Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shri Balaji Shikshan Sansthan vs Rajasthan University Of Health And ... on 13 November, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:47997]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12006/2025
Shri Balaji Shikshan Sansthan, (Shree Balaji College Of
Pharmacy) C/o 205 Subhash Nagar, Bhilwara, Rajasthan,
Through Its President Shree Pramod Tiwari S/o Shri Gopal Lal
Tiwari, Aged About 41 Years.
----Petitioner
Versus
Rajasthan University Of Health And Science, Through Its
Registrar, Kumbha Marg, Partap Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankur Mathur
Mr. Harshvardhan Thanvi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahendra Vishnoi.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
Conclusion of Arguments &
Reserved on : 07/11/2025
Pronounced on : 13/11/2025
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the
following prayer :-
"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition may
kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or
direction:-
(i) The record of the case may kindly be called for;
(ii) The respondent may kindly be directed to enroll 20
students of D. Pharma Course of petitioner Institution for
academic session 2024-25,
(iii) The respondents may be directed to allow the students to
appear in their respective examinations,
(iv) That the respondent University may be directed to treat
them regular students along with the other students and to
grant all the benefits to the students,
(v) Cost of litigation and damages may also be allowed in
favour of the petitioner,
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:29:23 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47997] (2 of 9) [CW-12006/2025]
(vi) Any other appropriate writ or order or direction which is
favourable to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the
case may kindly be granted to the petitioner."
2. The facts brief as narrated in the writ petition are that the
petitioner - Institution is running D.Pharma course on the basis of
approval granted by the Pharmacy Council of India ('PCI') vide its
decision dated 30.09.2004 with intake capacity of 60 seats for the
academic year 2024-25. The case set out by the petitioner -
Institution in the present writ petition is that admission to the
students for D.Pharma course for the academic year 2024-25 was
given and as per the guidelines, the names of the students
admitted by the petitioner - Institution were required to be
uploaded on the web-portal of the respondent - University for
enrollment of the students. The last date to upload the list of
students was 03.04.2025, however, name of 20 students, out of
60 students, could not be uploaded within time i.e. 03.04.2025.
2.1 The grievance raised in the petition is with regard to those
20 students, whose names could not be uploaded on the web-
portal of the University.
2.2 Based on the above facts, the present writ petition has been
preferred with the prayer that the respondents may be directed to
enroll those 20 students for the academic year 2024-25.
3. Mr. Ankur Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the details of 20 students to be enrolled by the
respondent University could not be uploaded on the web-portal of
the respondent - University on account of technical glitch and in
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:29:23 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47997] (3 of 9) [CW-12006/2025]
this regard a communication was sent on 26.03.2025 (Annex.3)
through e-mail to the respondent.
3.1 An additional affidavit was filed, in which a copy of the
communication dated 03.04.2025 was placed on record. Relying
on the said communication, it is stated that the communication
was sent to the respondent University on 03.04.2025 and same
was received, as is apparent from the seal embossed on the said
communication (Annex.4).
3.2 The petitioner has also filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the
respondent - University and has placed on record the
communication dated 29.11.2024 while contending that a
complete list of the students, who were given admissions in
D.Pharma course for Session 2024-25 was sent and the same was
received by the respondent - University on 02.12.2024, as is
apparent from the seal embossed on the said communication.
3.3 While relying on the above documents, learned counsel for
the petitioner submitted that the particulars of some of the
students could not be uploaded on the web-portal of the
respondent University due to purely a technical glitch and
therefore, the respondent University ought to have enrolled such
students while considering the request made by the petitioner
Institution.
3.4 Based on the above submissions, learned counsel for the
petitioner prayed that the present writ petition be allowed and the
respondent - University be directed to enroll the particulars of 20
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:29:23 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47997] (4 of 9) [CW-12006/2025]
students, whose names could not be uploaded by the petitioner -
Institution on account of technical glitch.
3.5 Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on judgment
passed by this Court on 26.09.2024 while deciding SBCWP
No.4421/2023 and submitted that considering somewhat similar
matter, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has directed the
respondent - University to enroll the students and may further
allow them to pursue the course in which they have been given
admissions.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently
opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the
petitioner. He submitted that the writ petition is based on totally
false averments. The petitioner - Institution participated in the
centralized counselling process and as many as 18 students were
allotted to the petitioner - Institution. After completion of
counselling process, permission was granted to all the affiliated
colleges to fill up remaining vacant seats at their own level,
subject to the strict observance of the eligibility criteria prescribed
for the D. Pharma course. The last date for granting admission in
the D.Pharma course was 30.11.2024. The affiliated colleges were
required to upload the details of such admitted students on the
web-portal of the University by 14.12.2024 which was extended
upto 21.12.2024. The petitioner - Institution failed to upload the
details of such students within the prescribed time limit. As a
matter of fact, the admissions were, in fact, granted after the cut-
off date, which is not permissible as per the applicable norms.
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:29:23 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47997] (5 of 9) [CW-12006/2025]
4.1 The petitioner has, in fact, misrepresented the facts before
this Court by submitting that 03.04.2025 was the last date for
submitting the details on the web-portal of the respondent -
University. As a matter of fact, last date for taking admission on
the college level other than those made through counselling was
30.11.2024 and the details of such students was to be uploaded
by 21.12.2024. The reason for not uploading the names of
admitted students on account of technical glitch is absolutely
without any basis. The University's online portal remained fully
functional throughout the relevant period as several other
affiliated colleges successfully uploaded their admission details
without any technical difficulty. That being so, the reason assigned
for not uploading the details is without any foundation nor there is
any material to establish this fact.
