Punjab and Haryana High Court Issues Stern Warning to PTU Vice-Chancellor Over Missing Affidavit in Allied Health Courses Case
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has expressed strong disapproval and granted a final 15-day opportunity to the Vice-Chancellor of I K Gujral Punjab Technical University (PTU) in Jalandhar. The court warned of potential coercive action if the V-C fails to file a personal affidavit explaining why the university permitted admissions in allied healthcare courses despite a central prohibition.
Court's Dissatisfaction with University's Response
During a hearing on Thursday, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry voiced significant dissatisfaction with the university's failure to comply with a specific judicial directive. The bench had earlier ordered the Vice-Chancellor to personally file an affidavit detailing the reasons for allowing fresh admissions in five allied healthcare courses for the 2025–26 academic session, despite clear restrictions from the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions.
The court noted that instead of the required personal affidavit from the Vice-Chancellor, the university had submitted a response through the registrar and a subsequent affidavit merely adopting that reply. "We had passed a specific judicial order asking the vice-chancellor to file an affidavit. We are not satisfied with this," Chief Justice Nagu observed during the proceedings.
Background of the Case and Petitioner's Arguments
The matter came before the High Court through a Public Interest Litigation filed by Kapurthala resident Amardeep Gujral, challenging the legality of affiliation and continuation orders dated June 30, 2025. Through these orders, PTU had permitted fresh admissions in the following courses:
- BSc Medical Lab Sciences
- Radiology and Imaging Technology
- Cardiac Care Technology
- Optometry
- Operation Theatre Technology
The petitioner argued that these approvals violated a December 9, 2024 communication from the National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions, which had restrained institutions from opening new allied health courses until statutory regulations were properly framed. Counsel for the petitioner emphasized that despite this categorical bar, the university proceeded with affiliation orders, potentially jeopardizing students' futures.
Judicial Directives and Final Opportunity
The High Court had previously, in its order of October 27, 2025, specifically directed the Vice-Chancellor to file an affidavit explaining:
- The reasons for ignoring the prohibition from the National Commission
- Whether students were informed about the regulatory bar at the time of admission
During the recent hearing, the bench repeatedly asked the university to place the Vice-Chancellor's affidavit on record. When presented with the registrar's response instead, the court firmly rejected this explanation, noting that it could not substitute direct compliance with its earlier order. The bench remarked that the Vice-Chancellor appeared to be taking the court's directions lightly.
Granting what it termed a "final indulgence," the court has now provided a 15-day window for the university to file a proper affidavit directly from the Vice-Chancellor. The bench explicitly warned that failure to comply within this timeframe could invite coercive steps against the university administration.
Implications and Next Steps
This case highlights significant concerns about regulatory compliance in professional education and the accountability of university leadership. The National Commission for Allied and Healthcare Professions' prohibition was intended to ensure standardization and quality control in healthcare education, making the university's decision to proceed with admissions particularly concerning.
The matter has been posted for further consideration after the expiration of the 15-day period, during which the Vice-Chancellor must personally address the court's queries regarding the controversial admissions. This development serves as a crucial reminder to educational institutions about the importance of adhering to regulatory frameworks and responding appropriately to judicial directives.
The outcome of this case could have broader implications for how technical universities across India approach regulatory compliance in professional courses, particularly in the healthcare sector where student welfare and educational standards are paramount concerns.
