[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajasthan Para Medical Council vs Shailendra Kumar Meena ... on 20 January, 2026
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2026:RJ-JD:3336-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 747/2022
Rajasthan Para Medical Council, Jaipur, Through Its Registrar, G-
1, Kishan Bhawan, Lalkothi, Jaipur. Presently At C-7A, Sultan
House, Sawai Jai Singh Highway, Bani Park, Jaipur (Raj.).
----Appellant
Versus
1. Umesh Meena S/o Hari Ram Meena, Village Jeera, Post
Bihada, Tehsil Jahazpur, District Bhilwara (Raj.).
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan University Of Health Sciences Jaipur, Through
The Registrar.
4. Krishna College Of Life Sciences, Near Krishna Hospital,
R.c. Vyas Colony, Devriya Balaji Road, Bhilwara, Through
Its Principal.
5. Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education through its
Secretary, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 939/2022
Rajasthan Para Medical Council, Jaipur Through Its Registrar, G-
1, Kishan Bhawan, Lal Kothi, Jaipur. Presently At C-7A, Sultan
House, Sawai Jai Singh Highway, Bani Park, Jaipur (Raj.).
----Appellant
Versus
1. Shailendra Kumar Meena S/o Shri Shivraj Meena,
Resident Of Village Zeera, Post Bihara, Tehsil Jhazpur,
District Bhilwara (Raj.).
2. Gopal Lal Mali S/o Shri Shyam Lal Mali, Resident Of Ward
No. 17, Vilvapada, Ghatol, Banswara (Raj.).
3. Yogesh Kumar Gour S/o Shri Mithu Lal Gour, Resident Of
55, Brahmpuri Gali, Bhanuja, Chittorgarh (Raj.).
4. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
5. Rajasthan University Of Health Sciences, Jaipur Through
Its Registrar.
(Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 06:23:42 PM)
(Downloaded on 22/01/2026 at 08:36:16 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:3336-DB] (2 of 7) [SAW-747/2022]
6. Maharana Pratap Institute Of Paramedical Science And
Technology, 69 Kidwai Nagar, Behind Icici Bank, Near Bus
Stand, District Chittorgarh Through Its Principal.
7. Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education through its
Secretary, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bhavit Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dinesh Kumar Godara
Mr. Harshvardhan Singh Shaktawat
Mr. OP Kumawat
Mr. Mahendra Vishnoi
Mr. Navneet Singh Birkh
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Order
20/01/2026
1. The instant special appeals have been preferred by the
appellant - Rajasthan Para Medical Council, Jaipur - challenging
the order dated 05.07.2022 and 15.07.2022 passed by the
learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petitions filed by the
respondents/writ petitioners have been allowed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Rajasthan Para Medical
Council, Jaipur, vide its notification dated 18.12.2015, invited
online applications from eligible candidates for the session 2015-
16 for various para-medical diploma courses. The eligibility criteria
for admission are prescribed in Rule 51(1) of the Rajasthan Para-
Medical Council Regulations, 2014, which governs the field and
reads as follows :-
"51. Eligibility criteria for admission:-
(1) The minimum qualification for admission to the
Para-medical Diploma Courses shall be Senior
(Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 06:23:42 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:3336-DB] (3 of 7) [SAW-747/2022]
Secondary (10+2) Science (including any sub
category of science subject) with minimum 45 percent
marks in aggregate. Minimum aggregate marks for
the Candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes, Backward Class or Special
Backward Class shall be 40 percent. Allotment shall
be made on the basis of marks obtained in 10+2
examination. Preference in admission shall be given
to bonafide residents of Rajasthan."
2.1. The respondents/writ petitioners applied for admission to
Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology (DMLT) and Diploma in
Radiation Technology (DRT) and qualified on merit. However, vide
communication dated 21.02.2017 issued by the Registrar,
Rajasthan Para Medical Council, Jaipur, their candidature was
rejected on the ground that they did not possess the qualification
as prescribed under Rule 51(1) of the Rajasthan Para-Medical
Council Regulations, 2014. Aggrieved thereby, the writ petitions
were filed.
2.2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, learned
Single Judge held that the respondents/writ petitioners possessed
the qualification of Senior Secondary Certificate with Agriculture
as the group/subject stream, as mentioned in their mark-sheets.
The learned Single Judge has also placed reliance on the judgment
in Avneesh Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ
Misc. Application No.08/2021), decided on 04.10.2021 by the
Jaipur Bench, and observed that since the subjects of Biology and
Chemistry were included and Agriculture was merely an additional
subject/group, the petitioners were entitled to pursue the diploma
courses in question. Accordingly, the communication/order dated
(Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 06:23:42 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:3336-DB] (4 of 7) [SAW-747/2022]
21.02.2017 issued by the Rajasthan Para Medical Council was
quashed and set aside.
3. Mr. Bhavit Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant
appearing for Rajasthan Para Medical Council, Jaipur, while
assailing the impugned judgment, submitted that the
group/stream under which the senior secondary qualification was
obtained by the respondents is Agriculture, and even though the
mark-sheets mention Biology and Chemistry, these subjects are
not similar to the curriculum of Chemistry and Biology taught
under the broader Science stream.
