Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Khushmita Nagoura vs State Of Rajasthan on 4 April, 2022

Bench: Vijay Bishnoi

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2167/2022

Khushmita Nagoura D/o Dhanraj Nagoura, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Ambika Ashram, Jhonpadi Road, Banar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Convener, Rajasthan University Of Health Sciences, M.sc (Med.) Entrance Exam, 2020, Sector 18, Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur.

3. The Chairman, M.sci. (Med) Counseling Board, Academic Session 2020-21, Rajasthan University Of Health Sciences, Sector 18, Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur.

4. The Principal And Controller, Dr. Sampurnand Medical College And Associated Group Of Hospitals, Jodhpur.


                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Parvej Moyal

For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG, Ms. Vandana
                                Bhansali, Mr. Mahendra Bishnoi



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

                          Judgment / Order

04/04/2022

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking

the following reliefs :

(2 of 19) [CW-2167/2022]

"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that the writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction :-

1) That letter dated 22/01/2022 (annexure no.10) issued by the respondent no.4, shall be quashed and set-aside.

2) That respondents may kindly be directed to allow petitioner to continue her studies for M.Sci (Med) Biochemistry course 2020-21 at S.N. Medical College and Associated Group of Hospitals, Jodhpur.

3) That any other appropriate order or direction by which this Hon'ble court considers must and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

4) Costs the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner."

Brief facts of the case are that pursuant to the

Notification dated 3.8.2021 issued by the respondent

No.2 - the Convenor, Rajasthan University of Health

Sciences, M.Sc.(Med.) Entrance Examination, 2020, the

petitioner has submitted her application form and she

was permitted to appear in the M.Sc.(Med) Entrance

Examination, 2020. The entrance test was conducted on

7.8.2021 and the petitioner has passed the aforesaid

entrance test. Thereafter, respondent No.3 - the

Chairman, M.Sc.(Med.) Counseling Board, Academic

Session 2020-21, Rajasthan University of Health

Sciences, Jaipur has issued a provisional allotment letter

(3 of 19) [CW-2167/2022]

in favour of the petitioner on 18.9.2021 and she was

asked to report at Dr. S.N.Medical College, Jodhpur

between 17.9.2021 to 24.9.2021. Pursuant to that, the

petitioner had reported at Dr. S.N.Medical College,

Jodhpur and she was granted admission, however, her

admission was cancelled by respondent No.4 - the

Principal and Controller, Dr. S.N.Medical College and

Associated Group of Hospitals, Jodhpur vide order dated

22.1.2022 for the reason that petitioner is not meeting

the eligibility criteria for admission in the M.Sc.(Med.)

Biochemistry Course, 2020-21.

Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner has

filed this writ petition seeking the reliefs, which are

quoted in the earlier part of this order.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

action of the respondent No.4 of cancelling admission of

the petitioner vide impugned order dated 22.1.2022 is

absolutely illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of

natural justice. It is further submitted that the petitioner,

in her application form (Annex.2), has given all the

information and taking into consideration the same, she

was allowed to appear in the entrance test. It is also

submitted that the petitioner cleared the entrance test

(4 of 19) [CW-2167/2022]

and on being figured in the merit list, she was given

admission in the respondent - medical college and she

had undergone studies for about three months. Learned

counsel has argued that there is no fault on the part of

the petitioner as she had disclosed all the information

about her and after considering the same, she was

provided admission in the respondent - medical college.

It is further argued that there was no misrepresentation

on the part of the petitioner and even if it is assumed

that the petitioner was not having eligibility for admission

in the M.Sc.(Med.) Course, her admission cannot be

cancelled as she has not got admission on the basis of

any misrepresentation.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Hon'ble Court and

various High Courts in catena of decisions have held that

once admission is granted to a student in any course, the

same cannot be cancelled.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed

reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of Rajendra Prasad Mathur Vs. Karnataka

University and Another & Vijay Kumar Sharma Vs.

