Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Premi Devi vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 10 August, 2023

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2023:RJ-JD:25644]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8656/2023

1. Premi Devi D/o Babu Ram, Aged About 19 Years, Village Khodo Ki Dhaniya, Riniya, District Jodhpur.

2. Rajendra Prasad Kumawat S/o Madan Lal Kumawat, Aged About 29 Years, Devliya Rasta, Kothiya, District Bhilwara.

3. Deva Ram S/o Munni Ram, Aged About 20 Years, Godaro Ki Dhaniya, Chhapda, District Nagaur.

4. Pukhraj Siyag S/o Binja Ram Siyag, Aged About 25 Years, Village Cheela District Nagaur

5. Narayan Ram S/o Surja Ram, Aged About 18 Years, Saran Nagar, Aau Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur.

6. Rakesh Bana S/o Raju Ram, Aged About 23 Years, Jhardeji Ki Bhakhri (Jaloda) Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur.

7. Chela Ram S/o Kana Ram, Aged About 31 Years, Raiko Ka Bas, Rupavas Charanan, District Pali.

8. Krishna Kumar S/o Naringa Ram, Aged About 18 Years, Village Nandiya, District Jalore.

9. Abhishek Ghatiyal S/o Hari Ram, Aged About 18 Years, Village Jato Ka Bas, Padukala, Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur.

10. Raju Ram S/o Chena Ram, Aged About 25 Years, Village Vishnu Nagar, Rajala, Sadri Tehsil Lohawat District Jodhpur.

11. Mahesh Kumar S/o Kamalesh Choudhary, Aged About 18 Years, Village Kheraborta, District Jalore.

12. Mahendra Mundel S/o Hajari Ram, Aged About 22 Years, Barev Bagot, Tehsil Parbatsar, District Nagaur.

13. Shaitana Ram S/o Bhagirath Ram, Aged About 23 Years, Sediya, District Jalore.

14. Mahendra Kumar S/o Harsan Ram, Aged About 19 Years, Bagawas, District Jalore.

15. Kuldeep Gahlot S/o Kalu Ram Gahlot, Aged About 22 Years, Sawa Choraya, Shambhupura, District Chittorgarh.

16. Mahendra Kumar S/o Ramesh Chandra, Aged About 21 Years, Bhatiyo Ka Badiya, Kaladeh, District Rajsamand.

[2023:RJ-JD:25644] (2 of 4) [CW-8656/2023]

17. Pratapa Ram S/o Tiku Ram, Aged About 24 Years, Village Bhunkaron Ki Dhani, Ghevara, District Jodhpur.

18. Hema Ram S/o Jawana Ram, Aged About 28 Years, Nandoli Medtiya, Tehsil Makrana District Nagaur.

----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 Science, Bikaner.

5. Diamond Institute Of Veterinary Sciences, Plot No.120, 121, Vrandavan Dham, Dachu, Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur.

                                                                     ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)              :    Mr. R.J. Punia
For Respondent(s)              :    Mr. A.K. Gaur, AAG assisted by
                                    Mr. Salman Agha
                                    Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

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.

[2023:RJ-JD:25644] (3 of 4) [CW-8656/2023]

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 Court 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."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

controversy involved in the present matter is squarely covered by

the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Aasuddeen &

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

No.8677/2023), decided along with the other connected matters

on 10.08.2023 and seeks similar directions for the present

petitioners also, the operative portion of the order reads as

under:-

"7. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case.

8. This Court observes that the issue involved in the all instant petitions is common. The respondents issued an advertisement for admission in the Course in question, whereafter, two rounds of counselling were conducted. After such process, the Colleges gave admissions to the students under the State quota without any written permission. The Colleges 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

[2023:RJ-JD:25644] (4 of 4) [CW-8656/2023]

11. This Court further observes 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 found involved in making such admissions, they will be fully responsible for this act.".

12. 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.

13. 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 (students), 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 petitioners (Colleges) 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.).

14. The present petitions stand disposed of accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of."

3. In view of the above, the petition filed by the petitioners is

also disposed of in light of and with similar directions as given in

the case of Aasuddeen (supra).