Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vikas Bishnoi vs National Medical Commission ... on 23 May, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:25240]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
(1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8864/2025
Vikas Vishnoi S/o Shri Kishana Ram, Aged About 24 Years,
Resident Of Digaon, Jalore, Kardan, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Controller Of Examinations, Rajasthan University Of
Health Sciences, Jaipur.
2. Principal And Controller, Government Medical College, Pali
(Raj.).
3. Director, National Medical Commission, Government Of
India, New Delhi.
----Respondents
Connected With
(2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8763/2025
Vikas Bishnoi S/o Om Prakash Bishnoi, Aged About 24 Years,
Resident Of Mokhatara (Bisnoi Ki Dhani), Sewara, Jalore,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. National Medical Commission, Through Its Director, Under
Graduate Medical Examination Board, National Medical
Commission, Government Of India.
2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Health And Family Welfare Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Room No. 2202 Main Building Government
Secretariat, Jaipur - 302005.
3. Rajasthan University Of Health Science, Through Its
Registrar, Sector 18 Rd, Kumbha Marg, Sector 11, Pratap
Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302033
4. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Government Medical College And
Hospital, Sirohi (Rajasthan) Through Its Principal And
Controller.
----Respondents
(3) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8773/2025
Lokesh Kumar Khichar S/o Mohan Lal Khichar, Aged About 23
Years, Resident Of Jaato Ka Vaas, Dadrewa, Churu, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 26/05/2025 at 09:36:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:25240] (2 of 16) [CW-8864/2025]
----Petitioner
Versus
1. National Medical Commission, Through Its Director, Under
Graduate Medical Examination Board, National Medical
Commission, Government Of India.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Health And Family Welfare Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Room No. 2202 Main Building Government
Secretariat, Jaipur - 302005.
3. Rajasthan University Of Health Science, Through Its
Registrar, Sector 18 Rd, Kumbha Marg, Sector 11, Pratap
Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302033.
4. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Government Medical College And
Hospital, Sirohi (Rajasthan) Through Its Principal And
Controller.
----Respondents
(4) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9177/2025
Nirmal Seervi S/o Shri Bhawar Lal, Aged About 22 Years, R/o
Bera - Matawa, Village Musaliya, Sojat City, District Pali,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Health And Family Welfare Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. National Medical Commission, Through Its Director, Under
Graduate Medical Examination Board, National Medical
Commission, Government Of India.
3. Rajasthan University Of Health Science, Through Its
Registrar, Jaipur.
4. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Government Medical College And
Hospital, Sirohi (Rajasthan), Through Its Principal And
Controller.
----Respondents
(5) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9476/2025
Himanshu Joshi S/o Dwarka Prasad, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Bichala Bas Ward No.8, Gogasar Ratangarh District Churu.
(Downloaded on 26/05/2025 at 09:36:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:25240] (3 of 16) [CW-8864/2025]
----Petitioner
Versus
1. National Medical Commission, Through Its Director, Under
Graduate Medical Examination Board, National Medical
Commission, Government Of India.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Health And Family Welfare Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Room No. 2202 Main Building Government
Secretariat, Jaipur - 302005.
3. Rajasthan University Of Health Science, Through Its
Registrar, Sector 18 Rd, Kumbha Marg, Sector 11, Pratap
Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302033.
4. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Government Medical College And
Hospital, Sirohi (Rajasthan) Through Its Principal And
Controller.
----Respondents
(6) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9550/2025
Bhagirath Ram S/o Shri Kishna Ram, Aged About 26 Years,
Resident Of Vtc Meghawa Po Sanchore, Jalore, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Controller Of Examinations, Rajasthan University Of
Health Sciences, Jaipur.
2. Principal And Controller, Dr. S.N. Medical College And
Associated Group Of Hospitals, Jodhpur (Raj).
3. Director, National Medical Commission, Government Of
India, New Delhi.
----Respondents
(7) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9594/2025
Chetan Ram S/o Shri Rama Ram, Aged About 23 Years,
Resident Of Village Lakhasar, Post Sodiyar, Tehsil Chohtan,
District Barmer (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. National Medical Commission, Pocket-14, Sector-8,
(Downloaded on 26/05/2025 at 09:36:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:25240] (4 of 16) [CW-8864/2025]
Dwarka Phase-I, New Delhi - 110077, Through The
Secretary.