Karnataka University and Another, reported in AIR

(5 of 19) [CW-2167/2022]

1986 SC 1448, A Sudha Vs. University of Mysore

and Another, reported in (1987) 4 SCC 537 and K

Sujatha Vs. Marathwada University and Others,

reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC 155, the decisions of

this Hon'ble Court in the case of Nitesh Kumar Goyal

and Others Vs. Maharaja Ganga Singh University,

Bikaner and Another, reported in (2016) 4 RLW

3061 and Guddi @ Ruchika Vs. the Principal

Secretary, Education Department (Higher

Education), Government of Rajasthan & Ors,

reported in 2015 WLC (Raj.) UC 190 and decisions of

Delhi High Court in the case of Abha George Vs. All

India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS),

reported in AIRONLINE 2022 DEL 297 and Javed

Akhtar & Anr. Vs. Jamia Hamdard & Anr., reported in

AIR 2007 (NOC) 446 (DEL.).

Opposing the writ petition, Mr. Mahendra Bishnoi,

learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3

has argued that admittedly the petitioner is not meeting

the eligibility criteria for admission in the M.Sci.(Med.)

Course as she was having less than 60% marks in the

B.Sc. (Biology with Chemistry and Zoology). It is

contended that as per the information supplied by the

petitioner, she had passed the B.Sc. Examination from

(6 of 19) [CW-2167/2022]

JNV University with 54.420% marks. Mr. Bishnoi has

further submitted that the petitioner was very well aware

that she was not meeting the eligibility criteria, but

despite that, she has applied for admission in the said

course by making a false declaration that she fulfills the

prescribed eligibility criteria relating to the educational

qualification etc. for the aforesaid course.

Learned counsel has further submitted that the

educational qualification mentioned in the information

booklet is derived from the Ordinance 278-F of the

Rajasthan University of Health Sciences. It is further

argued that in the information booklet available on the

website of the respondent-university, the eligibility

criteria for admission in the M.Sc.(Med.) Biochemistry

Course has specifically been provided, but the petitioner

despite having knowledge of the same has submitted her

application form and appeared in the aforesaid entrance

examination, however, passing of the petitioner of the

entrance examination is of no consequence as she is not

eligible for admission in the M.Sc.(Med.) Biochemistry

Course. Mr. Bishnoi has also argued that the petitioner

has attended classes of the aforesaid course only for 45

days and the respondent-University had declined to enroll

her as she was not meeting the eligibility criteria and,

(7 of 19) [CW-2167/2022]

therefore, the respondent No.4 has rightly cancelled the

petitioner's admission for the aforesaid course vide order

dated 22.1.2022. Mr. Bishnoi has, therefore, prayed that

there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is

liable to be dismissed.

Ms. Vandana Bhansali, learned counsel appearing for

the respondent No.4 has also opposed the writ petition

and argued that alongwith the Notification for M.Sc.

(Med.) Entrance Examination 2020, an information

booklet was provided on the website of the respondent-

University, in which, the procedure for filling of on-line

form, dates, admission procedure, fees as well as the

eligibility criteria have been mentioned, however, the

petitioner despite having knowledge of the fact that she

is not eligible for admission in the M.Sc.(Med.) Course

has applied for the same and after passing of the

entrance test, a provisional allotment letter was issued in

her favour by the respondent-University and pursuant to

that, she was admitted in the aforesaid course, however,

when the petitioner has filled in her enrollment form, the

same was rejected by the respondent-University and the

respondent No.4 was informed vide email dated

21.1.2022 that since the petitioner does not fulfill the

eligibility criteria, she cannot be enrolled for M.Sc.(Med.)

(8 of 19) [CW-2167/2022]

Course. It is submitted that on receiving the said

information from the respondent-University, the

respondent No.4 has cancelled the provisional admission

of the petitioner. It is further submitted that in the

information booklet, it is clearly mentioned that if at any

stage, it is found that a non eligible candidate is admitted

to a course, then admission of such candidate will be

cancelled on detection and penal action may also be

initiated against such candidate.

Ms. Bhansali has further submitted that admission of

the petitioner was purely provisional and on detection of

the fact that she has not fulfilled the eligibility criteria for

admission in the M.Sc.(Med.) Course, her admission has

rightly been cancelled. Ms. Bhansali has, therefore,

prayed that there is no force in this writ petition and the

same is liable to be dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the material available on record.

