Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Khushi Deora vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 3 April, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:17403]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
(1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1988/2021
1. Pooja Punaram Patel D/o Punaram Patel, Aged About 20
Years, Ashok Nagar, 24B 701, Om Sai Bhiwandi, Thane,
Maharashtra.
2. Kanishka Sharma D/o Ramesh Chander Sharma, Aged
About 19 Years, House No.15, Ward No.5 Batote, Tehsil
Batote, District Ramban Batote, Jammu And Kashmir
(Ut).
3. Harshita Sadhwani D/o Raju Sadhwani, Aged About 21
Years, 112, Sindhi Colony, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajasthan University Of Health Sciences, Sector 18,
Kumbha Nagar, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur, Through Its
Controller Of Examination.
2. The Vyas Dental College And Hospital, Pali Road, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan, Through Its Principal.
----Respondents
Connected With
(2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12192/2019
1. Khushi Deora D/o Rajesh Bhai, Aged About 19 Years, R/o
Girls Hostel, Vyas Dental College And Hospital, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
2. Preety Sandhu D/o Shri Tarsem Kumar, Aged About 19
Years, R/o Girls Hostel, Vyas Dental College And Hospital,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
3. Preya Sharma D/o Shri Joginder Paul, Aged About 19
Years, R/o Girls Hostel, Vyas Dental College And Hospital,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
4. Mohd. Sajed S/o Shri Zakir Hussain, Aged About 18
Years, R/o Girls Hostel, Vyas Dental College And Hospital,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
5. Karan Mengi S/o Shri Deepak Mengi, Aged About 19
Years, R/o Girls Hostel, Vyas Dental College And Hospital,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
6. Summera Reyaz D/o Shri Reyaz Ahmad Zarger, Aged
About 19 Years, R/o Girls Hostel, Vyas Dental College And
(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 10:14:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17403] (2 of 17) [CW-1988/2021]
Hospital, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
7. Supriya Jaswal D/o Shri Kulwant Singh, Aged About 18
Years, R/o Girls Hostel, Vyas Dental College And Hospital,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
8. Sourav Chandan S/o Shri Rakesh Kumar, Aged About 19
Years, R/o Girls Hostel, Vyas Dental College And Hospital,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
9. Mo. Aaftab S/o Shri Mo. Altaf, Aged About 19 Years, R/o
Girls Hostel, Vyas Dental College And Hospital, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
10. Sanju Rajpurohit D/o Shri Jethusingh Babusingh
Rajpurohit, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Girls Hostel, Vyas
Dental College And Hospital, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
11. Akshita Pandita D/o Shri Vinod Kumar, Aged About 19
Years, R/o Girls Hostel, Vyas Dental College And Hospital,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Medical And Health (Education),
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Rajasthan University Of Health Sciences, Through Its
Registrar, Ruhs Campus, Jaipur-302033.
3. The Vyas Dental College And Hospital, Jodhpur, Kuri Hod,
Pali Road, Jhalamand, Jodhpur-342005.
----Respondents
(3) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4321/2020
Neha Singh D/o Prem Chand Singh, Aged About 21 Years, Jitaura
Jamuaon, Bhojpur, Bihar - 802159
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Dental Council Of India, Through The Joint Secretary,
Aiwan-E-Galib Marg, Kotla Road, New Delhi - 110 002.
2. The Chairman, State Neet Under-Graduate Medical And
Dental Admission Cum Controlling Council Board, 2018,
Jaipur Through Its Principal And Controller, Sms Medical
College And Attached Hospitals, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 10:14:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17403] (3 of 17) [CW-1988/2021]
3. Maharaja Ganga Singh Dental College And Research
Centre, 11 Lnp Hanumangarh Road, Sri Ganganagar
Through Its Principal.