3.1 Learned counsel for Rajasthan Para Medical Council, Jaipur,
along with learned counsel Mr. Navneet Singh Birkh appearing for
the Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education, have taken us to the
expert reports, which has been brought on record, in which, it is
reflected that in class 11th, due to basic chemistry being common,
both streams have approximately 70% similarity in curriculum but
science stream has more depth whereas agricultural chemistry
lacks that much depth; in class 12th, the science faculty and
agriculture faculty's chemistry curriculum has only about 20%
similarity; and the biology curriculum in science stream (Biology)
and agriculture stream (Biology) is quite similar but agriculture
stream includes study of plants and harmful/beneficial organisms
in agriculture while science stream biology includes study of
plants, animals and humans, and overall biology subject
curriculum in both streams is approximately 80% similar. It is
reflected that the expert report has specifically concluded that
(Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 06:23:42 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:3336-DB] (5 of 7) [SAW-747/2022]
senior secondary science and senior secondary agricultural science
are not equivalent, the extract of the expert report is as follows ;-
"विज्ञान संकाय की समकक्षता के संबंध में प्रातः 11.00 बजे बैठक आयोजित की गई
जिसमें गठित कमेटी द्वारा निम्नानुसार सर्वसम्मत निर्णय किया गया
1) कक्षा-11 एवं कक्षा 12 में रसायन विज्ञान के अन्तर्गत पाठ्य पुस्तकें विज्ञान संकाय
में रसायन विज्ञान (भाग 1 व भाग 2) के नाम से तथा कृषि विज्ञान में कृषि रसायन के
नाम से हैं ।
2) कक्षा-11 में मूलभूत रसायन होने के कारण दोनों संकायों का लगभग 70%
पाठ्यक्रम में समानता है ले किन विज्ञान संकाय में विस्तार अधिक है जबकि कृषि रसायन
में उतना विस्तार नहीं हैं ।
3) कक्षा-12 में विज्ञान संकाय एवं कृषि संकाय के रसायन विज्ञान के पाठ्यक्रम में
लगभग 20% ही समानता है ।
4) विज्ञान वर्ग (जीवविज्ञान) और कृषिवर्ग (जीव विज्ञान) का पाठ्यक्रम कापी मिलता
है लेकिन कृषि वर्ग में पादप के तथा कृषि में नुकसानदायक एवं लाभदायक जीवजन्तु से
संबंधित अध्ययन है जबकि विज्ञान-वर्ग की जीव विज्ञान में पादप-जन्तु व मानव से
संबंधित अध्ययन है । दोनों ही वर्गों का जीवविज्ञान विषय का पाठ्यक्रम लगभग 80%
मिलता है ।
5) विज्ञान संकाय में भौतिक विज्ञान विषय भी संचालित है जो कृषि संकाय में संचालित
नहीं है , तथा कृषि संकाय में कृषि विज्ञान विषय संचालित है जो विज्ञान संकाय में
संचालित नहीं है ।
उपरोक्त बिन्दुओं के आधार पर यह अनुशंषा की जाती है कि सी०सै० विज्ञान एवं सी०सै०
कृषि विज्ञान समकक्ष नहीं है , निर्णयार्थ प्रस्तुत हैं ।"
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/writ
petitioners/students contended that since certain portions of the
syllabus were similar and broadly the subjects of Biology and
Chemistry were common, the respondents may be held eligible in
terms of Rule 51(1) of the Rajasthan Para-Medical Council
Regulations, 2014.
5. This Court is of the opinion that the opinion of experts should
not ordinarily be departed from unless something very glaring or
perverse is pointed out. On careful examination, the expert report
(Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 06:23:42 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:3336-DB] (6 of 7) [SAW-747/2022]
clearly distinguishes the syllabus of Science stream (Chemistry +
Biology) from that of Agricultural stream (Agricultural Chemistry +
Biology) and emphatically concludes that Senior Secondary
Science and Senior Secondary Agricultural Science cannot be
treated as equivalent.
6. In light of the aforesaid specific conclusion of the expert
report, this Court is clearly of the view that the expert opinion
deserves to be accepted. The Court is also conscious of the fact
that the courses in question relate to human medical sciences and
any deviation from the prescribed equivalence may have serious
adverse consequences for public health services. Moreover, the
judgment in Avneesh Sharma (supra) relied upon by the learned
Single Judge is of no assistance to the respondents, as the same
has already been set aside by the Division Bench of this Court in
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.603/2022.
7. In view of the aforesaid observations and the expert report,
the impugned orders dated 05.07.2022 and 15.07.2022 passed by
the learned Single Judge are hereby quashed and set aside. The
special appeals are accordingly allowed.
8. Although the appeals are allowed, but this Court has full
sympathy with the students who, pursuant to the notification
dated 18.12.2015, were permitted to participate in the admission
process, were granted admission after counselling, allotted
colleges/institutes, deposited fees, and allowed to pursue the
DMLT/DRT courses for a period of six months or more without
intervention of the Court. For the first time, their registration was
denied after they had already spent valuable time pursuing the
(Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 06:23:42 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:3336-DB] (7 of 7) [SAW-747/2022]
course, despite not being eligible as per law. Such conduct on the
part of the respondents is highly reprehensible and such act has
caused grave injustice to the students. Accordingly, it is directed
that all the students who were permitted to pursue the DMLT and
DRT courses by the respondents for a period of six months or
more without intervention of the court's order shall be refunded
the entire fee deposited by them, along with compensation of
Rs.50,000/- each, on account of the serious lapse committed by
the respondents in allowing ineligible candidates to join the
courses, allotting them colleges/institutes, and permitting them to
continue for a substantial period, only to deny eligibility at a later
stage. While the rejection of their eligibility is undoubtedly correct
in the eyes of law, but the same ought to have been done at the
appropriate juncture before the course actually commenced and
not after consuming six months or more time of the students, who
were initially allowed to pursue the courses.
9. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
26-Sudheer/-
(Uploaded on 22/01/2026 at 06:23:42 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
