Ajay Verma vs The Rajasthan Para Medical ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 8053 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1205/2022

1. Mahendra S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 21 Years, Village Lorta Haridasot, Post Lorta Achlawata, Tehsil Balesar, District Jodhpur (Raj.) Mobile Number 3784422937

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

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

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

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

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

7. Kailash Katariya S/o Shri 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 Its Secretary, Medical And Health Services, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Director (Non Gazetted), Medical And Health Services, Health Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.

3. Rajasthan Sub Ordinat And Ministeral Service Selection Board, Through Its Secretary, Rajasthan State Agriculture Managing Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

4. Rajasthan Para Medical Council, Through Its Registrar, C-

7(A), Sultan House, Sjs Highway, Banipark, Jaipur - 302016.

5. Mahatma Gandhi University, 13Th Mile, G.s. Road, District Khanapara, Byrnihat, Meghalaya-793101, Through Its Registrar.

                                         (2 of 21)                     [CW-1205/2022]


                                                                ----Respondents
                            Connected With
            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 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 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 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.

                                         (3 of 21)                    [CW-1205/2022]


                                                                 ----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 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 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

(4 of 21) [CW-1205/2022]

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.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4412/2021

1. Vikas Dudi S/o Jeevaram, Aged About 20 Years, Vishnoiyon Ki Dhani, Chendra, District Pali

2. Ravina Meena D/o Jairam Meena, Aged About 20 Years, Village Tond, Tehsil Bonli, Sawai Madhopur Presently At R/o H.no.127, Behind Bus Stand, Jaitaran, Dist. Pali.

3. Anil Kumar S/o Madan Lal, Aged About 19 Years, Godaron Ki Dhani, Kalraba Bera, Malam Singh Ki Sidh, Surpura, Jodhpur.

4. Krishan Kumar S/o Chotha Ram, Aged About 20 Years, Village Koja, Dhorimanna, District Barmer.

5. Vijay Choudhary S/o Raju Choudhary, Aged About 20 Years, Dasaniyon Ki Dhani, Balmukundpura Nada, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur Presently At R/o Balaji Agriculture Shop No.17, Opposite Railway Station, Barmer.

6. Priyanka D/o Ghewar Chand Soni, Aged About 23 Years,

(5 of 21) [CW-1205/2022]

Behalimo Ka Vas, Ward No.14, Sanchore, District Jalore.

7. Raj Kumar Meena S/o Shankar Lal Meena, Aged About 23 Years, Village Kotdi, Post Mohammadpura, District Tonk Presently At Wrd Colony, Quarter No.4, Near Wrd Tanki, Nh-15, Sanchore, District Jalore.

8. Suresh Kumar S/o Bhagraj Bishnoi, Aged About 26 Years, Sheraniyon Ki Dhani, Siwara, Tehsil Chitalwana, District Jalore.

9. Rajneesh Meena S/o Hanuman Prasad Meena, Aged About 22 Years, 179, Chouth Ka Barwara, Bhedola, Sawai Madhopur Presently At C/o Subhash Choudhary, 3Rd Floor, Balaji Tower, Near Sun City Hospital, Paota, Jodhpur

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Medical And Health And Family Welfare, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Rajasthan Para-Medical Council, Through Its Registrar House No.6 Everest Colony, Near Apex Mall, Lal Kothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur 302015.

3. Rajasthan Karamchari Chayan Board, Through Secretary, Rajya Krishi Prabandh Sansthan Parishar, Durgapura, Jaipur.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1129/2022

1. Ajay Verma S/o Shri Om Prakash Verma, Aged About 42 Years, By Caste Scheduled Caste, Resident Of A-52, Near Railway Line, Indira Colony, Nagaur (Rajasthan).

2. Sunita Mundel D/o Shri Narayan Mundel,, Aged About 25 Years, By Caste Obc, Resident Of Neem Bada Ki Gali, Marwar Mundwa, District Nagaur (Rajasthan).

----Petitioners 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


                                        (6 of 21)                    [CW-1205/2022]


     Selection Board, Jaipur.

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

5. Mahatma Gandhi University, Meghalaya Through Its Registrar, Khanapura, 13Th Mile, Gs Road, Khanapura Under District Ri-Bhoi, Meghalaya-793101.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1548/2022

1. Anupam Prakash S/o Sh. Kishna Ram, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Daro Ka Bas, Kalyan Singh Ki Sid, Bap, Jodhpur.

