Ajay Verma vs The Rajasthan Para Medical ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 7332 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR (1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4104/2021

1. Mahendra S/o Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 21 Years, Village Lorta Haridasot, Post Lorta Achlawata, Tehsil Balesar, District Jodhpur (Raj.).

2. Pushpa D/o Harman Ram, Aged About 21 Years, Village Shri Laxman Nagar, Chadi, Tehsil Bapini, District Jodhpur (Raj.).

3. Tanerao Singh S/o Jagmal Singh, Aged About 23 Years, Village Sagra, Post Chandan, District Jaisalmer (Raj.).

4. Surendra S/o Hari Krishan, Aged About 21 Years, Village Haniya, Post Khendakor, Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur (Raj.).

5. Suresh S/o Babu Ram, Aged About 20 Years, Village Dayasagar Khara, Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur (Raj.).

6. Sagarmal S/o Mangi Lal, Aged About 23 Years, Village Dayasagar Khara, Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur (Raj.).

7. Kailash Katariya S/o Alsi Das, Aged About 23 Years, Village Meghwal Ki Dhani, V/p Khara, Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Additional Chief Secretary, Medical And Health Services, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. Rajasthan Sub-Ordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, Through The Secretary, Rajasthan State Agriculture Managing Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

3. Rajasthan Para Medical Council, Through The Registrar, C-7(A), Sultan House, SJS Highway, Bani Park, Jaipur- 302016.

4. Mahatma Gandhi University, 13th Mile, G.S. Road, District Khanapara, Byrnihat, Meghalaya-793101 Through Its Registrar.

With

(2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3891/2021

1. Anupam Prakash S/o Sh. Kishana Ram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Daro Ka Vas, Kalyan Singh Ki Shed, Bap, Jodhpur.

2. Raju Ram S/o Sh. Dana Ram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Brahmano Ka Vas, Sanchore, District Jalore.

3. Chetan Kumar S/o Sh. Chena Ram Purohit, Aged About

(2 of 14) [CW-4104/2021]

21 Years, R/o Village- Paldi Solankhiyan, Post Dhamana, Tehsil Sanchore, Jalore.

4. Kuldeep S/o Sh. Pancha Ram, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village (Post) - Bhajannagar, Tehsil Lohawat, District Jodhpur.

5. Vikas S/o Sh Hari Ram Godara, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Bishnoiyo Ki Dhani, Shri Krishna Nagar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

6. Rupa Ram S/o Sh. Uda Ram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Keerwa, Tehsil Rani, District Pali.

----Petitioners Versus

1. The Rajasthan Para Medical Council, Jaipur, Through Its Registrar.

2. Chairman, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Selection Board, Jaipur.

3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

----Respondents

(3) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3914/2021

1. Neha Vishnoi D/o Shri Ramkunwar, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Jaroda Khurd, Tehsil Merta, District Nagaur.

2. Pooja Devi D/o Shri Khema Ram, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Godaro Ka Bas, Sindhlas, Nagaur.

3. Mahipal S/o Shri Sukh Ram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Ward No. 22 Malar, Phalodi, District Jodhpur.

----Petitioners Versus

1. The Rajasthan Para Medical Council, Jaipur, Through Its Registrar.

2. Chairman, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Selection Board, Jaipur.

3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

----Respondents

(4) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3054/2021

1. Ajay Verma S/o Shri Om Prakash Verma, Aged About 42 Years, B/c Scheduled Caste , R/o A-52, Near Railway Line Indira Colony , Nagaur (Raj.)

2. Sunita Mundel D/o Shri Narayan Mundel, Aged About 25 Years, B/c OBC, R/o Neembada Ki Gali, Marwar Mundwa, Distt. Nagaur (Raj.)

----Petitioners

(3 of 14) [CW-4104/2021]

Versus

1. The Rajasthan Para Medical Council, Jaipur, Through Its Registrar.

2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Selection Board, Jaipur

3. Chairman, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Selection Board, Jaipur

4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary , Department Of Medical And Health, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yash Pal Khileree Mr. Manoj Bhandari Mr. Hapu Ram For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bhavit Sharma Ms. Shalini Audichya for Mr. Vinit Sanadhya Mr. Jamvant Gurjar

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

16/03/2021

1. The petitioners herein have approached this Court with the

grievance that the respondent - Rajasthan Para Medical Council

has wrongly turned down their request of registration.

