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 … Petitioner Versus 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 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? 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 4 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. 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 5 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 6 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. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 11, 2025 (Rishi)