----Respondents
(4) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2329/2021
Nisha Prajapat D/o Shri Shyam Lal Prajapat, Aged About 22
Years, R/o 115, East Patel Nagar, Ganeshpura, Ratanada,
Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Dental Council Of India, Through Its Joint Secretary,
Aiwan - E - Galib Marg, Kotla Road, New Delhi - 110002
2. The Chairman, State Neet Under -Graduate, Medical And
Dental Admission Cum Controlling Council Board, 2018,
Jaipur Through Its Principal And Controller , Sms Medical
College And Attached Hospitals, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Rajasthan University Of Health Sciences, Sector 18,
Kumbha Nagar, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur , Through Its
Controller Of Examination
4. The Vyas Dental College And Hospital, Pali Road,
Jodhpur , Rajasthan, Through Its Principal
----Respondents
(5) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 516/2022
1. Vrinda Choudhary D/o Shri Baldev Choudhary, Aged
About 21 Years, R/o Merta City, Nagaur.
2. Sonika Katoch D/o Shri Rajendra Kumar, Aged About 21
Years, Village Chanti Gatoch, Bhardarwa, District Doda (J
And K).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajasthan University Of Health Sciences, Sector 18,
Kumbha Nagar, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur, Through Its
Controller Of Examination.
2. The Dental Council Of India, Through Its Joint Secretary,
Aiwan-I-Galib Marg, Kotla Road, New Delhi - 110002.
3. The Chairman, State Neet Under-Graduate Medical And
Dental Admission Cum Controlling Council Board, 2018,
(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 10:14:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17403] (4 of 17) [CW-1988/2021]
Jaipur Through Its Principal And Controller, Sms Medical
College And Attached Hospital, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Vyas Dental College And Hospital, Pali Road, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan, Through Its Principal.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Aniket Tater
Mr. Nikhil Dungawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rathore, AAG assisted by
Mr. Pravin Kumar Choudhary
Mr. A.A. Bhansali
Mr. Mahendra Bishnoi
Mr. Rajesh Punia
Mr. Sher Singh Rathore for
Mr. N.S.Rajpurohit, AAG
Mr. Vipul Dharnia
Mr. Sanwar Lal, Dy.G.C.
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Judgment
REPORTABLE 03/04/2025
1. These writ petitions involve almost common facts and law
and hence, being disposed of conjointly.
2. However, for the sake of brevity and clarity, the facts are
being taken from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1988/2021 : Pooja
Punaram Patel & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences
& Anr.
3. Mr. Manoj Bhandari, learned Senior Counsel espousing the
cause of the petitioners submitted that all the three petitioners,
namely, Pooja Punaram Patel, Kanishka Sharma and Harshita
Sadhwani have appeared in NEET Examinations-2019 and had
cleared the same and took admission in the Vyas Dental College
and Hospital, Jodhpur in accordance with law. However, the
(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 10:14:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17403] (5 of 17) [CW-1988/2021]
allegation leveled by the respondent-Rajasthan University of
Health Sciences (hereinafter referred to as 'RUHS') and Dental
Council of India (hereinafter referred to as 'DCI'), is that their
names had not been uploaded on the official websites of DCI and
RUHS by cut-off date i.e. 15.09.2019 by the respondent - college.
4. He asserted that the petitioners got admission and pursued
their studies after being provisionally admitted by the RUHS on
18.09.2019. Meanwhile, DCI sent a letter to all the dental colleges
to send list of students admitted and in furtherance whereof, the
colleges sent list of the students on 01.10.2019.
5. The respondent No.2 - Vyas Dental College vide letter dated
01.10.2019 furnished the details of the students with a plea that
due to inadvertence the names of the petitioners were not
reflected in the list which was furnished on 15.09.2019. DCI
forwarded the list of the students so sent by the college to the
Director, Medical Education during which it was revealed that the
petitioners' name were not reflected in the initial list which was
uploaded by the college on 15.09.2019.
