Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Mohammad Anwar S/O Iliyas Khan vs The Chairman, Rajasthan Neet Ayush … on 20 May, 2025
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2025:RJ-JP:20871]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18938/2024
Mohammad Anwar S/o Iliyas Khan, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
Nearby Madrasa, VPO - Ghasoli, Kishangarhbas, Dist. - Alwar,
(Raj)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Chairman, Rajasthan Neet Ayush UG/PG Counselling
Board, Ayush Bhawan, Sector-26, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur
(Raj.)
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principle Secretary,
Department Of Ayush, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Rajasthan Unani Medical College, Jaipur Through Its
Chairman, Paldi Meena, Dravid Nagar, Agra Road, Jaipur
(Raj.)
4. National Commission For Indian System Of Medicine,
Through Its Secretory, Plot No. T-19, Ist And 2nd Floor,
Block-IV, Dhanwantari Bhawan, Road No. 66, Punjabi
Bagh (West), New Delhi.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Atul Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat, through VC
Ms. Sonia Shadilya with
Mr. Akshat Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment
REPORTABLE
Reserved on 30/04/2025
Pronouned on 20/05/2025
1. The crux of the matter in hand is that the petitioner has
instituted the present writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the arbitrary and unjust
action of the respondents, whereby, despite the allotment of a
provisional seat at Rajasthan Unani Medical College, Jaipur, and
(Downloaded on 20/05/2025 at 07:41:45 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:20871] (2 of 13) [CW-18938/2024]
the timely deposition of the requisite fee, the candidature of the
petitioner is summarily rejected during the counseling process.
2. The petitioner, having duly participated in the
centralized counseling process for admission to the Bachelor of
Unani Medicine and Surgery course for the academic session
2024-2025, was provisionally allotted a seat at the
aforementioned institution. Pursuant to the said allotment, the
petitioner complied with all stipulated requirements, including the
payment of the prescribed fee (Rs. 25,000/-) within the
designated time-frame. However, in a manner devoid of
transparency and contrary to the principles of natural justice, the
respondents have invalidated the petitioner's candidature without
affording any prior notice or opportunity to be heard. Thence, the
present petition is filed, with the following prayers:
"(a) The respondents shall be ordered to give
admission to the petitioner in the college of
respondent No. 3 as per provisional allotment letter
(Annexure-4).
(b) Any other appropriate writ, order(s) or
direction(s) which the Hon'ble Court deems just and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case
may also be passed in favour of the petitioner
including the cost of the writ petition."
SUBMISSIONS BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
PETITIONER
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner had
contended that the gravamen of the petitioner's grievance stems
from the wrongful and unjustifiable cancellation of his candidature
for admission to the Bachelor of Unani Medicine and Surgery
course at Rajasthan Unani Medical College, Jaipur and in this
(Downloaded on 20/05/2025 at 07:41:45 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:20871] (3 of 13) [CW-18938/2024]
regard learned counsel had drawn the attention of the Court upon
the sequence of events, as detailed hereunder which
demonstrates the manifest illegality in the respondents' actions:
3.1 The Petitioner duly completed his Senior Secondary
education in the year 2014.
3.2 To satisfy the eligibility criterion of possessing Biology
as a subject, a prerequisite for the NEET UG-2024 examination,
the petitioner got himself enrolled with the Rajasthan State Open
School to undertake Biology as an additional subject. The
petitioner successfully cleared the said examination, with the
result being declared on 10.09.2024.
3.3 Simultaneously, the NEET UG-2024 examination was
conducted on 05.05.2024, and the first round of counseling was
held from 03.09.2024 to 14.09.2024.
3.4 The Petitioner, in pursuit of his academic aspirations,
applied online for the NEET-UG Ayush counseling-2024 on
02.10.2024. In furtherance of this application, the petitioner also
deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as a prerequisite for choice
locking, indicating his preference for a seat in a medical college.
4. In this backdrop, learned counsel representing the
petitioner had contended that pursuant to the aforementioned
application and deposit, the petitioner was provisionally allotted a
seat at Rajasthan Unani Medical College, Jaipur. This provisional
allotment was explicitly made subject to the submission of original
documents at the office of the Counseling Board on 11.11.2024
and 12.11.2024. However, the Rajasthan State Open School for
reasons beyond the control of the petitioner, failed to issue the
(Downloaded on 20/05/2025 at 07:41:45 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:20871] (4 of 13) [CW-18938/2024]
original mark sheet within the stipulated time-frame. Hence, the
Petitioner was only in possession of a web copy of the result.