2. Raju Ram S/o Sh. Dana Ram, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Brahmano Ka Vas, Sanchore, District Jalore.

3. Chetan Kumar S/o Sh. Chena Ram Purohit, Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of Village Paldi Solankhiyan, Post Dhamana, Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore.

4. Kuldeep S/o Sh. Pancha Ram, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Village Bhajan Nagar, Tehsil Lohawat, District Jodhpur.

5. Vikas S/o Sh. Hari Ram Godara, Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of Bishnoiyo Ki Dhani, Shri Krishna Nagar, Jodhpur.

6. Rupa Ram S/o Sh. Uda Ram, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Village Keerwa, Tehsil Rani, District Pali.

----Petitioners Versus

1. The Rajasthan Para Medical Council Jaipur, 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.

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

                                                              ----Respondents





                                          (7 of 21)              [CW-1205/2022]



For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr.   Manoj Bhandari, Sr. Advocate with
                               Mr.   Mohit Choudhary &
                               Mr.   Govind Suthar.
                               Mr.   Yashpal Khileree.
                               Mr.   Hapu Ram Bishnoi.
                               Mr.   Vigyan Shah (through V.C.)
                               Mr.   Nishant Bora.
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr.   K.S.Rajpurohit, AAG with
                               Mr.   Rajat Arora & Mr. Shreyansh Mehta.
                               Mr.   Deepsesh Singh Beniwal.
                               Mr.   Vinit Sanadhya.
                               Mr.   Manvendra Singh Bhati.



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

                                     Order

27/05/2022

These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners in two

batches. The earlier batch of writ petitions were filed in the year

2021 and during the pendency of said writ petitions, orders were

passed by the respondent - Rajasthan Para-Medical Council

leading to filing of writ petitions being SBCWP No.1205/2022,

1129/2022 & 1548/2022.

As the issues involved in all the writ petitions are same, they

are being decided by this common order. However, as the

subsequent writ petitions take into consideration the facts of

earlier litigation and the orders passed therein, the facts and

submissions made in the petitions filed in 2022 are being

considered and illustratively the facts of SBCWP No.1205/2022 :

Mahendra vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. have been indicated for

the purpose of disposal of present writ petitions.

These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners inter

alia aggrieved by the office order dated 27/8/2021 (Annex.21),

minutes of meeting dated 13/8/2021 and the committee report

(8 of 21) [CW-1205/2022]

dated 4/8/2021 (Annex.20) and have sought their quashing with

consequential benefits and also sought direction to grant them

registration certificates making them eligible for appointment on

the post of ECG Technician pursuant to the advertisement dated

30/7/2020.

Further relief has been sought against the respondent -

Rajasthan Para-Medical Council to accept the registration forms

and to revive the registration certificates issued to the petitioners.

The issues which arise in these petitions have a bit of

chequered history.

An advertisement dated 30/7/2020 (Annex.2) was issued by

the Selection Board for the post of ECG Technician for the Para

Medical Category under the Rajasthan Medical & Health

Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 ('the Rules,1965'). The eligibility

inter alia required Senior Secondary in Science with two years'

Diploma of ECG Technician from the institute recognized by the

State Government/Central Government/Rajasthan Para Medical

Council and registered in Para Medical Council.

The advertisement by way of Note further provided that a

candidate, on the last date of application, must be registered with

the Rajasthan Para-Medical Council ('the Council'). However, in

terms of the decision of the High Court in CWP No. 13299/2017 :

Manju vs. State of Rajasthan, in case till the last date of

application, a candidate is not registered, an application seeking

registration before the Council should be filed and certificate of

registration should be produced at the time of document

verification.

The petitioners applied for registration with the Council inter

alia on the strength of having passed 2 year Diploma course in

(9 of 21) [CW-1205/2022]

ECG Technology from Mahatama Gandhi University, Meghalaya

('the University') and, whereafter, applied pursuant to the

advertisement for the post of ECG Technician.