6. In the first writ petition out of the captioned writ petitions
(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1988/2021), the discrepancy which was
found by the respondents was that the names of the petitioners
(Pooja Punaram Patel, Kanishka Sharma and Harshita Sadhwani)
were not reflected in the list which was uploaded by the college on
the official websites of the DCI and RUHS.
7. The DCI issued communication dated 03.12.2019 and asked
the respondent - college to discharge the petitioners. According to
the petitioners, in spite of the fact that the respondent - college
had received the communication dated 03.12.2019 neither the
(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 10:14:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17403] (6 of 17) [CW-1988/2021]
petitioners were informed nor they were discharged by the
respondent - college and it was only when the admission cards to
appear in the first year examination were not issued to them, they
came to know about the order dated 03.12.2019 passed by the
DCI.
8. The fact that DCI had passed an order dated 03.12.2019 had
came to the knowledge of the petitioners only after filing of the
writ petition. They have moved an amendment application and
challenged the order dated 03.12.2019.
9. Mr. Bhandari, learned Senior Counsel submitted that so far
as petitioners other than those involved in the first writ petition
(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1988/2021) are concerned, they stand
on slightly different footings. The allegations against the
remaining students are that though their names were reflected in
the list which was uploaded by the respondent - college (or list
uploaded for the respective academic years) on 15.09.2019, but
their admission were not in accordance with law as they were not
registered with the Rajasthan NEET UG Counseling Board
(hereinafter referred to as 'Counseling Board').
10. Mr. Bhandari, learned Senior Counsel submitted that so far
as the petitioners of the writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.1988/2021 are concerned, they had got admission prior to the
cut-off date, but it was due to inadvertence or fault of college
which did not forward their names to the RUHS and DCI, for
which, neither the petitioners can be blamed nor can their
admission be canceled.
11. Learned Senior Counsel emphasized that the petitioners'
educational qualification and eligibility and the fact that they had
(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 10:14:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17403] (7 of 17) [CW-1988/2021]
cleared corresponding NEET Examination is not in dispute and
submitted that if for the reasons best known to the respondent -
college, despite accepting fee from the petitioners and giving them
admissions, it did not forward their names, the college should be
penalized by the respondent - DCI or RUHS rather than canceling
petitioners' admissions. He submitted that the petitioners have
been visited with cancellation of their admission for fault or folly of
the college.
12. Mr. S.S. Rathore, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent - DCI submitted that the facts as narrated by Mr.
Bhandari are not as simple as they have been portrayed. He
argued that all the petitioners knowing it fully well that the cut-off
date had expired or that they were not registered with the
Counseling Board, got themselves admitted with their wide eyes
open. He submitted that the petitioners who have got irregular
admissions with the connivance of the respondent - college
cannot be given a clean chit and their admissions have rightly
been canceled by the DCI.
13. Mr. Mahendra Bishnoi, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent - RUHS submitted that respondent - college has given
incessant admissions to the students, contrary to law and dehors
the norms set by the DCI and therefore, no indulgence be
granted.
14. He submitted that even if this Court proposes to take a
lenient view towards the students, at least the respondent -
college be penalized for the gross irregularities it had committed.
15. He submitted that the respondent - RUHS has imposed fine
of Rs.1 Crore on the respondent - college for the irregular
(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 10:14:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17403] (8 of 17) [CW-1988/2021]
admissions which it had given to the students who filed writ
petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1988/2021 (namely, Pooja
Punaram Patel, Kanishka Sharma and Harshita Sadhwani).
16. While informing that the respondent - college has separately
challenged the imposition of fine by way of filing separate writ
petition (being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8012/2023), he
submitted that the said writ petition is pending though an interim
order has been passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court staying
the recovery of the amount of fine subject to condition if the
respondent-college deposits 25% of the fine amount.
17. He raised an apprehension that if any indulgence is granted
to the petitioners or the college regarding payment of fine
imposed upon the respondent - college, it will adversely affect the
rights of the parties involved in such writ petitions.