5. Despite this constraint, the petitioner, demonstrating
his bona fides and commitment to fulfilling the requirements,
submitted an undertaking/affidavit during the counseling process.
In this undertaking, the petitioner unequivocally affirmed that the
original mark sheet would be furnished within fifteen days of its
receipt from the Rajasthan State Open School. However,
notwithstanding the provisional allotment, the petitioner's
compliance with the conditions precedent to admission, and the
submission of the aforementioned undertaking, the respondents
proceeded to summarily cancel the petitioner's admission.
Moreover, this cancellation was effected without affording the
petitioner any opportunity to submit the original mark sheet, once
it became available.
6. It was further contended that such actions on the part
of the respondents are not only violative of the petitioner's
fundamental rights enshrined under Article 14 (Right to Equality)
and Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) of the
Constitution of India but also undermine the sanctity of the
counseling process and the legitimate expectations of candidates
who have adhered to the procedural mandates in good faith.
7. Further, it was argued that the petitioner reiterates that
he has fulfilled all substantive criteria for admission to the BUMS
course and the delay in issuance of the original mark sheet, a
purely technical requirement, which was attributable solely to
administrative delays on the part of the Rajasthan State Open
(Downloaded on 20/05/2025 at 07:41:45 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:20871] (5 of 13) [CW-18938/2024]
School, which, as reported, had adopted online answer sheet
evaluation to expedite the assessment process. The Petitioner
asserts that he acted with utmost good faith, keeping the
counseling authorities duly informed of the situation and providing
a solemn undertaking to furnish the original mark sheet within a
reasonable period. Therefore, the respondents' failure to accord
due consideration to this undertaking, and their subsequent
precipitous action in canceling the petitioner's admission, is wholly
unjust, inequitable, and unsustainable in law.
8. It was also apprised to the Court that an interim
protection (granted vide order dated 11.12.2024) is already
operative in favor of the petitioner, whereby it was directed that
one seat shall be kept vacant qua the petitioner.
SUBMISSIONS BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENTS
9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondents had advanced the following submissions, seeking
to justify the impugned action and thereby warrant the dismissal
of the present petition:
9.1 That the petitioner is ineligible for admission to the
Bachelor of Unani Medicine and Surgery course.
9.2 The respondents assert that the petitioner’s result was
declared under the open category after the conclusion of the first
round of counseling.
10. Unfolding the arguments further the learned counsel
submitted that the issue of eligibility concerning candidates with
results declared in the open category is currently sub judice in
(Downloaded on 20/05/2025 at 07:41:45 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:20871] (6 of 13) [CW-18938/2024]other legal proceedings, which may have a bearing on the matter
in hand. Further, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
had placed reliance on Clause 23 and Clause 31 of the guidelines
issued by the National Council for Indian System of Medicine
(NCISM) for the academic session 2024-2025.
11. It was submitted that aforementioned clauses explicitly
mandate the submission of original mark sheets as a prerequisite
for admission. Therefore, the respondents had maintained that the
cancellation of the petitioner’s admission was a lawful and justified
action, necessitated by the Petitioner’s failure to provide the
original mark sheet within the stipulated time-frame.
12. Lastly, it was contended that the present petition has
become infructuous, as of the date of these submissions, no
vacant seat is available in the Bachelor of Unani Medicine and
Surgery course at Rajasthan Unani Medical College, Jaipur.
Additionally, it was asserted that the academic session has already
commenced, and therefore, no relief can be granted to the
petitioner at this stage.
13. In light of the aforementioned submissions, the learned
counsel for the Respondents submits that the petition lacks merit
and ought to be dismissed in its entirety.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
14. Having heard the rival arguments advanced by the
learned counsel for all the parties, undertaking a scrupulous
examination of the record pertaining to the case, and juxtaposing
the contentions noted herein above, this Court is of a view that
prior to a substantive adjudication of the matter on its merits, it is
(Downloaded on 20/05/2025 at 07:41:45 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:20871] (7 of 13) [CW-18938/2024]
appropriate to delineate and formally note down certain facts that
remain undisputed between the parties, thereby providing a clear
foundation upon which the subsequent legal analysis shall be
constructed:
14.1 The petitioner is a young man, 28 years of age, who
completed his Senior Secondary education with a focus on the
science in the year 2014.
14.2 It is evident that the petitioner harbors a genuine
desire to pursue a course of study in Unani Medicine and Surgery.
To further this academic pursuit, the petitioner successfully
qualified in the Biology subject through the Rajasthan State Open
School in the academic year 2023/2024, the results of which were
formally declared on 10.09.2024, as evidenced by Annexure-1 on
the record.
