Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Nishant Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 23 August, 2023
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2023:RJ-JD:26606]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11606/2023
1. Nishant Kumar S/o Sanjay Kumar, Aged About 22 Years,
R/o Village Chhau, Tehsil Gudagodji, District Jhunjhunu.
2. Dinesh Choudhary S/o Dhukal Choudhary, Aged About 19
Years, R/o Choudhary Mohalla, Kotadi, Arai, Ajmer.
3. Manjeet Bhichar S/o Vijay Karan Jat, Aged About 20
Years, R/o Sarana, Sarwad, District Ajmer.
4. Dinesh Mali S/o Gyarasmal Mali, Aged About 19 Years, R/
o Sokaliya Sarwad, District Ajmer.
5. Parmeshwar Lal Saran S/o Seeta Ram Saran, Aged About
18 Years, R/o Bandhnau, Dikhnada, Sardar Sahar, Churu.
----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. Swami Vivekanand Veterinary Institute,
Radhakrishanpura, Jhunjhun By Pass, Sikar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.J. Punia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.K. Gaur, AAG assisted by
Mr. Salman Agha
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
23/08/2023
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:-
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 04:49:36 AM)
[2023:RJ-JD:26606] (2 of 3) [CW-11606/2023]
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 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 respondents 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.
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 04:49:36 AM)
[2023:RJ-JD:26606] (3 of 3) [CW-11606/2023]
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.
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).
4. All pending applications also stand disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
64-jitender
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