It appears that pursuant to the application forms submitted

by the petitioners, the Council sent a letter to the University and

sought certain information, which was replied on 10/10/2020 inter

alia indicating that the University was established vide Meghalaya

Act No. 6 of 2011 and that the para-medical programmes are

running since 2011. It is claimed that the petitioners applied to

the University for issuance of NOC, which was responded by

indicating that as there was no Para-Medical Council in the State

of Meghalaya, the NOC cannot be issued.

The Selection Board declared the result and called the

eligible candidates including the petitioners for document

verification. However, the respondent Council rejected the

applications submitted by the petitioners for registration and

refused to grant registration by order dated 6/1/2021 (Annex.9),

resulting in petitioners held ineligible during the course of

document verification.

Due to non-issuance of registration certificate by the Council,

the petitioners filed CWP No. 3054/2021, 3891/2021, 3914/2021,

4104/2021 & 4412/2021, wherein, a coordinate bench of this

Court on 16/3/2021 (Annex.12) granted interim order requiring

the Council to issue provisional registration certificates to the

petitioners, if they are otherwise eligible, and the Selection Board

was directed not to reject the petitioners' candidature. The

Council was directed to decide upon the recognition of ECG

Diploma given by the University in terms of Section 32 of the

(10 of 21) [CW-1205/2022]

Rajasthan Para-Medical Council Act, 2008 ('the Act, 2008') and

Regulations, 2014 framed thereunder.

The Council issued provisional certificates to the petitioners

and preferred special appeal against the interim order dated

16/3/2021, which came to be dismissed by the Division Bench on

4/10/2021.

In terms of the interim order, the requisite was supplied by

the University to the Council. The Respondent Council sent

communication to the University for verification of documents of

petitioners, which was responded by the University by

communication dated 14/6/2021 and 16/6/2021 (Annex.18) and

reiterated that there is no Para-Medical Council in the State of

Meghalaya and the University has been established by an Act of

the Government of Meghalaya.

However, the Council in its meeting dated 13/8/2021

(Annex.20), based on the committee report, decided to cancel the

provisional registration of the petitioners and passed a formal

order on 27/8/2021 (Annex.21) in this regard.

Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions that

the action of the Council in rejecting the application for

registration/cancelling the provisional certificates issued to the

petitioners is wholly unjustified.

Submissions have been made that the Council has based its

decision on the committee report (part of Annex.20), wherein, the

committee indicated that vide communication dated 31/3/2021

the University and the Meghalaya Government were required to

produce the documents, however, no response was received,

therefore, it was apparent that the ECG course does not fall under

Regulation 42(iii) of the Regulations and that the course was being

(11 of 21) [CW-1205/2022]

conducted by the private University on its own level. The

committee recommended that in terms of Section 32 of the Act,

2008, the Council has power to grant recognition and, therefore, it

would be appropriate to determine the same in general meeting of

the Council.

It is submitted that the entire approach of the Council in

determining the issue is faulty inasmuch as the Diploma granted

to the petitioners have been duly verified by the University and

the reliance placed by the respondents on Section 32 of the Act,

2008 and Regulation 42 of the Regulation, 2014 is wholly

misplaced in the context of present cases and, therefore, the

orders impugned deserve to be quashed and set aside.

Submissions have been made that Mahatama Gandhi

University has been established under the Act of State of

Meghalaya and in terms of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme

Court in B.L.Asawa vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : AIR 1982 SC

933, as the course was being conducted by the University under

the provisions of the Act, there was no necessity to further seek

its recognition, besides the fact that no Para-Medical Council exists

in the State of Meghalaya so as to grant NOC as required by the

respondents.

Submissions have been made that this Court in the earlier

round of litigation, wherein, the order dated 16/3/2021

(Annex.12) was passed, had prima facie come to the conclusion

that the University under the Act was permitted to carry out the

course mentioned in the Preamble and Section 6 of the Act and

that the scope of inquiry under Section 32 of the Act, 2008 is

limited where the Council is required to ensure as to whether the

course conducted by the University or institution from which a

(12 of 21) [CW-1205/2022]

candidate has obtained diploma or degree conforms to the

requisite yardsticks set for expertise or knowledge, however, no

fishing or roving inquiry about the University or Institution is

permissible. The Court also came to the conclusion that the

approach of the respondents was unsustainable and, therefore,

passed the directions.

However, the respondents despite getting the requisite

information about the decree etc. of the petitioners, has chosen to

wrongly indicate about the non-supply of requisite information and

has passed the orders which are wholly unjustified and, therefore,

the orders impugned deserve to be quashed and set aside.