14.3 The Petitioner, having established his eligibility, duly
appeared for the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test
(Undergraduate) 2024 (NEET UG-2024) on 05.05.2024, and it is
recorded that he has qualified in the said examination.
15. Proceeding with the interpretation of the Information
Bulletin issued and circulated qua the NEET-UG examination,
2024, it is noted from the record that the petitioner submitted an
additional affidavit detailing the commencement of the first round
of counseling, which transpired between 03.09.2024 and
14.09.2024. In this context, paragraph 5.4 of the Information
Bulletin (Annexure-2) assumes significance. This Court finds that
the said clause supports the petitioner’s eligibility to appear in the
test, stipulating only the requirement of having passed/qualified
(Downloaded on 20/05/2025 at 07:41:45 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:20871] (8 of 13) [CW-18938/2024]
the examination with the requisite passing percentage before the
first round of counseling.
16. A meticulous reading of paragraph 5.4 indicates that
codes 01-07 are mutually exclusive, as denoted by the use of the
word ‘OR.’ The counseling bulletin contemplates provisional
allotment “subject to submission of originals on the notified
dates.” It does not categorically stipulate that non submission ipso
facto neither entails irrevocable cancellation; nor does it preclude
the counseling Board from granting a short indulgence on a
showing of sufficient cause. Courts while applying the Doctrine of
Substantial Compliance have repeatedly held that where a
procedural requirement is directory and the candidate has
otherwise met the substantive thresholds, strict insistence on a
technical formality, particularly one frustrated by the authorities
themselves, undermines the very object of the admission scheme.
The substantive requirement for a candidate’s candidature was
possession of documentary evidence of having passed the
qualifying examination with the requisite subjects and percentage,
with Biology being a principal subject. The Petitioner having
fulfilled this condition was, therefore, eligible.
17. Substantive conditions are those which establish the
fundamental eligibility of a candidate, while provisional conditions
pertain to procedural or ancillary requirements. In the present
case, the substantive conditions for the NEET UG-2024
examination were two-fold:
(i) qualification in the Senior Secondary examination,
(ii) attainment of merit in the NEET UG-2024 examination.
(Downloaded on 20/05/2025 at 07:41:45 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:20871] (9 of 13) [CW-18938/2024]
18. The furnishing of original mark sheets, as per Clauses
23 and 31 of the National Council for Indian System of Medicine
(NCISM) directives, constitutes a provisional condition. Clauses 23
and 31 of the NCISM directives, which are profoundly relied upon
by the respondents, are reproduced hereunder for clarity:
“23. NCISM/NCH shall not approve admissions
made without the original documents of the
candidates.
31. State/UT Counseling Authorities may direct
ASI&H colleges/institutes to ensure the
authenticity and correctness of the details of
admitted students before completing the
admission procedures. Further, the ASU&H
colleges/institutes should be instructed not to
allow admissions without original documents. No
modifications/corrections after the cut-off date
and time of admission as specified by NCISM/NCH
shall be entertained.”
This Court interprets these clauses, bearing in mind the
principles of “Ejusdem generis” (of the same kind) and “Noscitur a
sociis” (the meaning of a word can be gathered from its context),
to mean that while final approval of an admission cannot be
granted without the original documents, it does not mandate the
outright cancellation of a provisionally granted admission when the
failure to furnish such documents is attributable to circumstances
beyond the control of the candidate.
19. In the present factual matrix, it is not the case of either
party that the non-furnishing of the original mark sheet was due
to any willful or deliberate omission on the part of the petitioner-
candidate, rather, it is an undisputed fact that the delay in the
(Downloaded on 20/05/2025 at 07:41:45 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:20871] (10 of 13) [CW-18938/2024]
issuance of the original mark sheet was on account of
administrative reasons attributable to the Rajasthan State Open
School, which had not provided the said documents to the
Petitioner and other similarly situated candidates.
20. This Court, recognizing the principles of equity and
fairness, notes that on 11.12.2024, an interim order was passed,
in the presence of the learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the Respondent-State, granting interim protection
by directing that one seat be kept vacant. It is pertinent to
observe that the said order has continued to hold good until the
disposal of the present petition and is not vacated, despite liberty
being granted to the Respondents to seek such vacation.
Furthermore, it is observed that the respondents themselves
extended the cutoff date for applications until 31.12.2024, as
evidenced by various notifications on record. The Court also notes
with concern that the website of the Rajasthan Unani College
reflected the availability of vacant seats until January 2025.
