Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vedanta College Of Ayurved Nursing vs The State Of Rajasthan on 18 November, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:48702]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18415/2025
Vedanta College Of Ayurved Nursing, Ganga Rampura, Kanota
Sambhariya Road, Tehsil Bassi, Jaipur Through Its Secretary Dr.
Rameshwar Dayal Sharma, S/o Shri Krishna Gopal Sharma, Aged
- 69 Years, R/o Plot No. B- 137, Sethi Colony, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary,
Department Of Ayurvedic And Indian Medicine,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary,
Department Of Ayurved, Yoga And Natural Medicine,
Unani, Siddha And Homeopathy (Ayush), Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Deputy Secretary,
Department Of Ayurved, Yoga And Natural Medicine,
Unani, Siddha And Homeopathy (Ayush), Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
4. The Director, Department Of Ayurved, Government Of
Rajasthan, Directorate Of Ayurved, Ashok Marg, Mali
Mohalla, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
5. Dr. Sarvapalli Radha Krishnan Ayurved University,
Through Its Registrar, Karwar Nagaur Road, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shreyansh Mardia
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Kanchan Jodha for
Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Judgment
Reserved on : 12/11/2025
Pronounced on : 18/11/2025
1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with
the following prayers:-
'It is therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ
petition may kindly be allowed and by an
appropriate writ, order or direction:-
(Uploaded on 18/11/2025 at 03:10:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48702] (2 of 8) [CW-18415/2025]
1. the respondent No.1 may be directed to grant
the NOC to the petitioner-institute to conduct the
DAN&P Course for the academic session 2025-26
for 100 seats.
2. the petitioner may be permitted to undertake
the DAN&P Course for the academic session
2025-26 on 100 seats and the name of the
petitioner may be included in all the rounds of
counseling;
3. the respondent No.5 may be directed to grant
affiliation to the petitioner for the academic
session 2025-26 to conduct the DAN&P Course
with intake capacity of 100 seats;
4. the respondents may be directed to provide
the inspection to the petitioner.'
2. The facts in nutshell, as narrated in the present writ petition,
are that the petitioner-institute applied for permission to
undertake Diploma in Ayush Nursing and Pharmacy (DAN&P)
Course with intake capacity of 100 seats. It is stated that despite
submitting the application with all requisite formalities, when
necessary inspection was not conducted, the petitioner preferred a
writ petition before this Court bearing SBCWP No.19684/2023,
which came to be disposed of on 02.01.2024 while directing the
respondents to inspect the petitioner-institute and pass
appropriate orders within a period of three months. It is submitted
that subsequent thereto, an MOU was executed between the
petitioner-institute and the respondent No.4 on 07.03.2025 with
an intent to establish the aforesaid college and as per the MOU,
the State Government agreed to facilitate the petitioner-institute
in obtaining necessary permission/clearance. The inspection of the
petitioner-institute was carried out on 24.05.2025 and it was
verbally informed that the petitioner-college have requisite
(Uploaded on 18/11/2025 at 03:10:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48702] (3 of 8) [CW-18415/2025]
infrastructure and is fit to conduct 'DAN&P' Course. As verbally
informed and despite positive inspection report, the necessary
NOC was not issued. In these circumstances, the petitioner has
filed the present writ petition with the prayer that the respondents
may be directed to grant NOC to the petitioner-institute to conduct
'DAN&P' Course for the academic year 2025-26 with intake
capacity of 100 seats.
3. The matter was listed on 10.10.2025 on which date, learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondents have already
conducted inspection of the petitioner-institute and they may be
directed to place on record the inspection report along with the
reply. The matter was again listed on 29.10.2025 on an
application filed by the petitioner for impleadment of applicant-
Rajasthan Ayurved Nursing Council as a party-respondent in the
present writ petition. The said application was allowed and the
matter was adjourned at the request of the learned counsel for
the State to ensure the compliance of the order dated 10.10.2025.
The writ petition was again listed on 06.11.2025 and again time
was sought by the learned counsel for the respondent-State to
place on record the inspection report as directed by this Court on
10.10.2025. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the respondents that inspection report has been
forwarded to the Screening Committee in sealed cover, this Court
directed the respondents to place inspection report so also the
outcome of meeting of Screening Committee before the Court by
10.11.2025. The matter was again listed on 11.11.2025 but the
(Uploaded on 18/11/2025 at 03:10:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48702] (4 of 8) [CW-18415/2025]
respondent-State sought time to file additional affidavit for placing
the report of the Screening Committee on record.
4. The respondents have filed the additional affidavit along with
inspection report as well as report of Screening Committee.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to
inspection report submits that the petitioner has satisfied on all
the parameters and there is no negative comment which could
have been made basis to deny NOC to the petitioner.
5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that
despite there being no adverse comment by the Inspection
Committee in the inspection report, the Screening Committee has
made comment that the petitioner-institute has applied for
Diploma as well as the B.Sc. Nursing Course and the petitioner-
institute has stated to be having land in Khasra No.10 for Diploma
Course and the land falling in Khasra No.99/77 is the land
reserved for B.Sc. Nursing Course, however, there is similarity in
the map.