Learned counsel appearing for the Council made vehement

submissions that the writ petitions were not maintainable

inasmuch as the petitioners have remedy of filing appeal against

the orders impugned.

Reliance has been placed on Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev

vs. State of Maharashtra : (2011) 2 SCC 782 and Union of India

vs. Shri Kant Sharma : (2015) 6 SCC 773.

Learned counsel with reference to several judgments made

submissions that in academic matters the Courts must be slow to

interfere as it is the academic body, which is well equipped to deal

with the subject matters and, therefore, the Court should not

interfere with the matter.

Reliance in this regard has been placed on Krishna Priya

Ganguly v. University of Lucknow : (1984) 1 SCC 307, A.P.

Christian Medical Educational Society v. Govt. of A.P.: (1986) 2

SCC 667, Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University : 1986

Supp SCC 740, Guru Nanak Dev University v. Parminder Kr.

(13 of 21) [CW-1205/2022]

Bansal : (1993) 4 SCC 401 and Medical Council of India v. Society

for Advancement of Environmental Science : (2016) 7 SCC 590.

Learned counsel with reference to provisions of Regulation

42(iii) of the Regulations, 2014 made submissions that the

eligibility for registration requires that the Para-Medical course

from any institution/Govt. Body outside the territories of

Rajasthan should be recognized for the purpose by the concerned

State Government or Central Government, which aspect is missing

in the present case and, therefore, the respondent Council was

justified in rejecting the applications filed by the petitioners.

It was also submitted that under Section 32 of the Act, 2008

the Council has to be satisfied regarding the qualification granted

by an authority outside the territories of State that it affords a

sufficient guarantee of the requisite skill and knowledge and,

therefore, the decision by the respondent Council does not call for

any interference.

Reliance was placed on Lohade Ram Meena vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors. : 2012 (3) WLC 214, Gand Mal Dhakar vs. State

of Rajasthan & Ors. : D.B.Special Appeal Writ No. 955/2011

decided on 17/2/2017, Rajathan Para Medical Council vs. Hitesh

Kumar Sharma : D.B.Special Appeal Writ No. 629/2018 decided

on 25/5/2018.

Learned counsel for the State made vehement submissions

that the recruitments are being delayed because of inter se

dispute between the petitioners and the respondent Council, which

is against the interest of general public at large. An attempt has

been made to indicate that those not registered with the

(14 of 21) [CW-1205/2022]

respondent Council on the last date of application are not eligible

for appointment.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

The entire issue as involved in the present petitions centers

around the provisions of Section 32 of the Act, 2008 and

Regulation 42(iii) of the Regulations, 2014, which read as under:

"32. Qualification granted outside the territories to which this Act extends.- The Council, if it is satisfied that any qualification in Para-Medical subjects granted by an authority outside the territories of the State of Rajasthan affords a sufficient guarantee of the requisite skill and knowledge, may declare such qualification to be recognized qualification for the purpose of this Act, and may for reasons appearing to it sufficient at any time declare that such qualification shall be deemed, subject to such additional conditions, if any, as may be specified by the Council, to be recognized only when granted before or after a specified date:

Provided that no person, other than a citizen of India, possessing such qualification shall be deemed to be qualified for registration under this Act unless by the law and practice of the State or Country, in which the qualification is granted, persons of Indian origin holding such qualification are permitted to enter and practice as Para-Medical profession."

(emphasis added)

"42. Eligibility for registration.- The following persons shall be eligible for registration,-

(i) who has obtained certificate of a Para-Medical course from any Government body or private body permitted by the Government for the purpose who has run the course and awarded certificate before the commencement of these regulations.

(ii) who has passed the Para-Medical course from any institution recognized by the Rajasthan Para-Medical Council.

(iii) who has passed the Para-Medical course from any institution/Government body, outside the territories of Rajasthan, recognized for the purpose by the concerned State Government or Central Government.

(iv) who has passed the Para-Medical course, from any institution, outside the territories of India, recognized for the purpose by the Government of the country concerned and verified by Government of India."

