Sachin Parmar vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 5759 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10977/2023

1. Sachin Parmar S/o Vinod Kumar Parmar, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Gaurav Path Tehsil Rudawal Bharatpur (Raj.).

2. Anil Charpota S/o Kantilal Charpota, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Village Ambakho, Tehsil Ghatol District Banswara (Raj.)

3. Santosh Jat S/o Devi Lal Jat, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Bheethalpura, Jojwa, Mandalgarh, Bhilwara (Raj.).

4. Anil Kumar Jat S/o Ram Jat, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Chandra Raghunathpura, Nayagaon, Sarana, Bhilwara (Raj.)

5. Chagan Lal Bhagora S/o Amrji Bhagora, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Dhani, Khajur, Bhaivdi, Aspur, Dungarpur (Raj)

6. Krishna Khatik S/o Ramesh Khatik, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Aamlaya, Jahajpur, Bhilwara (Raj.)

7. Bahadur Damor S/o Nathu Damor, Aged About 18 Years, R/o Dalpura, Balawara, Banswara (Raj.)

8. Sonu Kumar Meena S/o Surgyan Meena, Aged About 18 Years, R/o Maneroo, Karauli (Raj.)

9. Vimal Kumar Chanana S/o Vala Chanana, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Chelkari, Rohaniya, Banswara (Raj.)

10. Ankit Kumar S/o Saroj Mali, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Up Swasthaya Kendra Ke Piche, Banthali Tonk (Raj.)

11. Ravi Mali S/o Vishnu Mali, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Nayapur, Sawaimadhopur (Raj.)

12. Rahul Gurjar S/o Ramavtar Gurjar, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Katara Aziz Todabhim, Karauli (Raj.).

13. Rohit Kumar S/o Amar Singh, Aged About 18 Years, R/o 101, Ward No. 06, Mohllakuawala, Serpur, Alwar (Raj.).

14. Sandeep Bairwa S/o Ramprasad Bairwa, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Nayapur, Sawaimadhopur (Raj).

15. Mahipal Singh Pharshwal S/o Harbaks Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Mupo-Tiwari Ki Dandi No. 02, Tehsil Khandela, Dist Sikar (Raj.).

16. Gaurav Singh S/o Omprakash, Aged About 18 Years, R/o Village Shrinagar, Tehsil Rupbasdist, Bharatpur (Raj)

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Animal And Husbandry Department, Jaipur.

2. Coordinator, Rajasthan University Of Veterinary And Animal Science, Bikaner.

3. Controller Of Examinations, Rajasthan University Of Veterinary And Animal Science, Bikaner.

4. Registrar, Rajasthan University Of Veterinary And Animal

(2 of 6) [CW-10977/2023]

Science, Bikaner.

5. Swami Bhaskra Nand Pashudhan Sahayak Prashikshan Sansthan, Roopvas, Bharatpur (Raj.).

                                                                ----Respondents



For Petitioner(s)         :    Mr. RJ Punia.
                               Mr. Harshvardhan Singh.
                               Mr. Abhimanyu Singh (on VC)
For Respondent(s)         :    Mr. AK Gaur, AAG assisted by Mr.
                               Salman Agha.
                               Mr. C.S. Kotwani.
                               Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari a/w Mr.
                               Aidan Choudhary & Mr. Yuvraj Singh.

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

Reserved on 08/08/2023 Pronounced on 10/08/2023

1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

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

i) That the respondent no.2 to 4 may kindly be directed to give admission to the petitioners in the AHDP Course in session 2022-23.

ii) That the admission by the institution on the vacant seat may be validated in the AHDP Course in session 2022-23.

iii) Any other relief/reliefs, which this Hon'ble may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners in the interest of justice.

iv) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioners."

3. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned

counsel for the petitioners, are that respondents no. 2 to 4 have

issued an advertisement for admission in Two Years Animal

(3 of 6) [CW-10977/2023]

Husbandry Diploma Program (AHDP) for the academic session

2022-2023, whereby applications were invited from the eligible

candidates. After completion of the process, the private colleges

gave the admission, additionally, in place of those candidates, who

have not joined the Course, till last date of joining, or those who

have left the college, being not interested in pursuing the Course.

The petitioners took admission in the Course in question and are

continuously attending the classes.