18. Mr. Rathore and Mr. Bishnoi in unison submitted that neither
the petitioners nor the respondent - college are entitled for any
sympathetic consideration. While inviting Court's attention towards
various orders which have been passed by Division Bench of this
Court, he highlighted that in similar case a fine of Rs. 25 lac per
student has been imposed by the Division Bench vide its order
dated 26.04.2023 passed in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ)
No.911/2018.
19. Mr. A.A. Bhansali, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent - college submitted that so far as petitioners of writ
petition No.1988/2021 are concerned, they did get admissions
prior to the cut-off date, but they did not report to the respondent
- college and therefore, on 15.09.2019, when the list of students
admitted was uploaded, their names were not reflected, however
(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 10:14:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17403] (9 of 17) [CW-1988/2021]
since the petitioners had reported to the respondent - college after
15.09.2019 their names were included in the subsequent list
which was uploaded on 01.10.2019. He submitted that in any
case, there is a small time lag of 15 days between the date when
the first list was uploaded (15.09.2019) and subsequent list was
uploaded (01.10.2019) and therefore, the allegation of irregular
admissions leveled by the respondent - DCI is unsustainable.
20. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
21. The fact that all the petitioners are NEET qualified and each
of them has secured requisite percentile to get admission under
the respondent - college is not in dispute.
22. The first bone of contention is that the names of all the three
petitioners in writ petition (being S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.1988/2021) were not reflected in the first list which the
respondent - college uploaded on 15.09.2019 and second is, that
the names of the students involved in the remaining writ petitions
were though reflected in the list on 15.09.2019, but they did not
got themselves registered with the Counseling Board.
23. For whatever reasons - bonafide or otherwise, non-reflection
of the names of the petitioners in the list of students uploaded on
15.09.2019 cannot be countenanced by this Court. It was
imperative for the respondent - college to give the list of students
admitted on 15.09.2019 and hence, the plea taken by the
respondent - college that since these three students did not
report to the college by 15.09.2019, their names were not shown
in the list is nothing but a lame excuse.
(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 10:14:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17403] (10 of 17) [CW-1988/2021]
24. Moving on to the second issue, the requirement that a
candidate desirous of getting admission in any college of
Rajasthan including private college is required to get himself
registered with Counseling Board is not unknown to the
stakeholders. The petitioners of remaining writ petitions were
admittedly not registered with the Counseling Board of the
corresponding years. Their admissions also cannot be claimed in
tandem with law or treated regular in any event.
25. At this juncture, Mr. Bhandari, learned Senior Counsel
submitted that all these students (about 20 in numbers) were
given admissions in the year 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 and they
have not only completed their courses pursuant to the interim
order(s) passed by the Court, but have also been declared
successful (though mark-sheets have not been issued to them).
He prayed that may be because of adolescence or lack of legal
acumen, the petitioners got admissions in the respondent -
college in an anxiety/zeal of building their career being oblivious of
the consequences, which they may ultimately have to face.
26. He contended that some of the students/their parents have
taken educational loans. While maintaining that there was no
malafide intention as such, he argued that since their eligibility
and educational qualification was not in doubt even the banks
advanced the credit facilities. He lastly prayed that petitioners'
admissions be regularized.
27. The aforesaid request made on behalf of the petitioners,
according to this Court, requires a sympathetic consideration on
the principles of equity. The petitioners are young people of 20-22
years of age and are yet to begin their life. If at this stage, the
(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 10:14:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17403] (11 of 17) [CW-1988/2021]
order passed by the DCI of discharging their admissions is allowed
to be given effect to, the result would be irreconcilable - these
young students will be back to square one. Not only 5-6 years of
their prime youth would go in vain, but also their fee and money
would be shredded into the drains. By now, they must have
become age barred to get admissions in any other courses. Their
5 years of education and experience which they have obtained will
be rendered nugatory.