(emphasis added)

Further it is not in dispute that the Diploma issued to the

petitioners have been issued by the University established by the

(15 of 21) [CW-1205/2022]

Meghalaya Act No. 6 of 2011, which gazette has been filed by the

respondent no. 5 - University as Annex.R/5/1. The Preamble of

the University Act inter alia provides for establishing and

incorporating a University with emphasis on providing high quality

and industry relevant education in the areas inter alia of Para

Medical through regular and distance education mode. Further

Section 6 of the University Act dealing with the objectives of the

University also inter alia provides that the University has been

established to provide Instruction, Teaching and Research in

various branches and specialized fields of Vocational Education. It

is also not in dispute that there is no Para-Medical Council in the

State of Meghalaya.

When the petitioners applied for grant of registration with

the respondent Council, the applications filed by the petitioners

were rejected on 6/1/2021 (Annex.9) inter alia by indicating as

under:

"mDr Øe esa ys[k gS fd vkids }kjk izLrqr nLrkostksa dk voyksdu djus ij Kkr gqvk gS fd vkids }kjk Diploma in ECG Technology dkslZ dk izf"k{k.k Mahatma Gandhi University, Meghalaya ls izkIr fd;k x;k gSA vkids fo"ofo|ky; ds }kjk izLrqr nLrkostksa esa ;g dgha Hkh lkfcr ugha gksrk gS fd Mahatma Gandhi University, Meghalaya dks es?kky; ljdkj ;k dsUnz ljdkj ds }kjk iSjkesfMdy ikB~;Øe izf"k{k.k iznku djus gsrq [email protected]/kd`r fd;k x;k gksA vr% vkids fo"ofo|ky; dks es?kky; [email protected] ljdkj ls iSjkesfMdy ikB~;Øe lapkyu dh vuqefr ugha gksus ds dkj.k jktLFkku iSjkesfMdy dkSafly ds vf/kfu;e 2008 ds fofu;e 2014 ds fu;e dh /kkjk 42(iii) ds izko/kkukUrxZr vkidk iath;u ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA vr% fu;ekuqlkj vkidk iath;u vkosnu i= fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA "

A perusal of the above reasoning would indicate that the

Council for lack of permission to the University from Govt. of

Meghalaya or the Central Government to conduct training in Para-

Medical course, invoking the provisions of Regulation 42(iii) of the

Regulations, 2014, rejected the applications.

(16 of 21) [CW-1205/2022]

A perusal of the Regulation quoted hereinbefore would reveal

that the eligibility for registration inter alia requires that the para-

medical course should have been passed by the candidate from

any Institution/Govt. Body outside the territories of Rajasthan

recognized for the purpose by the concerned State Government or

Central Government.

It is not in dispute that there is no mechanism, insofar as the

Central Government is concerned, for the purpose of recognition

of the ECG Technology course. Insofar as the recognition by the

State Government is concerned, the recognition as submitted by

learned counsel for the Council is granted by the respective Para-

Medical Council of the State and as noticed hereinbefore,

admittedly, in the State of Meghalaya, the Para-Medical Council

does not exist. The said aspect is fortified from the communication

dated 29/10/2021 (Annex.19) written by the Director of Health

Services, Govt. of Meghalaya addressed to Registrar, Rajasthan

Para-Medical Council, which reads as under:

"Sub: In reply of letter dated 31-03-2021, ref no.P.95()/Panjiyan/R.P.Med.C/2021/556

Sir, With reference to your letter dated: 31-03-2021, ref. no. P.95()/Panjiyan /R.P.Med.C/2021/556, it is hereby informed that the Mahatma Gandhi University located in Meghalaya is established by an Act of the Government of Meghalaya.

As has been informed earlier to Shri Lekhraj Sharma, under replies to the information sought, the State Paramedical Council has not yet been constituted in the state by the Government of Meghalaya. Any Private University may run the Para Medical Courses and award the degree with the certification and approval of any other Medical Council.

We have no objection to any course run by Mahatma Gandhi University, Meghalaya provided all other legalities and conditions made by the Education Department, Government of Meghalaya are fulfilled."

(17 of 21) [CW-1205/2022]

In view of the above specific indication from the State of

Meghalaya, though the same has been sent by the Meghalaya

Government after the orders impugned have been passed by the

respondents, it is apparent that the recognition desired/demanded

by the Council from the concerned State Government/Central

Government, is rather non-existent in the present cases.