4.2 While countering the submission made in the rejoinder,
learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the
communication dated 29.11.2024 as annexed with the rejoinder
was never received by the respondent - University. The list of 45
students attached with the said communication was also never
received by the respondent - University. As a matter of fact, the
petitioner has given different figures with regard to the admission
given by the petitioner - Institution. In the writ petition it is stated
that as many as names of 20 students could not be uploaded on
the web-portal of the respondent - University. The documents
annexed with the writ petition do not give exact figures so also the
names of the persons, whose names could not be uploaded. The
list as submitted along with the rejoinder, which relates to 45
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:29:23 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47997] (6 of 9) [CW-12006/2025]
students, clearly indicate that the petitioner - Institution has given
admission to numerous students after the cut-off date and has not
disclosed the correct figures. The register as maintained by the
respondent -University, which contains the details of letters
received does not contain details of any communication received
by the respondent - University from the petitioner - Institution as
alleged in the rejoinder. That being so, the writ petition is based
on incorrect and false facts and therefore, the writ petition filed by
the petitioner deserves to be dismissed.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
6. It is to be noted that last date for admission in D.Pharma
course for the academic year 2024-25 was 30.11.2024 and the
details of the admitted students were required to be uploaded by
21.12.2024. The petitioner - Institution is contending that the list
was attempted to be uploaded on 29.11.2024 and when the said
attempt failed, a communication was made on that very day i.e.
on 29.11.2024 itself which was received by the respondent -
University on 02.12.2024. This factual assertion made by the
petitioner is denied by learned counsel for the respondent. In
support of such submission, learned counsel for the respondent
has also placed on record the inward register maintained by the
respondent - University for registering the details of the
communication received. In the writ petition, the petitioner has
alleged 03.04.2025 as last date to upload the names of students,
however, this fact was specifically denied by the respondent. In
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:29:23 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47997] (7 of 9) [CW-12006/2025]
rejoinder, this fact is not disputed by the petitioner. That being so,
the last date of giving admission was 30.11.2024 and last date of
uploading details was 21.12.2024.
6.1 Considering the submissions made by the parties, this Court
is of the firm opinion that the assertion made by the petitioner
with regard to technical glitch so also the communication dated
29.11.2024 (alleged to have been received by the respondent -
University on 02.12.2024) is incorrect. The reason being is
inconsistency in the averments made by the petitioner with regard
to the number of students, whose names could not be uploaded
on the web-portal of the respondent - University by the last cut-
off date. It is to be noted that the list of 26 students, attached
with the e-mail dated 13.10.2025, is inconsistent with the letter
dated 29.11.2024 consisting of 45 students so also the allegation
of technical glitch is also not supported by the circumstances as
other institutes have not reported any such issue of technical
glitch. The fact that the petitioner, in earlier communication, has
purposefully not given details of number of seats and contended
that names of some of the students could not be uploaded, clearly
indicates that the issue of technical glitch raised by the petitioner
is an after thought which further indicates that admissions appear
to have been given to such students after the cut-off date.
6.2 The fact that the names were not uploaded by the cut-off
date and the inconsistent statement with regard to the number of
students, who were given admissions, further reflects the bonafide
of petitioner - Institution. It is to be further noted that though the
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:29:23 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47997] (8 of 9) [CW-12006/2025]
petitioner has made prayer that the respondent be directed to
enroll 20 students for D.Pharma Course, but surprisingly, the list
of such 20 students has neither been provided in the writ petition
nor in the additional affidavit. A list of students has been annexed
with the rejoinder, however, that contains list of 45 students. The
e-mail dated 29.10.2025 has been placed on record, which
appears to have been sent after filing of the present writ petition
referring to two attachments, however, even the said
communication does not clearly depict the names of such 20
students. Considering the above inconsistency so also considering
the false assertions made in the writ petition, this Court is not
inclined to grant any relief.
6.3. It is to be noted that with the merger of technology in
different sectors, certain impediments are bound to occur
however, while adjudicating writs wherein issues are flagged
regarding error/glitches on account of technology, it is to be borne
in mind that such issues are factual disputes. Therefore, unless it
is clearly brought on record before the writ court as to who is
responsible for the technological error/glitch, this Court keeping in
view the settled position of law that purely factual issues ought
not to be delved into while exercising writ jurisdiction, deems it
appropriate to exercise restrain while deciding such factual issues.
Therefore, as observed in preceding paras, relevant information of
students concerned so also the technical glitch has not been
stated before this Court in unambiguous terms hence, the liability
of glitch, if any, on the online portal, cannot be fastened upon the
respondents.
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:29:23 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:47997] (9 of 9) [CW-12006/2025]
7. The judgment relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner
is distinguishable on facts. In the said case, the reason for not
providing the details was on account of some communication gap
so also the writ petition was filed by the students and lapse of not
uploading of names was alleged on part of the college, more so,
in the said case an interim order was granted, whereby petitioners
therein were provisionally allowed to appear. It is to be noted that
in the said case, the respondent - University imposed a fine /
penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of committing irregularity in
giving admission.
7.1 Therein, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while allowing
the writ petition considered the fact that the communication was
made by the college therein on 04.01.2023 to the respondent -
University before the last date of enrollment i.e. on 05.01.2023.
Considering this fact so also the interim order as well as the fact
that college therein deposited the fine / penalty of Rs.1,00,000/-,
the lapse / irregularity as committed by the college was held to be
rectified. Therefore, no case is made out for seeking parity on the
basis of such judgment.
8. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed.
9. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J
Rmathur/-
(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 10:29:23 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