28. Such being the position, this Court feels that if their
admissions are regularized, subject to payment of a token fine of
Rs.1 lac each student for the lack of diligence they have exhibited,
it would meet the ends of justice. Their example may operate as a
scarecrow for the future students to remain cautious and careful,
while getting admissions and thus, their career are not left in
lurch.
29. So far as respondent - college is concerned, according to
this Court, it had given admissions to the students (except those
involved in writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.1988/2021) irregularly. It ought to have been more vigilant
and law-abiding while giving admissions, particularly to those
students who were not registered with the respective Counseling
Board.
30. Be that as it may. If this Court accedes to the request of the
students, it cannot let the erring colleges go scot-free. They have
to be penalized for the unlawful gain they have derived by
defrauding the students and giving them admissions.
31. A recent judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court passed on
29.01.2025 has been brought to the notice of this Court which
(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 10:14:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17403] (12 of 17) [CW-1988/2021]
was delivered in the case of Dr. Tanvi Behl Vs. Shrey Goel &
Ors. (Civil Appeal No.9289/2019) in which almost similar
observations, however in much better expression have been
made. For the sake of ready reference, the same are being
reproduced hereunder:-
"Having made the above determination that
residence-based reservation is impermissible in
PG Medical courses, the State quota seats,
apart from a reasonable number of institution-
based reservations, have to be filled strictly on
the basis of merit in the All- India examination.
Thus, out of 64 seats which were to be filled by
the State in its quota 32 could have been filled
on the basis of institutional preference, and
these are valid. But the other 32 seats
earmarked as U.T. Chandigarh pool were
wrongly filled on the basis of residence, and we
uphold the findings of the High Court on this
crucial aspect. "
32. Though in the above referred judgment, Hon'ble the
Supreme Court has not imposed fine, but having regard to the fact
that the respondent - college has given irregular admissions year
after year, this Court is of the view that imposition of fine is
necessary.
33. Similar indulgence has also been granted by Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Mathur Vs.
Karnataka University & Ors., reported in (1986) Suppl SCC 740.
The relevant part is reproduced hereinfra:-
"8. We accordingly endorse the view taken by the
learned Judge and affirmed by the Division Bench
of the High Court. But the question still remains
whether we should allow the appellants to
continue their studies in the respective
engineering colleges in which they were admitted.
(Downloaded on 08/04/2025 at 10:14:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:17403] (13 of 17) [CW-1988/2021]
It was strenuously pressed upon us on behalf of
the appellants that under the orders initially of the
learned Judge and thereafter of this Court they
have been pursuing their course of study in the
respective engineering colleges and their
admissions should not now be disturbed because if
they are now thrown out after a period of almost
four years since their admission their whole future
will be blighted. Now it is true that the appellants
were not eligible for admission to the engineering
degree course and they had no legitimate claim to
such admission. But it must be noted that the
blame for their wrongful admission must lie more
upon the engineering colleges which granted
admission than upon the appellants.
....
...
We do not see why the appellants should suffer for
the sins of the managements of these engineering
colleges. We would therefore, notwithstanding the
view taken by us in this Judgment, allow the
appellants to continue their studies in the
respective engineering colleges in which they were
granted admission. But we do feel that against the
erring engineering colleges the Karnataka
University should take appropriate action because
the managements of these engineering colleges
have not only admitted students ineligible for
admission but thereby deprived an equal number
of eligible students from getting admission to the
engineering degree course."
34. These writ petitions are, therefore, allowed in the manner
that though on merit, the order dated 03.12.2019 qua each of the
[2025:RJ-JD:17403] (14 of 17) [CW-1988/2021]
student is affirmed, but on equity and subject to payment of Rs.1
lac by each students, their admissions stand regularized.
35. Each of the students shall furnish a demand draft of Rs.1 lac
drawn in the name of Registrar, Rajasthan University of Health
Sciences within a period of one month from today.
36. On receiving of the demand draft and a webcopy of the order
instant, the respondent - RUHS shall issue them
mark-sheets/degrees.