2. The Director, Under-Graduate Medical Entrance Board,
National Commission, Pocket-14, Sector-8, Dwarka
Phase-I, New Delhi - 110077.
3. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Education Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
4. The Director, Rajasthan Medical Education Society,
Jaipur.
5. Rajasthan University Of Health Sciences, Secotr-18,
Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur (Raj.),
Through The Registrar.
6. The Principal And Controller, Government Medical
College, Barmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Divik Mathur with
Mr. Mayank Rajpurohit
Mr. Saurabh Rajpurohit for
Mr. Ramdev Rajpurohit
Mr. Pankaj Choudhary
Mr. Mrinal Khatri and
Mr. Naresh Kumar Bishnoi for
Mr. S.K. Verma
Mr. Deepak Nehra
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG assisted by
Ms. Rakhi Choudhary
Mr. Siddharth Tatia for National
Medical Commission
Ms. Akshiti Singhvi for Rajasthan
University for Health Science
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
JUDGMENT
REPORTABLE 23/05/2025
1. By way of this bunch of writ petitions, the petitioners have
approached this Court feeling aggrieved of the order(s) of
suspension, which their respective colleges have passed pursuant
[2025:RJ-JD:25240] (5 of 16) [CW-8864/2025]
to the directions issued by the respondent - National Medical
Commission (hereinafter referred to as the NMC')'.
2. Short of unwarranted details, briefly stated facts appertain
are that there is allegation against each of the petitioners that
they impersonated other candidates in NEET UG Examination -
2023; some of them have been caught red handed while others
were found involved in impersonation consequent to the
investigation, which the investigating officers had carried out.
3. Against each of the petitioners, FIRs have been lodged;
inquiry is underway or the charge-sheet has been filed. Some of
them have been charge-sheeted and in remaining cases, charge-
sheet is yet to be filed.
4. While maintaining that the petitioners have been wrongly
implicated, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that even if
it is assumed that they were guilty of impersonating for the
candidates appearing in NEET UG Examination, they cannot be
suspended from their college(s), as there is no enabling provision
in any statute. Learned counsel submitted that 'the Public
Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024 (hereinafter
referred to as the Act of 2024') though provides for punishment
but does not contain any provision for suspension from the
college(s).
5. Learned counsel submitted that somewhat similar
Regulations have been promulgated by the Central Government in
the name of Prevention and Prohibition of Ragging in Medical
Colleges and Institutions Regulations, 2021 (hereinafter referred
to as the Regulations, 2021')' and Regulation No.24 thereof
provides for suspension from attending classes and academic
[2025:RJ-JD:25240] (6 of 16) [CW-8864/2025]
privileges, withholding or withdrawing scholarship and other
benefits, but so far as accusation of appearing as imposters in the
examination is concerned, no statute provides for suspension or
other like action.
6. Learned counsel argued that the trial of the case(s) shall
take substantial time and until the case(s) are tried and finally
decided, the petitioners cannot be kept suspended, particularly
when there is no provision for holding or conducting inquiry in this
regard.
7. Learned counsel further submitted that even if the college(s)
or the NMC conducts an inquiry, it has no material or evidence
either to hold the petitioners guilty or to hold them innocent,
because the entire material is with the police or the investigating
agencies. They, therefore, submitted that the petitioners'
suspension be quashed and they be allowed to attend the classes
and appear in the examination and complete their courses, in
accordance with law.
8. Mr. Siddharth Tatia, learned counsel for the NMC while
vehemently opposing the petitioners' prayer, invited Court's
attention towards the reply filed by him and submitted that the
NMC has power to lay down policies for maintaining a high quality
and high standards in medical education and make necessary
regulations in this regard and lay down policy and codes to ensure
observance of professional ethics in medical profession as per
section 10(1) of the National Medical Commission Act, 2019
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2019').
9. He submitted that section 24 of the Act of 2019 confers
powers upon Under-Graduate Medical Education Board to
[2025:RJ-JD:25240] (7 of 16) [CW-8864/2025]
determine standard of medical education at Under-Graduate level
and oversee all aspects relating thereto. Drawing Court's attention
towards sub-clause (1)(i) of section 24 of the Act of 2019, he
argued that said Board has power to specify norms for compulsory
annual disclosures, electronically or otherwise, by medical
institutions, in respect of their functions that has a bearing on the
interest of all stakeholders, including students, faculty, the
Commission and the Central Government.