2. Mr. Bhavit Sharma, learned counsel for the Para Medical

Council, at the outset, raises an objection about the

maintainability of writ petitions by arguing that petitioners have

got an alternative and efficacious remedy in the form of appeal

under Section 25 & 26 of the Rajasthan Para Medical Council Act,

2008 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2008") and, thus, this

Court should not interfere in the matter.

3. In response to the preliminary objection so raised, Mr. Yash

Pal Khileree, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

(4 of 14) [CW-4104/2021]

remedy by way of appeal would be an empty formality, as the

appeal against the impugned order of Registrar lies to the Para

Medical Council, which has raised various queries and in spite of

the satisfactory reply filed by the University stating that the

course in question carried out by it is valid, the Para Medical

Council has not considered their submissions objectively. It is also

argued by Mr. Khileree that as the larger question regarding

jurisdiction of the Para Medical Council and extent of information

which it can ask from respondent - Mahatma Gandhi University,

Meghalaya (hereinafter referred to as "MGU or respondent-

University") is to be decided, petitioners cannot be asked to avail

remedy of appeal.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after

considering the issue involved, this Court is of the firm opinion

that the remedy of appeal under Section 25 and 26 of the Act

would not be efficacious remedy, particularly because the

appellate authority can neither grant interim order nor can it

decide the very issue of recognition of the qualification and/or

equivalance of the qualification obtained by the petitioners. That

apart, it can neither issue any direction to the respondent -

University nor can it direct the Rajasthan Subordinate Ministerial

Staff Selection Board to consider petitioners' candidature, which in

the present cases have been asked for.

5. This being the position, preliminary objection is hereby

overruled.

6. Adverting to the facts of the present case suffice it to note

that the petitioners have done two years' Diploma course in ECG

Technology from respondent - University.

(5 of 14) [CW-4104/2021]

7. Respondent - University is a creation of Mahatma Gandhi

University Act, 2010, which after being passed by the Meghalaya

Legislative Assembly has received the assent of the Governor on

30.12.2010. The said Act has been published in the official

Gazette of Meghalaya on 04.01.2011.

8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that in

furtherance of the Act aforesaid, the State of Meghalaya in the

Education Department had accorded sanction for establishment of

Mahatma Gandhi University in Meghalaya.

9. Another document dated 11.04.2011 has also been placed

on record that has been issued by the University Grants

Commission, which clarifies that in light of the judgment of

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Professor Yashpal Vs.

State of Chhatisgarh, reported in (2005) 5 SCC 420, the State

University can grant degrees, as specified by the University Grants

Commission under Section 22 of the University Grants

Commission Act, 1956.

10. Learned counsel invites Court's attention towards a

communication dated 15.09.2020 written by the respondent -

Rajasthan Para Medical Council and points out that many

questions have been asked by the respondent - Council, which are

beyond its powers and scope of the regulation 42 of the Rajasthan

Para Medical Council Regulations, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as

"Regulations") and the provisions of Section 32 of the Act of 2008.

11. Learned counsel argues that in response to queries made on

15.09.2020, the respondent - University, has given satisfactory

reply but the respondent Council has adopted a stubborn attitude

and instead of granting recognition to the course carried out and

(6 of 14) [CW-4104/2021]

duly conducted by the respondent - University has rejected

petitioners' application for registration, observing that on the basis

of the documents supplied by the University it is not proved that it

has been allowed/authorised to conduct para-medical Course by

Central Government or Meghalaya Government.

12. Attention of the Court is drawn towards a letter written by

the State of Meghalaya, pursuant to information sought by some

students under RTI Act, intimating that there is no Para Medical

Council functioning in the State of Meghalaya.

13. Petitioners' grievance is, therefore, manifold. It is contended

that the University, which has been established by law is free to

impart education in any field or carry out any course including

para-medical course and it does not per se require recognition by

the Central or State Government.

14. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that since

no Para Medical Council exists in the State of Meghalaya, neither

the petitioners, nor the respondent - University is in a position to

place any approval or permission granted by the competent body.

