Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rahul Saini vs Dr. Sarvepalli, Radhakrishna ... on 16 October, 2023
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2023:RJ-JD:35227]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16343/2023
Rahul Saini S/o Shri Chiranji Lal Saini, Aged About 29 Years,
Khudi Badi Tehsil Laxmangarh District Sikar (Rajasthan). E.no.
Rau/11/889
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Dr. Sarvepalli, Radhakrishna Rajasthan Ayurvedic
University (Dr. S.r.a.u.), University College Of Ayurved,
Karwad, Jodhpur, Through Its Registrar.
2. Controller Of Examination, Dr. Sarvepalli, Radhakrishna
Rajasthan Ayurvedic University, University College Of
Ayurved, Karwad, Jodhpur.
3. The Sekhawati Ayurvedic Medical College, Through Its
Principal.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chaturbhuj.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suniel Purohit.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
16/10/2023
1. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the
controversy involved in the present writ petition is no more res-
integra and it is covered by the decision rendered by this Court in
Prashant Deep Chitoshiya Vs. Dr. S.R.A.U & Ors. : S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No.9123/2023 on 26.09.2023. The relevant
portion of the judgment reads as under:
"5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as
perused the record of the case alongwith judgments cited at
the Bar.
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 07:47:04 AM)
[2023:RJ-JD:35227] (2 of 3) [CW-16343/2023]
6. This Court observes that the petitioner took admission
in the year 2012 in the respondent-College to pursue the
Course in question and cleared his First and Second Year
Professional Examinations, and gave his Third/Final Year
Professional Examination, 2022 however failed in the
aforesaid Subject, and thus, was barred from giving an
attempt for the said Subject in the July 2023 examination
by virtue of the amended Regulations, governing the said
Course.
7. This Court further observes that as per the judgments
rendered in the cases of Govind Soni (supra) and Sahil
Bangra & Ors. (supra), the amended regulations would
be applicable on the students who though were admitted
prior to such amendments however have not passed out as
of yet. The relevant portions of the said judgments are
reproduced as hereunder:
Govind Soni (supra):
"6. Indisputably, the Regulations governing education
in Indian Medicine framed by the Central Council of
Indian Medicine with the previous sanction of the
Central Government, stands amended vide
Amendment Regulations, 2016 and the Regulation
putting restriction on appearance of the students
pursuing B.A.M.S. Course in Final Professional
Examination unless they have passed First, Second
and Third Year Professional Examinations does not
survive, and thus, the scheme of the Examination as
provided for under Regulation 6 of Amendment
Regulations, 2016, shall operate even for the students
who though admitted prior to Amendment
Regulations, 2016 coming into force but have not
passed out the course as yet. Merely because, the
petitioner was admitted to the course prior to coming
into force of the Amendment Regulations, 2016, the
benefit of the provision incorporated therein, which
permits him to appear in Final Professional
Examination even before passing the Third
Professional Examination, cannot be denied to him."
Sahil Bangra (supra):
"9.2. The 2022 amended Regulations cannot be
made applicable on the students, who are not
currently undergoing the Course, or whose admission
has already been terminated, or whose Degree has
already been denied, or whose case no more
survives; but since the petitioners are the students of
the currently ongoing Course and pursuing their
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 07:47:04 AM)
[2023:RJ-JD:35227] (3 of 3) [CW-16343/2023]
Degree Course as regular students, therefore, the
prospective application of the Regulations will help the
present petitioners, and therefore, on count of
number of attempts, they will not be denied the
chance to appear in the examination. However, the
candidates will be ineligible for internship as per the
aforementioned clause of maximum ten years, which
has been inserted in the Regulations of 2022."
8. This Court also observes that the petitioner had failed
in the aforesaid Subject during the Third/Final Year
Professional Examination, 2022, on count of the fact that he
was caught using unfair means during the examination;
however subsequently, while cancelling the attempt of
2022, he was allowed to undertake the attempt of the said
Subject in the examination period of July-August 2023, the
same being subject to the prevalent Regulations and since
the Regulations of 2022 were in place at that time, thus
accordingly, the petitioner could no longer be allowed to
give further attempts, as by that time, the maximum
prescribed time period of 10 years was already over, as per
the Regulations of 2022.
9. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and
looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this
Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to
the petitioner in the present petition.
10. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All
pending applications stand disposed of."
2. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed in the light of the
decision rendered in Prashant Deep Chitoshiya's case (supra). All
pending applications stand disposed of.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.
131-/Jitender//-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