10. Having read section 10 and 24 of the Act of 2019, learned
counsel argued that the NMC indisputably has the power and duty
to ensure high standards of medical education and professional
ethics not only for the doctors, but also for the Under-Graduate
students.
11. Learned counsel thereafter took the Court through the
Guidelines, which the NMC has framed being Competency Based
Medical Education Guidelines, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Guidelines of 2023'), which have come into force w.e.f.
01.08.2023, more particularly towards Guideline No.4(k) and
Guideline No.7 thereof in a bid to argue that the Central
Government has framed these Guidelines to ensure personal
integrity, professional excellence and ethical standards of the
medical students.
12. Learned counsel then navigated the Court through the
relevant provisions of the Act of 2024 and submitted that as per
section 2(1)(a) of the Act of 2024, a 'candidate' means - a person,
who has been granted permission by the public examination
authority to appear in public examination and includes a person
[2025:RJ-JD:25240] (8 of 16) [CW-8864/2025]
authorised to act as a scribe on his behalf in the public
examination.
13. Explaining the meaning of the expression 'candidate',
learned counsel argued that a person, who appears for another
candidate is included in the definition of 'candidate' and submitted
that as per the definition of 'organized crime' in sub-clause (h) of
section 2(1) of the Act of 2024, the unlawful acts of the petitioners
amount to organized crime. He argued that in any case, the
conduct of the petitioners falls within the ambit of 'unfair means'
as defined in section 3 of the Act of 2024.
14. Having thoroughly read and underscored the above referred
statutory provisions, learned counsel contended that the
petitioners' act is not only unethical but also unbecoming of an
Under-Graduate student and their act of impersonating and
appearing for other NEET UG aspirants amounts to organized
crime under the Act of 2024.
15. He alternatively argued that the NMC has simply asked the
respective college(s) to take action and place those students
under suspension and the Court may at the best direct the
colleges to conclude the inquiry, but until such inquiry is complete,
they cannot be allowed to continue their studies, as the same
would have adverse impact on the reputation of not only the
colleges/institutions, but also of the NMC - the apex body, which
is responsible for standard of medical profession.
16. Ms. Akshiti Singhvi learned counsel appearing on behalf of
Rajasthan University of Health Sciences also opposed the
petitioners' prayer by contending that if such students, who are
accused of impersonation, are allowed to continue their studies,
[2025:RJ-JD:25240] (9 of 16) [CW-8864/2025]
other students will also be impelled to indulge in such malpractices
and such act of theirs will have an adverse impact on quality of
medical education and would cause dent in the discipline, for
which the University is responsible.
17. It was also argued by Ms. Singhvi that no interim order can
be passed in the cases like the ones in hands, as there is no
irreparable loss or injury. Because, if ultimately the petitioners are
acquitted of the charges, the college(s) will take appropriate
decision with regard to petitioners' further studies.
18. Heard learned counsel for the parties and waded through the
relevant provisions, which are cited by Mr. Tatia, learned counsel
for the NMC.
19. For ready reference, relevant provisions relied upon by the
counsel are reproduced hereinfra:-
(A) Regulation 24 (5) of the Prevention and
Prohibition of Ragging in Medical Colleges and
Institutions Regulations, 2021 -
(5) The nature of punitive actions that may be decided
shall include the following, but shall not be limited to
one or more of these actions that may be imposed, as
deemed fit, namely:--
(i) suspension from attending classes and academic
privileges;
(ii) withholding or withdrawing scholarship or fellowship
and other benefits;
(B) Section 10 of the National Medical Commission
Act, 2019:-
10. Powers and functions of Commission.--(1) The
Commission shall perform the following functions,
namely:--
[2025:RJ-JD:25240] (10 of 16) [CW-8864/2025]
(a) lay down policies for maintaining a high quality and
high standards in medical education and make
necessary regulations in this behalf;
(h) lay down policies and codes to ensure observance of
professional ethics in medical profession and to
promote ethical conduct during the provision of care by
medical practitioners;
Section 24 of the National Medical Commission
Act, 2019:-
24. Powers and functions of Under-Graduate
Medical Education Board.-- (1) The Under- Graduate
Medical Education Board shall perform the following
functions, namely:--
(a) determine standards of medical education at
undergraduate level and oversee all aspects relating
thereto;
.........
