Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Aamir Khan vs Rajasthan University Of Health ... on 24 January, 2023
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2023/RJJD/002255]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5698/2021
Aamir Khan S/o Shri Mohammad Aamin, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o New Road, Behind Marudhar Hotel, Nazya Building Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan University Of Health Sciences, Through Its Vice
Chancellor, Sector 18 Pratap Nagar, Jaipur.
2. Controller Of Examinations, Rajasthan University Of
Health Sciences, Sector 18, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Achla Ram for
Mr. Munesh Bhardwaj
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahendra Bishnoi
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
24/01/2023
1. This Civil Writ Petition has been preferred under Article 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following
reliefs:-
"(i) By an appropriate writ, order or directions, the impugned
action of the respondents of not accepting the application forms, for
the examination of B.Sc. Nursing Part-IV Schedule to be Held Since
06/04/2021 be quashed and set aside.
(ii) By an appropriate writ, order or directions, in nature thereof,
the respondents may kindly be direct for accepting the examination
forms of the petitioner and then permitting them for appearing in
the examination of B.Sc. Nursing Part-IV Schedule to be Held Since
06/04/2021 with all consequential benefits."
2. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the issue
raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by judgment
[2023/RJJD/002255] (2 of 4) [CW-5698/2021]
rendered by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Yogendra Vs.
Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Ors. (D.B. Special
Appeal Writ No.1188/2022, decided on 11.11.2022). The said
judgment reads as follows :-
"1. Several writ petitions were filed by the students of B.Sc.
(Nursing) 4 year course, who were admitted in the year 2013. These
students were aggrieved by the action of the Rajasthan University of
Health Sciences (hereinafter referred to as the "University") by
which it denied permission to the students to take the examination of
B.Sc. (Nursing) Course Examination, 2022.
2. The writ court dismissed the writ petition in view of Ordinance
299-V-10 of the University of Rajasthan Ordinances, which provided
a maximum period of 8 years to complete the course. The court
recorded a finding that the students were admitted in the year 2013
and they were unable to complete the course in 8 years and as such,
were not entitled to participate in the examination of 2022.
3. The writ court by a common judgment dated 09/11/2022 dismissed
several writ petitions and as such, these three appeals referred to
above have been preferred.
4. We have heard Mr. Tushar Panwar, Mr. Hemant Tailor and Mr.
S.K. Singodiya, learned counsel for the petitioner-appellants and Mr.
Virendra Lodha, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Raunak Singhvi & Mr.
Rachit Sharma, learned counsel for the University.
5. The main plank of the argument of the petitioner-appellants is that
the University itself had delayed holding of the examination and that
the petitioner-appellants cannot be blamed for the same and,
therefore, cannot be denied to write the examination of 2022. It is
stated that though the petitioner-appellants were admitted in the year
2013, the 1st year examination was held in February, 2015 instead of
2014. The 3rd year examination was conducted in October, 2019
with enormous delay.
6. Shri Virendra Lodha, learned senior counsel appearing for the
University submits that the contention of the petitioner-appellants
that the University is responsible for delayed examination, is not
correct; rather, it is ill-founded. The University held the examination
well within time and the petitioner-appellants cannot take advantage
by alleging delay in holding examination on part of the University.
7. Shri Lodha, learned senior counsel has submitted a chart showing
the dates/months and the years in which the various examinations of
Part-I, Part-II and Part-III of the said course were conducted
including the remand examination i.e. supplementary. According to
him, there was a delay of only one month in holding the 1st year
examination, which was held in February, 2015 instead of December,
2014. Rest of the examinations were held within time and since the
petitioner-appellants have not completed the course within 8 years of
[2023/RJJD/002255] (3 of 4) [CW-5698/2021]
entry into the course, they have rightly not been allowed to
participate in the further examination.
8. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner-appellants were admitted
in the aforesaid course in the year 2013. The Ordinance 299-V-10
which has a statutory flavour, provides that the maximum period for
completing the course is 8 years; obviously, from the date of
entry/admission. The aforesaid Ordinance 299-V10 is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
"O.299-V-10. Maximum number of attempts permitted for
each paper will be 3 including the first attempt. Maximum
period to complete the course successfully should not exceed
8 years."
9. It is also acceptable to the parties that the 1st year examination of
the above course was to be held in December, 2014 but was held in
January/February,2015 i.e. with the delay of only one month. The
petitioner-appellants have not given any details as to when the
subsequent examination for the 2nd, 3rd and 4 th years were
scheduled and held.
10. On the other hand, Shri Lodha, learned senior counsel has
categorically stated as per chart produced before the court that the
2nd year examination was held in March, 2016 and the remand
examination in October, 2016. Similarly, 3rd year examination was
held in February, 2017 and the remand examination in September,
2017. Finally, the 4th year examination was held in January, 2018
and the remand examination in July, 2018. It clearly establishes that
every year two sets of examinations for each year or part were held
i.e. the main examination and the remand/supplementary
examination. It is not disputed that the above examinations were not
held in the years as mentioned above.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts, the petitioner-appellants who
entered the course in the year 2013 could have easily passed out the
course by the end of the year 2018. Even if some latitude is given, the
period of the course could not be extended beyond 2020 onwards.
12. In fact, on account of Covid 2019 Pandemic situation, the
petitioner-appellants were given additional chance to clear the
course upto April, 2022 but they failed to do so in the extended
chance.
13. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is evident that the
examination of each year of the above course were held timely but
even then despite sufficient latitude, the petitionerappellants were
unable to successfully clear the course even upto April 2022 and as
such, were rightly denied to participate or write the subsequent
examination in view of the above Ordinance.
14. The facts as narrated above, clearly indicate that there is no
violation of any statutory provision on part of the University in
taking the above action and since the matter of participation in the
examination is purely an academic matter within the domain of the
University, the court shall ordinarily remain away from such matters
as it does not sits in appeal over the opinion expressed by the
academic bodies.
[2023/RJJD/002255] (4 of 4) [CW-5698/2021]
15. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the learned
Single Judge has not committed any mistake in refusing to exercise
its jurisdiction and in dismissing the writ petitions filed by the
petitioner-appellants.
16. The appeals lack merit and are dismissed."
3. In view of the submissions made, the writ petition filed by
the petitioner is dismissed in terms of the aforequoted judgment
in the case of Yogendra Vs. Rajasthan University of Health
Sciences & Ors. (supra).
4. The stay application also stands dismissed.
(DR.NUPUR BHATI),J
54-nirmala/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
