Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mohit Sharma vs Shekhawati College ... on 16 January, 2025

Author: Yogendra Kumar Purohit

Bench: Yogendra Kumar Purohit

[2025:RJ-JD:4164-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                   D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 900/2024

Rohit Kumar Meena son of Dhanraj Meena, aged about 30 Years,
resident of Ragaspuriya, Sangod, District -Kota, Rajasthan.
                                                                         ----Appellant
                                         Versus
1.       The Registrar, Dr. Sarvepalli, Radhdakrishnana Rajasthan
         Ayurvedic University (Dr. S.R.A.U.), Nagaur Road, Karwar
         Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
2.       The     Controller         of      Examination,           Dr.      Sarvepalli
         Radhakrishnana Rajasthan Ayurveda University, Nagaur
         Road, Karwar Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
3.       The   Principal,       Punjab      Ayured        Medical        College,   Sri
         Ganganagr.
                                                                   ----Respondents
                                Connected With
                   D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 795/2024
Mohit Sharma son of Omprakash Sharma, aged about 30 Years,
resident of 1553, Vpo Raja Ji Ka Karera, Tehsil Mandal, Bhilwara,
Rajasthan.
                                                                         ----Appellant
                                         Versus
1.       Shekhawati College, Pilani, through its Principal, Situated
         At Bahal - Pilani Rd, Pilani, Rajasthan 33303.
2.       Dr.   Sarvepalli       Radhakrishnana             Rajasthan        Ayurvedic
         University (Dr. S.R.A.U.), University College Of Ayurveda,
         Karwad, Jodhpur. through its Registrar.
3.       Controller of Examination, Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnana
         Rajasthan Ayurvedic University, University College of
         Ayurveda, Karwad, Jodhpur.
                                                                   ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)            :     Ms. Shrestha Mathur
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Sunil Purohit


      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT

[2025:RJ-JD:4164-DB] (2 of 11) [SAW-900/2024]

Order

16/01/2025

D.B. Civil Special Appeal Writ No.795 of 2024 has been filed

by Mohit Kumar Sharma and D.B. Civil Special Appeal Writ No.900

of 2024 has been filed by Rohit Kumar Meena to challenge the

common judgment and order dated 30th May 2024 rendered by

the writ Court.

2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9529/2024 filed by Mohit Sharma,

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9288/2024 filed by Rohit Kumar Meena

and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9409/2024 filed by Amit Kumar

Meena were taken up together for hearing and have been

disposed of by the aforementioned common judgment and order

dated 30th May 2024.

3. Before the writ Court, the common ground taken by the

appellant was that the Indian System of Medicine (Minimum

Standards of Undergraduate Ayurveda Education) Regulations,

2022 (in short, Regulation of 2022) cannot be applied with

respective effect to curtail the rights of the appellants to complete

the B.A.M.S. course without any cap on the number of attempts

and the duration in terms of years. According to the appellants,

they were entitled to pursue the B.A.M.S. course till 2030 in view

of the decision of this Court in "Ravindra Kumar v. Dr. Sarvepalli

Radhakrishnana Rajasthan Ayurvedic University & Ors." (S.B. Civil

Writ Petition No.5679/2020) wherein the writ Court made the

following observations :-

"I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

The facts are not in dispute that all the petitioners were admitted prior to coming into force of Amendment Regulations,

[2025:RJ-JD:4164-DB] (3 of 11) [SAW-900/2024]

2016 and that they have failed to pass in all the subjects of their respective years despite giving four attempts.

A close scrutiny and comparison of the Amendment Regulations, 2012 and Amendment Regulations, 2016 would reveal that the Scheme of Examination of both the Amendment Regulations are totally different and the apparent logic behind providing for the maximum four chances that also within a period of maximum three years under Amendment Regulations, 2016 is based on the fact that now a provision has been made that a student, who has failed in First Professional Examination is permitted to appear in the Second Professional Examination and so on i.e. a student failing in Second Professional Examination is permitted to appear in the Third Professional Examination and student failing in the Third Professional Examination is permitted to appear in the Final Professional Examination and, therefore, ceiling on the maximum attempts appears to have been introduced, whereas in the Amendment Regulations, 2012, unless a student had passed in a particular Professional Examination, he was not permitted to appear in the subsequent Professional Examination coupled with the fact that there were no maximum attempts for passing in any particular professional year.

Therefore, apparently for applying the ceiling of maximum four chances within a period of maximum three years as prescribed under Amendment Regulations, 2016, it is necessary that the student, who had failed in his First, Second or Third Professional Examination has been permitted to appear in the Second, Third or Fourth Professional Examination, which is not the case qua the present petitioners, who have not been permitted to appear in the subsequent years' examinations without passing their previous years examination.