(i) specify norms for compulsory annual disclosures,
electronically or otherwise, by medical institutions, in
respect of their functions that has a bearing on the
interest of all stakeholders including students, faculty,
the Commission and the Central Government;
(j) exercise such other powers and perform such other
functions as may be prescribed.
(C) Guideline 4(k) and 7 of the Competency Based
Medical Education Guidelines, 2023:-
4.Institutional Goals of Guidelines of 2023:-
In consonance with the national goals, each medical
institution should evolve institutional goals to define the
kind of trained manpower (or professionals) they intend
to produce. The Indian Medical Graduates coming out of
a medical institute should:
.........
(k). Have personal characteristics and attitudes
required for professional life including personal
integrity, sense of responsibility and dependability and
[2025:RJ-JD:25240] (11 of 16) [CW-8864/2025]
ability to relate to or show concern for other
individuals.
7. Lifelong learner committed to continuous
improvement of skills and knowledge
Professional who is committed to excellence, is ethical,
responsive and accountable to patients, community and
the profession-
● Practice selflessness, integrity, responsibility,
accountability and respect.
● Respect and maintain professional boundaries
between patients, colleagues and society.
● Demonstrate ability to recognize and manage ethical
and professional conflicts.
● Abide by prescribed ethical and legal codes of conduct
and practice.
● Demonstrate a commitment to the growth of the
medical profession as awhile.
(D) Provisions of the Public Examination
(Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024:-
Section 2. (1) - definition clause -
(a) "candidate" means a person who has been granted
permission by the public examination authority to
appear in public examination and includes a person
authorised to act as a scribe on his behalf in the public
examination;
.........
(h) "organised crime" means an unlawful activity
committed by a person or a group of persons indulging
in unfair means in collusion and conspiracy to pursue or
promote a shared interest for wrongful gain in respect
of a public examination;
(i) "person associated with a service provider" means a
person who performs services for or on behalf of such
service provider irrespective of whether such person is
an employee or an agent or a subsidiary of such service
provider, as the case may be;
Section 3. Unfair Means- The unfair means relating
to the conduct of a public examination shall include any
act or omission done or caused to be done by any
[2025:RJ-JD:25240] (12 of 16) [CW-8864/2025]
person or group of persons or institutions, and include
but not be restricted to, any of the following acts for
monetary or wrongful gain--
(v) directly or indirectly assisting the candidate in any
manner unauthorisedly in the public examination;
(x) deliberate violation of security measures to facilitate
unfair means in conduct of a public examination;
(xv) conduct of fake examination, issuance of fake
admit cards or offer letters to cheat or for monetary
gain.
20. So far as petitioners' involvement in impersonating for other
students is concerned, this Court does not deem it apt to dilate
upon or to record any finding over such allegation. Any discussion
made or finding recorded herein may not be construed to be an
observation or finding about petitioners' involvement in appearing
for other candidates, because, for that purpose, the investigating
agency and the trial court are the competent authority. The
adjudication made in this case is confined to the power and
propriety of the University/NMC/college in suspending the
petitioners and necessity or the justification for such action.
21. It is usual that the trial of the case takes years and in cases
like the one in hands, which involve allegations of impersonation
and long list of witnesses, such possibilities becomes almost
certainty.
22. So far as the provisions, which Mr. Siddharth Tatia has
brought to the notice of the Court are concerned, they all relate to
NMC's role and power of maintaining high standards, ethical or
educational, about which no Court can have any sort of doubt.
[2025:RJ-JD:25240] (13 of 16) [CW-8864/2025]
23. The Act of 2024, which deals with malpractices in public
examination though provides for punishment but does not contain
any provision for suspension.
24. There is a provision in the form of Regulation No.24 in the
Regulations of 2021, which provides for power to suspend in case
of ragging. But these regulations are confined to the cases of
ragging and naturally, do no provide for suspension in the cases of
impersonation.