37. Needless to observe that after the degrees have been issued
by the RUHS, the competent authority shall register the
petitioners in accordance with law.
38. So far as respondent - colleges, namely, Vyas Dental
College; Eklavya Dental College and Maharaja Ganga Singh
Dental College are concerned, they shall pay a fine of Rs.7 lac 50
thousand per student on or before 31.07.2025 to the Registrar,
RUHS. In case, the respondent - college fails to deposit said
amount of Rs. 7 lac 50 thousand per student by 31.07.2025
(subject of course to their right of appeal etc.), the Counseling
Board shall not reflect name of such colleges in the list of eligible
colleges.
39. The Registrar, RUHS shall keep the amount in separate
account as and when deposited and shall ultimately transmit the
same to the Principal and Controller, Government Dental College,
Jodhpur, who shall utilize the same for purchase of dental chairs
and some other equipments or for meeting out any capital
expenditure (not of revenue nature). The amount aforesaid shall
be utilized on or before 31.03.2026 and utilization certificate shall
be sent to the Registrar, RUHS so also to the DCI.
[2025:RJ-JD:17403] (15 of 17) [CW-1988/2021]
40. It is high time when the Court should warn the private
colleges to desist from giving irregular admissions. The order
instant has been passed being guided by the equity in light of
peculiar facts and considering that the contentious admissions
were given 5-6 years back. However, in future if any such irregular
admission is given by the colleges involved in the present writ
petitions or by any other college, the DCI and RUHS shall take
stern action. They should not consider end of their duties by
imposition of fine - they should withdraw or revoke the recognition
granted to such colleges in accordance with law, obviously after
following principles of natural justice.
41. The stay applications also stand disposed of, accordingly.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12192/2019:-
42. This writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the aforesaid
order of even date passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1988/2021
except qua 3 petitioners, namely, Preya Sharma, Summera Reyaz
and Supriya Jaswal.
43. So far as these 3 candidates mentioned in preceding para
are concerned, the allegation against them is that, though they
had appeared as candidates of unreserved category/general
category in the NEET Examination, but they have taken
admissions in the respondent-college as 'other backward class'
(OBC) students.
44. Mr. Dungawat, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
the fact that these 3 petitioners (Preya Sharma, Summera Reyaz
and Supriya Jaswal) belong to other backward class is not in
dispute so also the fact that their names were reflected in the list
of students given admission and that too as OBC candidates.
[2025:RJ-JD:17403] (16 of 17) [CW-1988/2021]
45. He submitted that simply because the petitioners did not
appear in NEET Exams as OBC candidates for lack of knowledge or
otherwise, their admissions cannot be canceled.
46. Mr. Punia, learned counsel for the respondent - RUHS
submitted that the petitioners having appeared as general
category candidates cannot be given admissions as OBC
candidates.
47. Upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and perusal
of the record, this Court finds that the petitioners had secured 46
percentile in NEET Exams and accordingly, they were disqualified
to be given admission as general category candidates. However,
since their marks were more than the percentile required for OBC
candidate (40 percentile), they were given admission.
48. Their qualification as OBC candidates is not in doubt. This
Court is conscious of this fact and the law that the change of
category is impermissible and in normal circumstances, a
candidate having appeared as a general category candidate cannot
claim admission as an OBC candidate, but since the petitioners
were given admissions in the year 2018-2019 and pursuant to the
interim order they have not only pursued their course but have
also cleared the examination, this Court is of the view that they
are also entitled for equitable considerations, however, on
payment of slightly higher fine.
49. Each of these petitioners (Preya Sharma, Summera Reyaz
and Supriya Jaswal) shall pay a fine of Rs. 2 Lac each in the same
terms as has been observed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.1988/2021 and on payment of fine of Rs.2 lacs by these
petitioners, their admission shall be treated regular.
[2025:RJ-JD:17403] (17 of 17) [CW-1988/2021]
50. The stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
308-309--311-313-315-Mak/-akansha/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