Admittedly, the petitioner has secured 54.420%

marks in her B.Sc. Examination. The Ordinance 278-F of

the respondent-University reads as under :

       "I.    Eligibility for Admissions :




                                       (9 of 19)                    [CW-2167/2022]

A candidate who after passing B.Sc. (Three Year Degree Course) with Physics, Chemistry and Biology as optional subjects in I Year and Chemistry, Botany and Zoology in II and Final Year T.D.C. in the first attempt, with not less than 60% marks/B.Sc. (Med.)/B.V.Sc. & A.H./B.D.S. or M.Sc. will be eligible for M.Sc.(Med.) Examination in the branches of Anatomy, Physiology and Bio- Chemistry while a candidate who after passing B.Sc. (with the same subjects as mentioned above) in the first attempts with not less than 60% marks/B.Pharma/B.Sc. (Med.)/B.V. Sc. & A.H. or B.D.S. shall be eligible for M.Sc.(Med.) Pharmacology."

As per the above Ordinance, a candidate who after

passing B.Sc. (Three Year Degree Course) with 60%

marks in the first attempt is eligible for admission in

M.Sc.(Med.) Course. The eligibility criteria for admission

in the M.Sc.(Med.) Course has also been mentioned in

the information booklet (Annex.R2/1) filed alongwith

reply preferred on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 and 3

and Annex.R/1 filed alongwith reply on behalf of the

respondent No.4.

It is also to be noticed that in the application form,

copy of which is annexed with the writ petition as

Annex-2, the petitioner has made the following

declarations :

"I do hereby declare that all the information given by me in support of my application is true, complete and correct to the best of my knowledge, is binding on me and nothing has

(10 of 19) [CW-2167/2022]

been hidden by me. I shall not claim any change or alteration. If any of them is found to be incorrect or false, my candidature will be liable to be rejected and I shall be liable to any penal action and/or punishment as may be deemed fit by the RUHS.

I have gone through all the rules, information, instructions of the notification and I promise to abide by them.

I have never been penalized, removed or black-listed.

I fulfill the prescribed eligibility criteria relating to educational qualification etc. for M.Sc. (Med.) 2020.

I also declare that my candidature and eligibility is subject to verification of all documents by concerned department."

(Emphasis Supplied)

Apart from that, in the beginning of the information

booklet, it is specifically mentioned that "Before filling

the on-line application form, read carefully the

1) Information booklet, 2) Instructions for filling

on-line application form 3) Syllabus 4) Notification

etc. available at the website.

Also, first ensure that you meet the eligibility

(educational qualification etc.) and other

requirements for admission as given in this

booklet"

As observed earlier, the petitioner, in her application

form (Annex.2), has made declaration that she has gone

(11 of 19) [CW-2167/2022]

through all the rules, information, instructions of the

notification and is fulfilling the prescribed eligibility

criteria relating to the education qualification for M.Sc.

(Med.) Examination 2020.

In the above facts and circumstances of the case, it

can be presumed that the petitioner was having

knowledge about the eligibility criteria for admission in

the M.Sc.(Med.) Course. In the information booklet, the

eligibility criteria for admission and application procedure

have been mentioned, which reads as under :

"ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR ADMISSION All residents of India fulfilling the eligibility criteria mentioned below can apply to Rajasthan University of Health Sciences for admission to M.Sc.(Med) courses in constituent college and different government colleges affiliated to RUHS, Jaipur on the basis of instructions given in this information booklet, the relevant rules of RUHS, Jaipur Candidate must be eligible on the date of counseling/allotment to the course.

