Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Jitendra Kumar Sharma vs Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnana ... on 18 September, 2025

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:41804]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11403/2025

Jitendra Kumar Sharma S/o Pramod Kumar Sharma, Aged About
28 Years, Vpo- Pehal, Tehsil Mundwara, District Alwar.
                                                                         ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.       Dr.    Sarvepalli        Radhakrishnana           Rajasthan         Ayurvedic
         University, (Dr. S.r.a.u.), University College Of Ayurved,
         Karwad, Jodhpur. Through Its Registrar
2.       Controller Of Examination, Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnana
         Rajasthan Ayurvedic University, University College Of
         Ayurved, Karwad, Jodhpur.
3.       The Mahatma Jyotiba Fule College Of Ayurveda, Nh 11,
         Sikar Road, Harota, Chomu, Jaipur (Raj.) Through Its
         Principal.
                                                                     ----Respondents


                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11404/2025

 Nilam Kumari D/o Shri Raj Kumar, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
 Vpo- Radhabadi, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu, Rajasthan.
                                                                         ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
 1.       Dr.   Sarvepalli        Radhakrishnana          Rajasthan         Ayurvedic
          University, (Dr. S.r.a.u), University College Of Ayurved,
          Karwad, Jodhpur. Through Its Registrar
 2.       Controller         Of       Examination,                 Dr.      Sarvepalli
          Radhakrishnana            Rajasthan          Ayurvedic           University,
          University College Of Ayurved, Karwad, Jodhpur.
 3.       The Mahatma Jyotiba Fule College Of Ayurveda, Nh 11,
          Sikar Road, Harota, Chomu, Jaipur (Raj.) Through Its
          Principal.
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Nitin Goklani
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Suniel Purohit
                                   Mr. Jasraj
                                   Ms. Monika Mudgal


                        (Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 03:48:22 PM)
                       (Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 09:52:49 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:41804]                   (2 of 7)                        [CW-11403/2025]


            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

                                     Order

18/09/2025

1.    The    petitioners   who      are    fourth      year      students   of   the

respondent - Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnana University, by way of

filing the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, have prayed that they may be allowed to complete their

Bachelor of Ayurveda Medicine & Surgery (B.A.M.S) Course

conducted by the respondent - University. Learned counsel for the

petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been denied

permission to appear in the examinations for completing their

B.A.M.S. course on the ground that as per the regulation 11(e) of

the   Indian     System    of     Medicine        (Maximum         Standards      of

Undergraduate Ayurveda Education) Regulations, 2022, which

were brought into force from the date of its publication in the

official gazette, students have to clear the four year professional

examination within a period of ten years. Learned counsel

submitted that while applying Regulation 11(e) of the of 2022

upon the petitioners, the respondent - University has failed to

consider that the National Commission for the Indian System of

Medicine vide an order dated 15.12.2021 provided an extra three

more attempts to the students to clear the B.A.M.S. course owing

to the atmosphere of fear and agony due to the covid-19

pandemic. He submitted that in the present case, the petitioners

have admittedly, not exhausted the said three attempts to clear

their due preliminary papers of B.A.M.S. Course and, therefore,

even after coming into force, the Regulations of 2022, the

petitioners needs to be given an opportunity to clear their due

                      (Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 03:48:22 PM)
                     (Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 09:52:49 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:41804]                      (3 of 7)                       [CW-11403/2025]



papers. It is for the reason that the regular classes and

examination were suspended during the period of covid-19 and

therefore, the said period cannot be completed by the respondents

while calculating the maximum limit of ten years time period for

clearing all professional years of B.A.M.S.

2.    On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioners

submitted that the respondent University may be directed to allow

and permit the petitioners to undertake the examination for their

remaining/due subject of their B.A.M.S course.

3.    Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted

that the petitioners were given admission in B.A.M.S. Course in

the year 2014. The petitioners, despite having sufficient time and

opportunity     could     not     clear      all    the     subjects   of    B.A.M.S.

examination.         Learned     counsel        further      submitted      that   the

controversy in the present case, has already been set to rest by

the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a batch of writ petitions lead

by "Mohit Sharma v. Shekhawati College, Pilani and Ors.":

S.B. CWP. No.9529/2024 decided on 30.05.2024 wherein,

after considering all the applicable regulations, it has been held

that a student, who could not clear all the papers, within the

maximum prescribed period of the ten years, he/she cannot

be allowed to give further attempts to clear the same.

4.    Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the

material available on record.

5.    The judgment passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court

vide order dated 30.05.2024 in the case of Mohit Sharma

(supra) is reproduced herein below for ready reference:-
            "....14.    I have heard learned counsel for the
        parties and have perused the material available on record.

                         (Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 03:48:22 PM)
                        (Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 09:52:49 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:41804]                    (4 of 7)                    [CW-11403/2025]


        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 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 byway of communication dated
        05.09.2020 (Annex-2) took a conscious decision of not
        implementing the Regulations of 2016 upon the students
        who had taken admission prior to 2017 and the 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.

(Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 03:48:22 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41804] (5 of 7) [CW-11403/2025]

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 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

(Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 03:48:22 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:41804] (6 of 7) [CW-11403/2025]

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."

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.

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

6. Having perused the judgment passed by this Court in the

case of Mohit Sharma (supra) and Regulations of 2022, this

Court finds that Regulations of 2022 were issued in supersession

to all existing orders and regulations. Thus, this Court finds that

after coming into force the Regulation of 2022, a candidate who

could not clear all three professional examinations of B.A.M.S.

within a period of maximum ten years from the date of admission,

could not have been allowed further attempts by the respondent-

University to clear the due/remaining papers and therefore

respondent- University has thus committed no illegality in

debarring the petitioners from appearing in the examinations to