This Court, therefore, records the following conclusions: (i) The dispute is confined to the non-inclusion of petitioner- institution in centralized counselling for the Academic Session 2025–26. (ii) The petitioner obtained NOC (13.11.2025) and provisional recognition (19.11.2025) after counselling had concluded (04.11.2025) and after commencement of classes (18.08.2025). Their grievance arises from the timing of approvals. (iii) The statutory scheme separates establishment permission from student allotment; the seat matrix finalized before counselling cannot be altered midstream, and after its conclusion RUHS is functus officio, precluding any claim for inclusion in a concluded session. (iv) The interim orders relied upon were conditional upon possession of valid NOCs during counselling and do not mandate reopening of the process. (v) With the academic session substantially progressed, any direction for additional counselling or institutional admissions would disturb academic discipline and educational standards. (vi) The cut-off date for admissions is fixed by the Indian Nursing Council and cannot be extended by this Court. (vii) The pleas of legitimate expectation and discrimination are untenable, and the hardship alleged is not attributable to any illegality on the part of RUHS. When the present position is weighed against the imperative of imparting knowledge, particularly where nearly 70% of a professional course already stands completed, the balance necessarily tilts in favour of feasibility and the preservation of academic quality, considerations which this Court cannot lightly overlook. 18. Thus, in view of the above, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to warrant any interference in the writ jurisdiction. 19. Consequently, the present writ petition stands dismissed All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. 20. After pronouncement of the judgment, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that although, for the present academic session, the petitioner could not be permitted to participate in the counselling process on account of the chronology of grant of approvals, a suitable timeline may be indicated by this Court for the ensuing academic sessions so that a bona fide institution is not rendered ineligible to participate in the counselling process merely due to delay in grant of No Objection Certificates and statutory recognitions. 20.1.Learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents, submitted that in the event such a direction is issued, the authorities concerned shall duly adhere to the same. 21. 20.1.Learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents, submitted that in the event such a direction is issued, the authorities concerned shall duly adhere to the same. 21. In light of the aforesaid submissions, and in addition to the judgment already pronounced, whereby the writ petitions stand dismissed, this Court deems it appropriate to issue the following prospective direction in the interest of orderly administration of the admission process, so that genuine institutions are not prejudiced on account of procedural delay in future academic sessions. 22. Accordingly, this Court directs that, for the next academic session, application submitted by a bona fide institution seeking No Objection Certificate from the respondents for the purpose of participation in the centralized counselling process for admission and allotment of students to the B.Sc. Nursing Course shall be considered and decided at least 45 days prior to the commencement of the first round of counselling . In the event of any deviation from the aforesaid timeline, the State shall be liable to compensate the affected institutions by way of costs proportionate to the delay so occasioned. 22.1.It is clarified that the stipulation of 45 days shall not be construed as a mandate for grant of NOC. The decision to grant or refuse NOC shall be taken strictly in accordance with law.