      Educational Qualification


Qualification                          Eligible to apply for
A pass in MBBS (with                   M.Sc.      (Med)       Anatomy
completion of compulsory               M.Sc.      (Med)       Biochemistry
internship) / A pass in BDS            M.Sc.      (Med)       Physiology
(with       completion     of          M.Sc.      (Med)       Pharmacology
compulsory internship) / A             M.Sc.      (Med)       Microbiology
pass in B.V.Sc & AH with
60%       marks     in  first
attempt / A pass in B.Sc.
(Biology with Chemistry and
Zoology) with 60% marks
in first attempt


                                         (12 of 19)              [CW-2167/2022]


A      pass    in    B.Sc. M.Sc. (Med) Microbiology

(Biotechnology) Integrated M.Sc. (Med) Biochemistry with 60% marks in first attempt A pass in B.Sc. M.Sc. (Med) Microbiology (Microbiology) with 60% marks in first attempt

"APPLICATION PROCEDURE Before filling the on-line application form, read the information booklet and instructions for filling on- line application form etc. very carefully. Ensure the eligibility and other requirements for admission as given in this booklet.

You should be very careful in filling-up the on-line application form. If any lapse is detected during the scrutiny, your candidature will be rejected even if you come through the final stage of admission process or even at a later stage."

(Emphasis Supplied)

In the information booklet, it is also mentioned that

admissions in the M.Sc.(Med.) Course shall be treated as

provisional and the provisional status of the admission

shall stand cleared only after enrollment by RUHS.

Admittedly, the petitioner is not meeting the eligibility

criteria for admission in the M.Sc.(Med.) Course,

however, now the petitioner is claiming that once she has

been provided admission even by mistake by the

respondents, the said admission cannot be cancelled.

(13 of 19) [CW-2167/2022]

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his

contentions, has placed reliance on various judgments. I

have gone through with the said judgments.

In Rajendra Prasad Mathur's case (supra), the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken into consideration the

fact that the petitioners in those cases were wrongly

admitted by the Engineering Colleges after receiving

capitation fees from them and they have completed

around four years of studies under the orders of the High

Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court and, in such

circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has protected

the admission granted to those students. In the present

case, as observed earlier, that since the petitioner had

studied only for 45 days for the aforesaid course, the

facts of the present case are quite distinguishable from

the facts of the above-referred case.

In A. Sudha's case (supra), the admission of the

petitioners was secured while observing that the Principal

of the Institution, where the petitioners were admitted,

has informed them that they are eligible for admission in

the first year MBBS course and taking into consideration

the same, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that

it was the fault of the Principal of the Institution and not

(14 of 19) [CW-2167/2022]

of the students, therefore, the students were allowed to

continue with their studies. However, in the present case,

the eligibility criteria was clearly mentioned in the

information booklet and there is a declaration on the part

of the petitioner that she has gone through the said

information and after that she has consciously made a

declaration that she fulfills the eligibility criteria for

admission in the concerned course, though, the petitioner

was not meeting the eligibility criteria.

In K. Sujatha's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme

Court was impressed by the fact that the students in that

case were admitted in the discretionary quota of the

management and they studied and attended lectures for

quite a long period, however, that is not the situation in

the present case.

In Nitesh Kumar Goyal's case (supra), the Division

Bench of this Court has clearly observed that the college

in its prospectus has nowhere mentioned about the

eligibility criteria for admission in the M.Sc. Course. The

Division Bench has further observed that the college was

aware about the eligibility requirement and also the

ineligibility of the appellants of that case for admission to

the M.Sc. Course but admitted them. Here, in the present

(15 of 19) [CW-2167/2022]

case, the respondents have already clarified that the

admission of any student in the M.Sc. Course is purely

provisional and shall be subject to enrollment by the

respondent-University. The respondent-University has

found the petitioner ineligible and refused to enroll her

and, thereafter, the respondent No.4 has rejected the

petitioner's candidature while finding that she is not

meeting the eligibility criteria for admission in the

concerned course. In the above referred case also, the

Division Bench while taking into consideration the fact

that the petitioners had passed the first year M.Sc.

Course, has allowed them to appear in the final year

examination without cancelling their admission, however,

such is not the situation in the present case.

Similarly, in Guddi @ Ruchika's case (supra), this

Court has granted relief to the petitioner of that case

while taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner

was not lacking eligibility qualification for admission to

the course concerned and the University has not disputed

the eligibility of the student. It is not the situation in the

present case as the petitioner is not meeting eligibility

criteria since beginning and she was wrongly admitted in

the course concerned.