It may also be noticed that the requirement of Regulation

regarding recognition by the concerned State Government can

only be enforced where a mechanism for recognition exists in the

concerned State and where no such mechanism exists, the fact

that by Act of the State an Institution has been created with the

object of imparting courses in Para-Medical subjects, the

insistence on the part of the Council cannot be countenanced and

rejection of the applications by the respondent Council under

Regulation 42(iii) of the Regulations, 2014, cannot be sustained.

When the coordinate bench of this Court by its order dated

16/3/2021 left it open for the Council to make inquiries under

Section 32 of the Act, 2008, what was desired by the Council is

contained in its communication dated 31/3/2021 (Annex.17),

wherein, the Council by referring to all the applications made by

the petitioners, required the Registrar of the University to provide

as under:

";kfpdk la[;k [email protected] es ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky;] tks/kiqj }kjk fnukad 16-03-2021 dks vUrfje vkns"k dh ikyuk esa mijksDr vH;fFkZ;ksa }kjk vkids fo"ofo|ky; ls tkjh iSjkesfMdy ikB~;Øeksa dh vad&rkfydkvksa ,oa [email protected] izek.k&i= ds vk/kkj ij iath;u fd;s tkus gsrq vkosnu fd;k x;k gS] ds laca/k esa vH;fFkZ;ksa ds }kjk izLrqr nLrkost ¼vad&rkfydkvksa ,oa [email protected] izek.k&i=½ layXu dj lR;kiu gsrq vkidks fHktok;sa tk jgs gSA vr% mijksDr vkosndksa ds nLrksotksa dk lR;kiu dj ¼lR;kfir izfr½ "kh?kz gh fHktokus dk Je djsaA d`i;k ;g Hkh voxr djkosa fd mDr vH;fFkZ;ksa ds }kjk iSjkesfMdy ikB~;Øe fu;fer :i ls izf"k{k.k izkIr fd;k x;k gS ;k nwjLFk f"k{kk (Distance Education) ds ek/;e lsA mijksDr vH;FkhZ ds nLrkostksa dk lR;kiu dj "kh?kz gh lR;kfir izfr;ka miyC/k djkrs gq, lwpuk fuEu izk:i esa

(18 of 21) [CW-1205/2022]

fHktokus dk Je djkosa] rkfd mDr vkosnd ds iath;u dh fu;ekuqlkj dk;Zokgh dh tk ldsa%& Sr. Candidate Father's Enrollment Roll Exam Admission Passing Course Total Course Passed No. Name name No. No. Name Session Year Duaration Marks Type with and (Distnac Division Obtaine e/Regula d Marks r)

layXu%& mijksDrkuqlkjA"

A perusal of the above communication would reveal that

referring to the order dated 16/3/2021, the Council only sought

verification of the mark sheets and degree/provisional certificates

from the University, which information was duly provided by the

University on 14/6/2021 and 16/6/2021 (Annex.18) by providing

the list of verified students under the University indicating that the

students found in the University records and they have been

provided the Para-Medical training in regular mode only and the

certificates issued to them are correct.

When the inquiry made by the Council after the order dated

16/3/2021 was limited to the verification of the mark sheets and

the documents, report of the committee dated 4/8/2021 inter alia

indicating the following appears to be wholly incorrect:

"bl laca/k esa jktLFkku iSjkesfMdy dkSafly us iqu% lacaf/kr fo"ofo+|ky; ,oa es?kky; ljdkj ds Director, Department of Health & Family Wlfare, Meghalaya i= Øekad [email protected] o [email protected] 03-2021 fy[kdj jktLFkku iSjkesfMdy dkSafly ds fu;[email protected];eksa ds vuqlkj iath;u gsrq vko";d ekU;[email protected] ls laacaf/kr nLrkost izLrqr djus gsrq funsZf"kr fd;k x;k] ysfdu mDr i=ksa ds laca/k es fo"ofo|ky; ,oa es?kky; ljdkj }kjk izfrmRrj vkt fnukad rd izkIr ugaha gqvkA bl izdkj mDr izdj.k esa Li'V gS fd egkRek xka/kh fo"ofo|ky;] es?kky; }kjk jktLFkku iSjkesfMdy dkSafly ds fu;[email protected];e ds vuq:i pkgh xbZ lwpuk,sa vkt fnukad rd izkIr ugha gqbZ gSA vr% ;g Li'V gS fd mDr bZ-lh-th- dkslZ jktLFkku iSjkesfMdy dkSafly fu;e 42 (iii) dh Js.kh esa vkuk izrhr ugha gksrk gSA ;g dkslZ futh fo"ofo|ky; }kjk vius Lrj ij lapkfyr fd;k tk jgk gSA "