5.2 The second objection which has been noted is with regard to
the non-availability of maps of the constructed area and
documents relating to the said constructed area. Learned counsel
for the petitioner, while replying to the said comments, submitted
that a bare perusal of Point No.1 and Point No.9 of inspection
report relating to B.Sc. Course as well as Diploma Course, would
reveal that all the details with regard to the land so also with
regard to the building plan was submitted and the Committee has
(Uploaded on 18/11/2025 at 03:10:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48702] (5 of 8) [CW-18415/2025]
recorded its satisfaction. That being so, the
reason/endorsement/comments as recorded by the Screening
Committee is without any basis and has been made just to
prolong the proceedings.
5.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the
judgment dated 07.02.2017 : SBCWP No.679/2017 and
connected matters (Sanskar T.T. college and Ors. Vs. State
of Rajasthan and Ors.) passed by a Coordinate Bench of this
Court at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. The relevant para No.12 of the
judgment is reproduced as under :-
'Let us begin taking note of the judgment of the
Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. LBS
B.Ed. College and Others, supra, wherein
reference was made of its earlier judgment in Maa
Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh and Others - (2013) 2 SCC 617,
and authoritatively pronounced that that the role
of the State is very formal one and State is not
expected to obstruct the commencement of
admission process and academic courses once
recognition is granted and affiliation is found to be
acceptable. The Supreme Court in para 13 of that
judgment referred its earlier two-Judge Bench
judgment in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila
Mahavidyalaya Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Others, supra, wherein it was held that
Regulations framed under the National Council for
Teacher Education Act, 1993 clearly show that
upon receiving an application for
recommendation, the NCTE shall send a copy of
the application with its letter inviting
recommendations/comments of the State
Government on all aspects within a period of 30
days. To such application, the State is expected to
respond with its complete comments within a
period of 60 days. In other words, the opinion of
the State on all matters that may concern it in any
of the specified fields are called for. The Supreme
Court observed that this is the stage where the
State and its Department should play a vital role
(Uploaded on 18/11/2025 at 03:10:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48702] (6 of 8) [CW-18415/2025]
and they must take all precautions to offer proper
comments supported by due reasoning. Once
these comments are sent and the State
Government gives its opinion which is considered
by the NCTE and examined in conjunction with the
report of the experts, it may grant or refuse
recognition. Once it grants recognition, then such
grant attains supremacy vis-a-vis the State
Government as well as the affiliating body. The
Supreme Court further observed that normally
these questions cannot be re-agitated at the time
of grant of affiliation. Once the University
conducts inspection in terms of its Statutes or Act,
without offending the provisions of the Act and
conditions of recognition, then the opinion of the
State Government at the second stage is a mere
formality unless there was a drastic and
unacceptable mistake or the entire process was
vitiated by fraud or there was patently eminent
danger to life of the students in the school
because of non-compliance of a substantive
condition imposed by either of the bodies but in
the normal circumstances, the role of the State is
a very formal one and the State is not expected to
obstruct the commencement of admission process
and academic courses once recognition is granted
and affiliation is found to be acceptable. In para
15 of the judgment 08.09.2016, supra, again the
Supreme Court has observed that controversy
with regard to such institutions wherefor the NCTE
has already granted recognition, shall stand
closed. '
5.4. Based on the above submission, learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the present writ petition deserves to be
allowed and the respondent authorities may be directed to issue
NOC in a time bound manner.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
State submitted that the inspection report was examined by the
Screening Committee and considering the said report, the
endorsement/comments have been made and in absence of
requisite maps and documents, the final NOC could not be issued.
(Uploaded on 18/11/2025 at 03:10:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48702] (7 of 8) [CW-18415/2025]
He further submitted that the NOC for B.Sc. Nursing Course has
already been issued.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused and
material available on record.
8. The respondents have filed additional affidavit while placing
on record the inspection report so also the report of the Screening
Committee. The Inspection Committee appears to have recorded
its satisfaction with regard to the availability of infrastructure and
does not highlight any deficiency. The Screening Committee has
also recorded its satisfaction on all the parameters, however, a
note has been endorsed which indicates that maps and certain
documents have not been placed on record. Considering the fact
that the Screening Committee has recorded its satisfaction on
Point Nos.1 and 9, this Court finds no reason for Screening
Committee to make such comments. The details mentioned in
relation to Point Nos.1 and 9 in both the reports, i.e. pertaining to
'DAN&P' Course as well as the B.Sc. Nursing Course, would
indicate that the details of the land along with the document as
well as the details of the building plan along with the documents
were placed on record and this is also reflected from the
comments made by the Inspection Committee. The Inspection
Committee has rather recorded that the infrastructure available is
more than required norms. That being so, there appears no
justification for the Screening Committee to have made such
comments.
(Uploaded on 18/11/2025 at 03:10:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48702] (8 of 8) [CW-18415/2025]
9. As an upshot of the above discussion, the present writ
petition is allowed. The respondent-State is directed to issue NOC
to the petitioner-institute for running 'DAN&P' Course for academic
session 2025-26 as per the sanctioned intake capacity within a
period of one month from today, strictly in accordance with law.
10. All other pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J
110-ajayS/-
(Uploaded on 18/11/2025 at 03:10:47 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