As the bar of four attempts is contained in the same clause 6(1)(c), 6(2)(c) and 6(3)(c) respectively and not independent of its previous part, unless the previous part of the clause has been availed of by the students, the subsequent part cannot be imposed/the students cannot be restricted on account of their availing maximum four chances.

So far as the judgment in the case of Govind Soni (supra) is concerned, the same by itself cannot arm the respondent University to apply the restriction of four chances unless the students, as observed hereinbefore, have availed the benefit of previous part of the provision i.e. despite failing in their earlier year, have been permitted to appear in the later years'

[2025:RJ-JD:4164-DB] (4 of 11) [SAW-900/2024]

examination. As such, the reliance placed on the judgment in the case of Govind Soni (supra), is of no avail to the respondent University In view of the above discussion, the action of the respondents in preventing the petitioners from filling-up the examination forms for/not permitting to appear in exams of their respective professional years on account of their having availed four chances, cannot be sustained.

Consequently, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed. The action of the respondents in holding the petitioners as ineligible for appearing in their respective examinations, is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioners to fill-up their examination forms within a period of one week and to appear in the ensuing examinations, if they otherwise fulfill all the eligibility conditions.

In view of the fact that the students were prevented from filling-up the examination forms in time, the respondents would

not charge late fees from the petitioners."

4. On the other hand, the respondents took the stand that the

Regulations of 2022 came into force with effect from the Gazette

Notification dated 16th February 2022 and the appellants who had

already exhausted the maximum period of ten years from the date

of their admission in B.A.M.S. course cannot be extended the

benefits under the Indian Medicine Central Council (Minimum

Standards of Education in Indian Medicine) (Amendment)

Regulations, 2016. The respondents also pressed in service a

decision by this Court in "Prashant Deep Chitoshiya v. Dr.

Sarvepalli Radhakrishnana Rajasthan Ayurvedic University & Ors."

(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9123/2023).

5. The writ Court dealt with the rival contentions in the

following manner :-

"15. Indisputably, the petitioners have taken admission in the year 2012 & 2013 in the respondents-college and failed in all the subjects of fourth/third year professional examination of the BAMS Course. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9529/2024, the

[2025:RJ-JD:4164-DB] (5 of 11) [SAW-900/2024]

petitioner failed to clear all the subjects of his fourth year professional course and in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9288/2024, the petitioner failed failed in two subjects of his fourth Professional course and in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. No.9409/2024, the petitioner failed in all the subjects of third professional year.

16. This Court finds that the petitioners were earlier governed by the Regulations of 2012, however, the respondent-University by way of communication dated 05.09.2020 (Annex-2) took a conscious decision of not implementing the Regulations of 2016 Regulations of 2016 were made applicable after 30.07.2020. The National Commission for Indian System of Medicine has issued a Gazette Notification dated 16.02.2022 while exercising the powers conferred by sub-Section 55 of the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act, 2020 and has brought into force the Regulations of 2022. The said Regulations of 2022 have come into force with effect from the date of publication in the Official Gazette. As per the Regulations of 2022, the professional examinations are required to be passed and qualified in nine electives within a period of maximum ten years from the date of admission. The petitioners had been denied further attempts by the respondents solely on the ground that the maximum duration of completing the course in maximum ten years from the date of admission is over. The Regulation 11(E) of the Regulations of 2022 is reproduced hereunder:-

"To become eligible for joining the Compulsory Rotatory Internship programme, all three professional examinations shall be passed and qualified in nine electives within a period of maximum ten years from the date of admission."

17. This Court further observes that in the case of Prashant Deep Chitoshiya (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court while dealing with identical and similar controversy, has dismissed the writ petition. The relevant portion of the order passed in the said case reads as under: -

"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):

[2025:RJ-JD:4164-DB] (6 of 11) [SAW-900/2024]

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 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

[2025:RJ-JD:4164-DB] (7 of 11) [SAW-900/2024]

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."

18. In the present case, there is no order passed by the respondent-University giving relaxation that the Regulations of 2022 shall not apply upon the students, who have taken admssion prior to the Regulations of 2016. Thus, in light of the fact that the Regulations of 2022 are in place, the respondents have rightly denied the petitioners from taking further attempts in order to pass the remaining subjects third and fourth year BAMS professional course as the maximum prescribed time limit for completing the BAMS Course of ten years is already over in accordance with the Regulations of 2022.

19. Thus, the present writ petitions are dismissed being bereft of merits. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, stand dismissed."