Hence, if no indulgence is granted, petitioners would never be able

to get themselves registered and get Govt. employment or other

job.

15. That apart, learned counsel vehemently argues that the

University has been established under the Mahatma Gandhi

University Act, 2010, and all the courses including the para

medical course is mentioned in its preamble and the Diploma

obtained by the petitioners is nothing, but a part of the para

medical course. According to petitioners, since, the Act has been

enacted by the State of Meghalaya and the said Government has

(7 of 14) [CW-4104/2021]

accorded sanction for establishment of University, it is a natural

corrollary that all the courses, which are written in the preamble

have deemed approval of the State.

16. It is also asserted that Para Medical course and the diploma,

which the petitioners have obtained, are being conducted right

since inception of the University - from the year 2010 itself.

17. Mr. Jamwant Gurjar, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent - University concurs with the submission so made by

the petitioners, so far as the course conducted by the University

and other submissions are concerned. He, however, prays for

time to file reply and place relevant material, while assuring that

respondent - University is willing to assist the Court and the

respondent - Council, and ready to supply all information.

18. Mr. Bhavit Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the Para

Medical Council points out that the respondent - Council has given

detailed letter to the University and asked various questions

mentioned in its letter dated 15.09.2020. But in response thereof,

the University has not given satisfactory reply, for which the

registration application of the petitioners has been turned down.

19. Mr. Bhavit Sharma, emphasises that the respondent -

Council had required the respondent - University to apprise as to

whether the colleges or institutions have been given approval by

the competent authority, namely State Government or Central

Government to carry out paramedical course. But the respondent

- University has failed to place any material, hence, the Para

Medical Council had no option but to reject registration application

of the petitioners.

                                            (8 of 14)                    [CW-4104/2021]


20.   The   question     which       were      asked       by     the   Council   are

reproduced herein:

"1- vkidh fo"ofo|ky; dk fuekZ.k fdl o'[email protected] dkuwu ds rgr gqvk gS\ ¼ds nLrkostksa dh Nk;kizfr½ 2- vkidh fo"ofo|ky; dks iSjkesfMdy ikB~;Øe lapkyu fd;s tkus gsrq fdl jkT; ljdkj ;k dsUnz ljdkj }kjk vf/kd`r fd;k x;k gS\ ¼ds nLrkostksa dh Nk;[email protected][email protected];eksa dh izfr½ 3- vkidh fo"ofo|ky; }kjk iSjk esfMdy ikB~;Øe izf"k{k.k izkIr djus gsrq fu/kkZfjr U;wure ;ksX;rk D;k gS\ 4- vkidh fo"ofo|ky; }kjk iSjk esfMdy ikB~;Øe lapkfyr fd;s tkus gsrq fdl&fdl egkfo|ky; @ laLFkku dks ekU;rk rFkk fdl&fdl iSjkesfMdy ikB~;Øe izf"k{k.k iznku djus gsrq vuqefr iznku dh xbZ gS\ izR;sd l=ksa dh dkWystokj o dkslZokj lR;kfir izfr miyC/k djkosaA 5- vkidh fo"ofo|ky; }kjk lapkfyr iSjkesfMdy ikB~;Øeksa dks lapkfyr fd;s tkus dh vuqefr nwjLFk f"k{kk (Distance Education) ds ek/;e ;k fu;fer :i ls ikB~;Øe izf"k{k.k iznku fd;s tkus gsrq vuqefr iznku dh xbZ gS\ ¼ds nLrkostksa dh Nk;kizfr½ 6- ;fn jkT;@dsUnz ljdkj ds }kjk vkidh fo"ofo|ky; dks iSjkesfMdy ikB~;Øe lapkfyr fd;s tkus gsrq vuqefr iznku dh xbZ gS rks dc ls dc rd rFkk izR;sd l=ksa dh ekU;rk lacaf/kr nLrkostksa dh lR;kfir izfr miyC/k djkosaA 7- vkidh fo"ofo|ky; ds }kjk lapkfyr iSjkesfMdy ikB~;Øeksa dh izf"k{k.k vof/k fdrus o'kZ dh gS\ izR;sd dkslZokj izf"k{k.k vof/k dh lwph miyC/k djkosaA 8- vkidh fo"ofo|ky; }kjk iSjkesfMdy ikB~;Øe izf"k{k.k izkIr mRrh.kZ ;ksX;rk/kkjh vH;fFkZ;ksa dk iath;u fdl fu;[email protected] ds rgr fd;k tk jgk gS] ds nLrkostksa dh Nk;kizfr miyC/k djkosaA 9- vkidh fo"ofo|ky; }kjk dkSu&dkSuls egkfo|ky;