(emphasis added)

As noticed hereinbefore, pursuant to the communication sent

by the Council on 31/3/2021, the University had duly responded

(19 of 21) [CW-1205/2022]

by its communications dated 14/6/2021 and 16/6/2021

(Annex.18) verifying the mark sheets and documents, therefore,

the indication made that no response 'from the University' has

been received is factually incorrect. The receipt of the

communications (Annex.18) have not been denied by the Council

in its response and, therefore, the decision of the committee

based on the purported non-receipt of the response also cannot be

sustained.

The Council in its meeting dated 13/8/2021 has simply

approved the committee report, whereafter, the order dated

27/8/2021 (Annex.21) has been issued cancelling the provisional

registration of the petitioners.

From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is more than

apparent that the requirement insisted by the Council under

Regulation 42(iii) of the Regulations, 2014 is not sustainable. The

inquiry conducted by the Council under Section 32 of the Act of

2008 by issuing communication dated 31/3/3021, after the order

dated 16/3/2021 was passed by this Court, was duly responded

by the University, which aspect has not been taken into

consideration by the committee and on assumption that the

University has not responded to the communication dated

31/3/2021, the decision has been taken, which has formed the

basis for the Council to take decision on 13/8/2021 and

consequently cancellation of provisional certificates by order dated

27/8/2021 (Annex.21) also cannot be sustained.

The submission made by learned counsel for the respondent

regarding the issue involved being academic and, therefore, the

Court should not interfere, apparently, in the circumstances of the

present case, has no basis. As noticed hereinbefore, the only issue

(20 of 21) [CW-1205/2022]

involved has been the application of Regulation 42(iii) of the

Regulations, 2014 and the manner of inquiry conducted by the

respondent Council under Section 32 of the Act, 2008, which

cannot be said to be an academic matter, so as to invoke the law

laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding an expert body

dealing with the subject matter.

The reliance placed on the judgment in the case of Lohade

Ram Meena (supra) apparently has no application to the facts of

the present cases as the Institution in the said judgment was

Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth, Udaipur which is within

the State of Rajasthan, whereas, the present Institution is situated

outside the State of Rajasthan. Besides the fact that exercise of

power under Section 32 of the Act, 2008 though exists with the

Council, in the present cases, the material as considered

hereinbefore, clearly shows that the requisites as sought had

already been supplied by the University, which have not been

considered by the respondent Council.

So far as the issue of availability of alternative remedy is

concerned, the appeal under Section 25 of the Act, 2008 lies

against the decision of the Registrar to the Council, whereas, in

the present cases, the order itself has been passed by the Council.

Further, even the appeal under Section 26 from the orders of the

Council is confined to orders passed under Section 20(2) and

appellate orders under Section 25, under which provision the

orders impugned do not fall, as such, the plea of alternative

remedy, as raised also has no substance.

In view of the above discussion, the writ petitions CWP Nos.

1205/2022, 1129/2022 & 1548/2022 filed by the petitioners are

allowed. The rejection of petitioners' applications by order dated

(21 of 21) [CW-1205/2022]

6/1/2021 (Annex.9), the decision of the committee dated

4/8/2021 and consequential order of the Council dated 13/8/2021

(Annex.20) and the order dated 27/8/2021 (Annex.21) cancelling

the provisional certificates, passed by the respondent Council are

quashed and set aside. The respondent Council is directed to pass

appropriate orders for grant of permanent registration to the

petitioners in accordance with what has been determined

hereinbefore.

Needful be done within a period of three weeks from the

date of this order.

The respondent Selection Board/State is directed to take into

consideration the registration certificates of the petitioners and

accord them appointments, if they fall in merit and are otherwise

eligible.

The earlier batch of writ petitions being SBCWP No.

3054/2021, 3891/2021, 3914/2021, 4104/2021 and 4412/2021

would also stand disposed of, in view of the directions given

hereinbefore.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J baweja/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)