25. So far as argument of Mr. Tatia based upon section 24 of the
Act of 2019 and section 2(1)(a) of the Act of 2024 is concerned,
according to this Court the petitioners do not fall within the ambit
of candidate, because it is indicative of the candidate and a
person, who appears for a candidate as a 'scribe'. The petitioners,
who have impersonated on behalf of the candidate can neither be
treated to a candidate nor can they be alleged to be scribes,
because scribe is a person, who has been authorised by the
examining body to appear on behalf of the candidate, whereas,
the allegation against the petitioners is that they have
impersonated the actual candidates and unauthorisedly rather
fraudulently appeared in their place.
26. The petitioners would fall within the contours of a crime or
organized crime as defined under sub-clause (h) of sub-section (1)
of section 2 of the Act of 2024. They may also be treated to be
persons associated with the service provider defined in sub-clause
(i) of sub-section (1) of section 2 and sub-clause (v) of section 3
of the Act of 2024, but whether or not they really fall within the
ambit and scope of these sections will ultimately based upon the
[2025:RJ-JD:25240] (14 of 16) [CW-8864/2025]
evidence adduced by the prosecution and the finding recorded by
the trial court in this regard.
27. Suspension usually presupposes initiation or contemplation
of inquiry. While, observing that no inquiry has so far been
initiated against the petitioners, this Court would like to add that
even if the respondents so wish or propose, no inquiry is possible
because the acts of impersonation were done outside the
college(s) in which the petitioners are studying and because all
the material, oral or occular evidence is with the police and not
with the college(s). Hence, even if an inquiry is conducted, it will
be a futile exercise or a farce.
28. Hence, unless such finding is recorded and petitioners are
held guilty, their future cannot be kept in suspended animation for
indefinite period. Had there been a case of the petitioners getting
admission in the medical course by asking someone else to appear
on their behalf, perhaps this Court would have not granted them
any indulgence on the basis of sympathy or equitable
consideration, because then their merit or eligibility itself was in
doubt.
29. Allegation against each of the petitioners herein is, that they
have impersonated for other students in the NEET UG
Examination. However, so far as their own admission in medical
colleges is concerned, there is no iota of allegation of getting
admission fraudulently or by using unfair means - there is no
quarrel about their merit and eligibility of getting admission in the
medical courses.
30. According to this Court, unless there is any statute or
regulation, which provides for suspension, rustication or even
[2025:RJ-JD:25240] (15 of 16) [CW-8864/2025]
cancellation of the admission of the candidates involved in
impersonation in the examinations, the respondents cannot place
the petitioners under suspension.
31. If the suspension is allowed to continue, the loss would be
irreversible and irreparable, inasmuch as the period which the
criminal trial will take, the petitioners would not be able to
continue with their studies and their future will be left in lurch.
And if, they are ultimately acquitted, they would have lost 3-4
precious years of their student life doing nothing.
32. This Court not even for a moment approves petitioners'
action of impersonation and firmly believes that looking to the
increasing number of such cases, it is high time the Central
Government brings appropriate legislation, but in absence of such
legislation and without any power to suspend, placing the
petitioners under suspension is not only illegal, without
jurisdiction, but also violative of their fundamental rights
guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of
India.
33. The action on the part of the respondents in placing the
petitioners under suspension is like holding them guilty and
punishing them before the competent court convicts them.
34. But, since the allegation against the petitioners is, that they
have appeared for other candidates in subsequent examination,
this Court is persuaded to take somewhat lenient view, however,
with caution and circumspection.
35. The writ petitions are, therefore, allowed.
[2025:RJ-JD:25240] (16 of 16) [CW-8864/2025]
36. The petitioners' suspension order(s) in each of the writ
petitions are, hereby, quashed. Their suspension shall naturally be
treated quashed from the date of order instant.
37. The respondent-college(s) shall forthwith allow them to
attend classes. In case, petitioners fulfill the requisite attendance
criteria, they shall be allowed to appear in the ensuing
examination in accordance with law.
38. The petitioners shall be allowed to complete their course, but
the respondents shall neither issue them degree nor shall they be
registered, unless the trial is concluded and they are acquitted of
the charges.
39. In case, the petitioners are held guilty in the trial, the NMC
shall be free to take appropriate decision in accordance with law,
which may include even cancellation of their admission in the
medical course.
40. Needless to observe that in case, the petitioners are
acquitted, then obviously, they shall be issued degree(s) as soon
as they are acquitted.
41. Stay applications also stand disposed of, accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
48 to 53, 63 - Mak/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