6. Ms. Shrestha Mathur, the learned counsel for the appellants

submits that the cap of ten years for completing the B.A.M.S.

course if applied to the appellants that shall cause serious

prejudice to them and would amount to depriving them the

benefits accrued to them under the Indian Medicine Central

Council (Minimum Standards of Education in Indian Medicine)

Regulations, 1986 and the Indian Medicine Central Council

(Minimum Standards of Education in Indian Medicine)

(Amendment) Regulations, 2012 which were in force as on the

date of their admission. The learned counsel for the appellants

relied on the decisions in "Govind Soni v. Registrar, Dr. Sarvepalli

Radhakrishnana Rajasthan Ayurvedic University & Ors." (S.B. Civil

Writ Petition No.7789/2019), "Ravindra Kumar v. Dr. Sarvepalli

Radhakrishnana Rajasthan Ayurvedic University & Ors." (S.B. Civil

[2025:RJ-JD:4164-DB] (8 of 11) [SAW-900/2024]

Writ Petition No.5679/2020), "Sahil Bangra v. Dr. Sarvepalli

Radhakrishnana Rajasthan Ayurvedic University & Ors." (S.B. Civil

Writ Petition No.8767 of 2023), "Prashant Deep Chitoshiya v.

Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnana Rajasthan Ayurvedic University &

Ors." (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9123/2023) and "Mohit Sharma

v. Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnana Rajasthan Ayurvedic University

& Ors." (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9529/2024) to challenge the

writ Court's decision dated 30th May 2024.

7. To start that, we are inclined to observe that the writ Court

generally does not interfere in academic matters and that too with

the decision of the Academic Regulator. It confirms to the reason

that the duration of passing a professional course should be

limited or, else, indefinite period provided to a student for

completing a professional course may result in diluting the

standard of the requisite knowledge and expertise of the

candidates. Secondly, the judgments in "Ravindra Kumar" and

"Sahil Bangra" must be held to have lost its force after the

decisions in "Prashant Deep Chitoshiya" and "Mohit Sharma" were

delivered by this Court. In fact, the facts of the present Special

Appeals are similar to "Mohit Sharma" who had already exhausted

the maximum prescribed time limit of 10 years for completing the

B.A.M.S. course under the Regulations of 2022 and, therefore, he

was not permitted to appear in the examination to clear his

remaining papers in third and fourth year of the B.A.M.S. course.

No matter that under the Regulations of 1986 and 2012 there was

no cap and as on the date when the present appellants took

admission those were in force, the appellants cannot seek parity

and similar treatment with "Govind Soni", "Ravindra Kumar" and

[2025:RJ-JD:4164-DB] (9 of 11) [SAW-900/2024]

"Sahil Bagra". This is too well settled that the writ Court cannot

pass an order contrary to the statutory provisions and the

equitable considerations have limitations and that must stop to

operate and that cannot operate against the law. Under Regulation

No.11(E), a candidate taking the B.A.M.S. course is required to

pass three professional examinations in order to become eligible

to join the compulsory internship and he is also required to pass

these examinations without elective within a period of ten years

from the date of admission. Now, if the plea of the appellants who

took admission in the year 2012/2013 is accepted they would

continue the B.A.M.S. course for about 17-18 years. The National

Commission for Indian System of Medicine is the academic

regulator which has issued Gazette notification dated 16th February

2022 in exercise of its powers under section 55 of the National

Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act, 2020. The decision

in "Govind Soni" and "Sahil Bagra" was distinguished by this Court

in "Prashant Deep Chitoshiya" observing as under :-

"17. This Court further observes that in the case of Prashant Deep Chitoshiya (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court while dealing with identical and similar controversy, has dismissed the writ petition. The relevant portion of the order passed in the said case reads as under:-

"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

[2025:RJ-JD:4164-DB] (10 of 11) [SAW-900/2024]

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 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 JulyAugust 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.

[2025:RJ-JD:4164-DB] (11 of 11) [SAW-900/2024]

10. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.

18. In the present case, there is no order passed by the respondent-University giving relaxation that the Regulations of 2022 shall not apply upon the students, who have taken admission prior to the Regulations of 2016. Thus, in light of the fact that the Regulations of 2022 are in place, the respondents have rightly denied the petitioners from taking further attempts in order to pass the remaining subjects third and fourth year BAMS professional course as the maximum prescribed time limit for completing the BAMS Course of ten years is already over in accordance with the Regulations of 2022."

8. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of

the case, D.B. Special Appeal Writ Nos.795 of 2024 and

900 of 2024 are dismissed.

(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J (SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR),J

53-54 Arjun/-