Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ms. Alisha Chauhan vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 11 September, 2025
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
2025:HHC:31163
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.3435 of 2025 a/w
CWPs No.3291, 3742, 3743 and 7355 of
.
2025
Decided on: 11.09.2025
CWP No.3435 of 2025
Ms. Alisha Chauhan ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others ... Respondents
CWP No.3291 of 2025
Ms. Goldi
r Versus
to ... Petitioner
Atal Medical & Research University, H.P.
& others ... Respondents
CWP No.3742 of 2025
Siya Gupta ... Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
CWP No.3743 of 2025
Chailvi ... Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
CWP No.7355 of 2025
Rashmi ... Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & others ... Respondents
::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2025 21:32:53 :::CIS
2
2025:HHC:31163
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
.
Whether approved for reporting?1
____________________________________________________ _
CWP No.3435 of 2025
For the petitioner : Mr. Peeyush Verma, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional
Advocate General, for respondents
No.1 and 2.
Mr. Sandeep K. Pandey, Advocate, for
respondent No.3.
Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Senior
Advocate, with Mr. Narender Singh
Thakur, Advocate, for respondent
No.4.
CWP No.3291 of 2025
For the petitioner : Mr. Suneet Goel, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Vivek Negi, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Sandeep K. Pandey, Advocate, for
respondent No.1.
Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional
Advocate General, for respondent
No.2.
Mr. Vishwas Kaushal, Advocate, for
respondent No.3.
CWP No.3742 of 2025
For the petitioner : Mr. S.D. Gill, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional
Advocate General, for respondent
No.1.
Mr. Sandeep K. Pandey, Advocate, for
respondents No.2 and 3.
Mr. Tarun K. Sharma, Advocate, for
respondent No.4.
CWP No.3743 of 2025
For the petitioner : Mr. S.D. Gill, Advocate.
1
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 12/09/2025 21:32:53 :::CIS
3
2025:HHC:31163
For the respondents : Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional
Advocate General, for respondent
No.1.
.
Mr. Sandeep K. Pandey, Advocate, for
respondents No.2 and 3.
Mr. Tarun K. Sharma, Advocate, for
respondent No.4.
CWP No.7355 of 2025
For the petitioner : Mr. S.D. Gill, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Additional
Advocate General, for respondent
No.1.
Mr. Sandeep K. Pandey, Advocate, for
respondents No.2 and 3.
Mr. Tarun K. Sharma, Advocate, for
respondent No.4.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
In all these cases, the petitioners are before this Court,
praying for issuance of directions to the respondent-University to
regularize their admission in the B.Sc. Nursing Courses, which they
are undergoing in the respective respondent-Nursing Institutions.
2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have
also carefully gone through the pleadings in all the cases.
3. The reason as to why the University is not regularizing
the admissions of the petitioners is that as per the University, the
petitioners have been admitted by the respective Nursing Institutions
in violation of the Prospectus issued by the University, that is to say
that the students were admitted without the students being
2025:HHC:31163
sponsored by the University by way of Counseling. Though, this is
disputed both by the students as well as the respondent-Institutions,
.
but, fact of the matter is that it could not be demonstrated that the
students, i.e. the petitioners before this Court were granted
admissions in the respective Institutions on their being sponsored by
the respondent-University by way of Counseling.
4. Anyways, in the backdrop of the fact that primarily it is
the career of the students which is a stake and as it is not in dispute
that the petitioners before this Court did actually participate in the
process which was initiated by the respondent-University for
admission in the Nursing Courses, that is to say that they did
participate in the written examination and were successful therein,
this Court is of the considered view that it would be in the interest of
justice in case as a one time measure, the respondent-University is
directed to regularize their admissions subject to payment of costs
with the observation that the Nursing Institutions in future should
refrain from making any such admissions which are in violation of
the Prospectus.
5. Another reason which is weighing with this Court while
passing this order is that it is nobody's case including that of the
University that the petitioners were admitted in excess of the seats
2025:HHC:31163
which have been allotted to a particular Medical Institution.
6. At this stage, learned Counsel appearing for the Nursing
.
Institution have also made a grievance that in all these cases there is
inaction on the part of the University also, but then all that this
Court can observe is this that nothing prevented the Institutions
from approaching this Court at the relevant time.
7. Accordingly, these petitions in terms of the above
observations are disposed of with the directions that the admissions
of the petitioners be regularized subject to an amount of Rs.50,000/-
each being deposited by the erring Nursing Institutions, namely,
Modern Nursing College Annadale, Shimla, H.P.; Shimla Valley
Nursing College; Indian Institute of Nursing, Hari Devi, Ghanahatti,
Shimla, H.P.; Sampati Devi Memorial Nursing College, V.P.O. Bijni,
Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., with the Chief Justice Disaster Relief
Fund, 2025, within a period of three weeks from today. Immediately
upon the deposition of the said amount, the fact of the deposition of
the amount be brought into the notice of the respondent-University
and thereafter, the respondent-University shall take steps to
regularize the admissions of the petitioners. This Court before
parting would like to make an observation that in light of the fact
that such admissions are made every year in different Nursing
2025:HHC:31163
Institutions in the State, the University concerned should check all
the admissions which are made by the Institutions at least after a
.
month of the closure of the admissions so that illegal or irregular
admissions, if any, are taken note of and dealt with as per law.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any also stand disposed of
accordingly.
September 11, 2025
(Rishi)
r to (Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