(16 of 19) [CW-2167/2022]

In Javed Akhtar's case (supra), the Delhi High

Court has granted relief to the students while observing

that neither there was any fraud nor any

misrepresentation on the part of the students and the

students have not made any false statement or

suppressed any relevant fact. However, in the present

case, it is an admitted position that the petitioner has

made a false statement in her application form and the

said fact has already been noticed by this Court in the

earlier part of this order. In such circumstances, the

above-referred case is of no help to the petitioner.

In Abha George's case (supra), relief was granted

to the students while observing that there is absence of

default on the part of candidates, however, in the present

case, it has already been noticed that the petitioner has

misrepresented while applying for admission in the M.Sc.

(Med.) Course. Hence, the above-referred case, on which

learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance, is

of no help to the petitioner.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Council for Indian

School Certificate Examination Vs. Isha Mittal and

Ors., reported in JT 2000 (8) SC 263, in a case of

wrong admission of a student has held as under :

(17 of 19) [CW-2167/2022]

"3. The order under challenge was passed in an appeal against interim orders on the respondent's writ petition. The order states :

.....Actually, the relief which the Court could have granted finally has been granted by means of the interim order. If the career of the student had not been involved, this Court would have certainly interfered with such orders, but after the declaration of the result and issuance of the marks sheet, the petitioner might have taken admission in any University or College. Hence, it would not be appropriate for this Court to allow this Special Appeal because the entire career of the student would be adversely affected.

In view of the aforesaid reason only, we dismiss the appeal but observe that this special appeal has been dismissed considering the facts and circumstances of the present case only and it would not be a precedent for similar other cases.

4. It is the obligation of the High Court to decide the matters before it in accordance with law. If the law was, as the High Court observes in the passage quoted above, in favour of the appellant before it, it was obliged to make an order in favour of the appellant. Considerations of equity cannot prevail and do not permit a High Court to pass an order contrary to the law."

(Emphasis Supplied)

Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Vs. Virendra

Kumar Jayantibhai Patel, reported in AIR 1997 SC

3002 has held as under :

"5. The second reasoning given by the tribunal in issuing direction to the Corporation for absorbing the respondent in its permanent service which was not touched upon by the High Court is

(18 of 19) [CW-2167/2022]

that the case of the respondent requires sympathetic consideration, as presumably the respondent has been visiting the Corporation's Clinic since early seventies, remains to be considered. As noticed earlier, the recruitment of the doctors in the clinic run by the Corporation is made in accordance with the statutory rules and by no other method. Under the rules the vacancies are advertised for inviting applications from eligible candidates. After the applications are received the Selection Committee is constituted to select the candidates for appointment in the Corporation's clinic. Only after the candidates are selected they are taken in the service. It is also noticed earlier that respondent appeared before the Selection Committee but was not selected. Under such circumstances, there is no room for sympathy or equity in the matter of such appointment specially where the recruitment in service is governed by the statutory rules. If the reasoning given by the tribunal is accepted, the statutory recruitment rules would become nugatory or otiose and the department can favour any person or appoint any person without following procedure provided in the recruitment rules which would lead to nepotism and arbitrariness. Once the consideration of equity in the face of statutory rules is accepted then eligible and qualified persons would be sufferers as they would not get any chance to be considered for appointment. The result would be that persons lesser in merit would get preference in the matter of appointment merely on the ground of equity and compassion. It is therefore not safe to bend the arms of law only for adjusting equity. We, therefore, find that the reasoning given by the tribunal that sympathy demands the absorption of the respondent in the service of the Corporation suffers from error of law."

(Emphasis Supplied)

Adopting the same reasoning, this Court is of the

opinion that the petitioner got admission on the basis of

(19 of 19) [CW-2167/2022]

misrepresentation and such act of the petitioner cannot

be countenanced on the ground of equity or sympathy as

it may be prejudicial to all those persons, who were not

meeting the eligibility criteria and not applied for

admission in the respective M.Sc.(Med.) Course.

In view of the above discussion, I do not find any

error in the action of the respondent No.4 of cancelling

admission of the petitioner in M.Sc.(Med.) Course on the

ground that she is not meeting eligibility criteria for

admission in the aforesaid course.