@fo"ofo|ky; ls iSjkesfMdy ikB~;Øe izf"k{k.k izkIr vH;fFkZ;ksa dk iath;u fd;k tk jgk gS] dh lwph miyC/k djkosaA"

21. Mr. Bhavit Sharma invites Court's attention towards the

Regulation No.42 of the Regulations of 2014 and contends that the

petitioners' case is governed by Clause (iii) of Regulation No.42

(9 of 14) [CW-4104/2021]

and since they have obtained the degrees from an institution

situated outside the State of Rajasthan, they can get registration

only if such University is recognized for the purpose of running

that course by the State Government or Central Government.

22. Taking help of Section 31 & 32 of the Act of 2008, he

submits that the Para Medical Council can call for information and

can grant recognition only if it is satisfied that any qualification in

para medical subject granted by any authority outside territory of

Rajasthan assures and guarantees requisite skills and knowledge.

23. Mr. Bhavit Sharma zealously relies upon the judgment dated

30.05.2011 rendered by Jaipur Bench of this Court in Kuldeep

Shukla Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.10826/2008) and the judgment dated 30.03.2012 passed by

Jaipur Bench of this Court in Lohade Ram Meena Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.226/2009) and points

out that Para Medical Council, which is a regulatory and statutory

authority, has power to conduct enquiry for the purpose of

granting recognition and it can reject the application for

registration.

24. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length

and after wading through the material available on record, this

Court has no doubt that the respondent - University has been

established by the State of Meghalaya and by virtue of the

notification dated 08.02.2011, issued by the State of Meghalaya,

the University is permitted to carry out the courses mentioned in

preamble and Section 6 of the Act of 2010.

25. So far, it is not in dispute that the course in question is being

conducted by the respondent - University since its inception.

(10 of 14) [CW-4104/2021]

Hence, it should be deemed that the para medical course or the

ECG Diploma conducted by the University is backed by due

sanction of the State of Meghalaya (notification dated

08.02.2011).

26. It is noteworthy that for the Institution located or situated

outside Rajasthan, provisions of Section 32 of the Act of 2008 are

applicable, which deal with the recognition of the Course. Scope of

enquiry under Section 32 is limited. The Council can satisfy itself

about the subject, syllabus, training etc., so as to ascertain that

the qualification in para medical subject granted by the Institution

affords a guarantee of requisite skill and knowledge.

27. One has to bear in mind the subtle distinction between

"Recognition of an Institution" and "Recognition of a qualification".

The scope of enquiry in each case is altogether different. Section

31 is a part of Chapter IV of the Act of 2008, whereas Section 32

is part of Chapter V of the Act. Chapter IV governs the

recognition of the Institutions, while Chapter V deals with

recognition of qualification.

28. For the purpose of recognition of an Institution, Chapter IV

gives a wider power to the Para Medical Council. It may be

justified in eliciting the information, as it is the body granting

recognition to the Institution.

29. On the other hand powers under Section 32 are limited. The

Council is required to ensure as to whether the Course conducted

by the University or institution from which a candidate has

obtained diploma or degree conforms to the requisite yardsticks

set for expertise or knowledge. Hence, the Para Medical Council,

can raise queries from the concerned institution that are relevant

(11 of 14) [CW-4104/2021]

for the purpose of course. It cannot act as a controlling authority

of an Institution, which is outside its territorial jurisdiction.

30. So far as Section 32 of the Act of 2008 and Regulation No.42

of the Regulations are concerned, they do not permit the Para

Medical Council to conduct a fishing and rowing enquriy about the

formation of the University or Institution which is outside the

State of Rajasthan.

31. Section 31, which empowers the council to call for

information, is applicable only in relation to a recognised

Institution. An Institution is required to be recognised, with

Rajasthan Para Medical Council, if it imparts education or course

within the territory of Rajasthan.