3.1. The respondent no.3- Controller of Examinations, Rajasthan

University of Veterinary & Animal Science, Bikaner, has issued

directions on 16.06.2023 pertaining to enrollment of students in

the Course; whereupon, the process was to be conducted online

from 21.06.20203 to 15.07.2023. The respondent no.3 also issued

a list of User(s) and Id(s) as well as Password(s) of the students

to the respondent no.5-College, wherein the names of the

petitioners were not shown, because the petitioners were given

admission against vacant seats, and as per respondent no.5, the

said list was pertaining to those students, who have been given

admission through counselling.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

petitioners were not aware about the management seats or the

State seats, and that, the concerned College was under an

obligation to make the petitioners aware about the same; thus, as

per learned counsel, the petitioners cannot be made to suffer for

the fault on the part of the concerned College.

4.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the issue in question,

upon being raised by way of preferring a Writ Petition, has already

(4 of 6) [CW-10977/2023]

been settled by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Kiran Kasniya

Vs State of Rajasthan (S.B.C.W.P. No. 4354/2020, decided

on 29.06.2020), wherein the Hon'ble Court has validated the

admission of the student concerned in the Course in question

against the vacant seat, after second counselling, and therefore,

the present petitioners also, being similarly situated, are lawfully

entitled for validation of their admissions in the Course in

question.

4.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the respondent no.2 and

4 have framed and prescribed a common rule for admission of the

students against vacant seats to be filled up by the colleges

concerned, and therefore, the entire action of the respondents in

not enrolling the petitioners is highly illegal, arbitrary and

unsustainable in the eye of law.

4.3 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made

on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the petitioners were

given admission by the concerned Colleges without any authority

and beyond the sanctioned quota, and therefore, such students,

including the present petitioners are not entitled for validation and

regularization of their admissions.

4.4 Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners were

admitted against the State quota seats without any specific

direction of the respondent, and therefore, their admissions in the

Course in question cannot be regularized.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the

record of the case.

                                      (5 of 6)                         [CW-10977/2023]


6.    This   Court   observes       that        the    respondents      issued    an

advertisement for admission in the Course in question, whereafter,

two rounds of counselling were conducted, and the concerned

College gave admissions to the petitioners under the State quota

without any prior written permission. The College also sent the list

of those students to the respondent, but the respondent enrolled

only those students who were admitted through counselling, and

not to those students who were given admission beyond

prescribed limit/quota.

7. This Court further observes that 85% seats were to be filled

against the State quota through counselling only, while the

remaining 15% management quota seats were to be filled by the

concerned Colleges, and therefore, once the allocation of the seats

was prescribed, the Colleges cannot breach such quota without

any prior permission.

8. This Court also observes that after two rounds of counselling

pertaining to the Course in question, still the seats are lying

vacant under the State quota; the Colleges itself started giving

admissions to the students in the Course in question without any

communication or any permission of the respondent-University.

9. It has been informed by the respondents that the Office of

the Registrar, Rajasthan University of Veterinary And Animal

Sciences, Bikaner vide letter dated 02.05.2023 directed the

Principal(s) of the concerned AHDP Institute(s) affiliated to the

respondent-University not to give admission to any student under

the State quota in the Course in question, beyond the prescribed

limit/quota, with the stipulation that, "if any ADHP institute is

(6 of 6) [CW-10977/2023]

found involved in making such admissions, they will be fully

responsible for this act.".

10. In the present adjudication, this Court has also kept into

consideration the fact that on an earlier occasion also, one time

relaxation has been granted by the respondents, in grant of

admissions by the institutions in the 85% Quota of State beyond

the State counselling.

11. In view of the above, it is directed that in case the

respondents conduct any further counselling, as per the policy,

within 60 days from today, and after such counselling, any seat(s),

under the State quota of 85% and Management quota of 15%, is

found vacant, the respondents shall consider the candidature of

the petitioners, against such vacant seat(s), strictly in accordance

with law. It is made clear that the respondents shall be free to

initiate any lawful action against the concerned College(s) for

grant of illegal admissions, if so warranted. Until such

consideration and consequent permission is granted by the

respondents, no student shall have a right to pursue the Course

and their admissions will remain null and void (illegal.).

12. The present petition stands disposed of accordingly. All

pending applications also stand disposed of.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

SKant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)