21. In addressing the respondents’ contention regarding
the non-granting of admissions in the middle of an academic
session, this Court notes that the petitioner, in response to a
specific affidavit sought, has submitted that, for the academic
session 2021-2022, admissions were indeed granted as late as
mid-May 2022, and those admissions were subsequently
regularized. This assertion is not specifically denied by the
respondents, giving rise to an adverse inference against them,
under the principle of “Qui tacet consentire videtur” (He who is
silent is taken to agree).
(Downloaded on 20/05/2025 at 07:41:45 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:20871] (11 of 13) [CW-18938/2024]
21.1 The Respondents have admitted to conducting multiple
rounds of counseling, including a stray round, which extended
much beyond the passing of the interim order dated 11.12.2024.
22. Additionally, reliance can be placed upon the dictum
enunciated in Divya vs. Union of India and ors. reported in
2023 (13) Scale 730 and it can be deduced that after a
candidate had successfully participated in the selection process
and has qualified all the stages successfully, his/her candidature
can only be cancelled after a cautious scrutiny of the gravity of the
omission of error and not merely qua certain trifles.
23. In the ratio encapsulated in Dolly Chhanda vs.
Chairman, JEE and Ors. reported in (2005) 9 SCC 779,
wherein it was opined that:
“7. The general rule is that while applying for any
course of study or a post, a person must possess
the eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for
such purpose either in the admission brochure or in
application form, as the case may be, unless there
is an express provision to the contrary. There can
be no relaxation in this regard i.e. in the matter of
holding the requisite eligibility qualification by the
date fixed. This has to be established by producing
the necessary certificates, degrees or marksheets.
Similarly, in order to avail of the benefit of
reservation or weightage etc. necessary certificates
have to be produced. These are documents in the
nature of proof of holding of particular qualification
or percentage of marks secured or entitlement for
benefit of reservation. Depending upon the facts
of a case, there can be some relaxation in the
matter of submission of proof and it will not(Downloaded on 20/05/2025 at 07:41:45 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:20871] (12 of 13) [CW-18938/2024]be proper to apply any rigid principle as it
pertains in the domain of procedure. Every
infraction of the rule relating to submission of
proof need not necessarily result in rejection
of candidature.”
(Emphasis supplied)
CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS
24. In light of the foregoing, this Court finds that the
respondents’ actions in canceling the petitioner’s admission are
unsustainable in law; that the interpretation of Clauses 23 and 31
of the NCISM directives, as canvassed by the respondents, is
unduly restrictive and does not mandate the harsh consequence of
automatic cancellation of admission in the present circumstances;
that the Petitioner had furnished an undertaking/affidavit,
demonstrating his bona fides and commitment to providing the
original mark sheet upon its receipt; that the petitioner has also
approached this Court at an appropriate stage, i.e., before the
cutoff date for the conclusion of admissions, while the III and
stray rounds of counseling were still ongoing; that an adverse
view is taken qua the discrepancies between the Rajasthan Unani
College website’s portrayal of the cutoff date and the actual
conduct of counseling, as well as the ambiguous affidavits filed by
the respondents regarding mid-session admissions in previous
years; that an interim order (dated 11.12.2024) of keep one seat
vacant qua the petitioner is operative; that vide order dated
10.03.2025 it was cautiously made clear that the delay that is
being caused due to the adjournments sought by the respondents-
counsel shall not cause any prejudice to the rights of the
(Downloaded on 20/05/2025 at 07:41:45 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:20871] (13 of 13) [CW-18938/2024]
petitioner if the present petition is allowed, this Court is inclined to
allow the present petition with the following directions:
24.1 Adjust the fees already paid by the petitioner, in
accordance with their directives, amounting to Rs. 25,000/-,
towards the petitioner’s admission for the academic year pursuant
to NEET UG-2024, and restore the petitioner to the provisionally
allotted seat in Rajasthan Unani Medical College forthwith.
24.2 Accept the original mark-sheet if produced on or before
a date not later than fifteen days from receipt of this order; and if
the mark-sheet is still withheld by Rajasthan State Open School,
provisionally validate the admission subject to final verification
within the current academic session.
24.3 Take all necessary steps to enable the petitioner to
complete his course of study, including, if necessary, the
arrangement of extra classes to compensate for any classes
missed by the petitioner.
25. In view of the above, the present petition stands
allowed. No orders are passed as to costs. Pending/stay
applications, if any, shall stand disposed.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
Pooja /236
(Downloaded on 20/05/2025 at 07:41:45 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link