32. This being the position, in prima-facie opinion of this Court,

the Para Medical Council was not justified in asking questions

other than the queries relating to the nature of course, its syllabus

and other like questions, given that object of Section 32 of the Act

of 2008 is to ensure that the courses, which the petitioners and

other candidates have undergone, ensure the requisite skill, which

according to the respondent - Council, is required of a candidate

who wants to practice in the State of Rajasthan or wants to serve

in any other institute in the State of Rajasthan.

33. It is apparent that Para Medical Council has refused

petitioners' request of registration because neither the petitioners

have, nor has the University produced any documentary evidence

evincing recognition by the State or Central Government to carry

on the para medical course. Such approach, on the basis of

material and arguments made, so far, is unsustainable for the

reasons noted above.

(12 of 14) [CW-4104/2021]

34. In Kuldeep Shukla Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), cited by

Mr. Bhavit Sharma, it has been held thus:-

"16)Recognition of a qualification by the State Government cannot be a matter of inference. It can be accepted only, if the government has by a positive order done so or otherwise it is so proved according to relevant statute. As far as State of Rajasthan is concerned, Act of 2008 is the relevant statute on the subject, which in its Section 32 has provided mechanism for doing so. If the State Government has to have recognition of such diplomas / certificates, it has to constitute the Paramedical Council in terms of Section 32 of the Rajasthan Para-Medical Council Act, 2008, which may decide whether or not any qualification in paramedical subjects granted by an authority outside the territories of the State of Rajasthan affords a sufficient guarantee of the requisite skill and knowledge. Paramedical Council may declare such qualification to be a recognized qualification for the purpose of the Act of 2008. It is of utmost urgency and importance that the State Government immediately constitutes Paramedical Council in the State of Rajasthan in terms of Section 4 of the Act of 2008 because health is one such sector which vitally affects the public at large."

35. It is to be noted that it was a case, where this Court has

directed to constitute Para Medical Council, while observing that

recognition of qualification cannot be a matter of inference.

36. Similar were the facts in the case of Lohade Ram Meena

(supra), cited by him. It may be noticed that at the time of

passing the said judgment, Para Medical Council was not at all

constituted whereas facts of the present case are different.

37. This Court is not much convinced with the argument of the

petitioners that there is no requirement of recognition of a Course

conducted by the University. UGC letter referred by the petitioners

cannot be made a basis for recognition. Conducting or permitting

to run a Course cannot be equated with recognition of a Course.

Particular State or Council can enquire into the standard of a

(13 of 14) [CW-4104/2021]

course and decide to grant or not to grant recognition to it for its

state either for the purpose of employment or for trade/

vocation/practice.

38. This Court does not propose to draw an inference that the

qualification obtained by the petitioners is recognised. Now the

Para Medical Council has been constituted, thus it would be in the

fitness of things to direct it to decide upon recognition of the ECG

Diploma given by the respondent - University.

39. This being the position, the respondent - Council is directed

to decide the issue of recognition of the course run by the

respondent - University in terms of Section 32 of the Act of 2008

and Regulation No.42(iii) of the Regulations within a period of one

month from today.

40. For the purpose of recognition or equivalence the

respondent University shall submit details about curriculum,

course material and all other relevant material, within a period of

seven days from today. Respondent - Council will be free to elicit

further information in a bid to ensure that the course in question

affords sufficient guarantee of requisite skill and knowledge.

Respondent - Council may charge applicable fee (if any) for the

purpose of recognition.

41. Needful be done by 30.04.2021.

42. Meanwhile, the Para Medical Council shall issue provisional

registration certificate(s) to the petitioners, if they are otherwise

eligible. The certificate of provisional registration be issued to the

eligible petitioners latest by 31.03.2021.

(14 of 14) [CW-4104/2021]

43. The respondent - University will cooperate in the inquiry to

be conducted by respondent - Council and shall submit a formal

application with the relevant documents within a week.

44. Respondent - Selection Board shall not reject petitioners'

candidature till the next date.

45. List these cases on 15.05.2021.

46. Reply be filed by the respondents - Council and University

in the meantime.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 167-169, 166-Ramesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)