Dismissed

Atul Kumar Jain and Anr. v. Raj University of Health Sci Anr.

Rajasthan HC14 Sept 2015CW/6773/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Seven writ petitions challenging the dismissal of appeal applications by candidates who attempted two consecutive nursing classes in one year contrary to university ordinance. The High Court held the petitioners were ineligible under Ordinance 299-V-8 and dismissed the appeals. It ordered refund of penalties paid for unauthorized appearances under an interim order.

What did the court decide?

Penalties paid for undertaking examinations under the interim order were refunded to the petitioners.

Atul Kumar Jain and Anr. Vs Raj University of… — Education and Admissions | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶3

O R D E R

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6656/2014 (Ashish & Ors. v. RUHS & Anr.)

¶5

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6772/2014 (Sooraj Singh & Ors. v. RUHS & Anr.)

¶6

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6773/2014 (Atul Kumar Jain & Anr. v. RUHS & Anr.)

¶7

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6774/2014 (Tajpal Nayak & Ors. v. RUHS & Anr.)

¶8

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7039/2014 (Kailash Chand Yadav & Ors. v. RUHS & Anr.)

¶9

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7106/2014 (Balveer Singh Rathore & Ors. v. RUHS & Anr.)

¶10

Date of Order: 14/09/2015

¶11

PRESENT

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶13

Mr. Munesh Bharadwaj, for petitioners. Mr. Akbar Khan, for respondents.

¶14

By this common order, six writ petitions bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6656/2014, Ashish & Ors. v. RUHS & Anr., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6772/2014, Sooraj Singh & Ors. v. RUHS & Anr., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6773/2014, Atul Kumar Jain & Anr. v. RUHS & Anr., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6774/2014, Tajpal Nayak & Ors. v. RUHS & Anr., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7039/2014, Kailash Chand Yadav & Ors. v. RUHS & Anr., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7106/2014, Balveer Singh Rathore & Ors. v. RUHS & Anr., shall be decided together as the controversy raised in these petitions on law and facts is same.

¶15

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitoners took admission in B.Sc. (Nursing) in 2007, 2008 and 2009 in various nursing colleges recognized by the Government of Rajasthan and affiliated to the Rajasthan University of Health Science (hereinafter to be referred as 'the University'). Petitioner on 15.2.2014 had undertaken B.Sc. Nursing Part-III Examination held by the University. Result of the examination was declared on 13.7.2014. Petitioners approached this court and prayed that they be permitted to undertake B.Sc. Nursing Part-IV Examination to be held in the month of June, 2014. A coordinate Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6772/2014 on 20.6.2014 had passed the following order:-

¶17

“Issue notice to the respondents. Mr. Akbar Khan, Advocate has already appeared on behalf of the respondents and copy of memo of petition has already been served to him in other similar matters.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners have attended regular classes of B.Sc. Nursing Part-IV from July, 2013 and, therefore, even as per the Order 299-V-8, the petitioners are eligible to appear in the examination of B.Sc. Nursing Part-IV, which are scheduled to take place from 21.6.2014.

¶19

Learned counsel for the respondents had submitted that the concerned Colleges may be directed to forward the proof that the petitioners have already appeard in B.Sc. Nursing Part-III Examinations and thereafter attended the classes of B.Sc. Nursing Part-IV from July 2013.

¶20

After hearing counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the respondents, it is directed that the petitioners shall be provisionally permitted to appear in B.Sc. Nursing Part-IV Examinations-2014 and the concerned Colleges shall, in the meantime, forward the attendance/proof of the petitioners' appearance in B.Sc. Nursing Part-III Examinations and attendance of the classes of B.Sc. Nursing Part-IV from July 2013. Result of the said examination qua the petitioners shall not be declared without prior permission of this Court.

¶21

¶22

This order, however, will not entitle the petitioners of any benefit of their appearance in the Examinations on the basis of this order, if it is found that they have not appeared in B.Sc. Nursing Part-III Examinations and have not attended the classes of B.Sc. Nursing Part-IV, as afore-stated.”

¶23

Learned counsel for the respondent University has submitted that any candidate before undertaking examination of next class have to undergo studies for one academic year and without attending classes for twelve months cannot undertake examination of the next higher class. It is contended that the petitioners had undertaken examination of B.Sc. Part-III in February, 2014 result of which was declared in July, 2014 and petitioners because of the interim order passed by the coordinate Bench had undertaken examination of B.Sc. Part-IV held in June, 2014. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that it is in clear violation and breach of Ordinance 299-V-8. The said clause reads as under:-

¶24

“O.299-V-8: A candidate who has passed B.Sc. Nursing Part-III examination will be promoted to B.Sc. Nursing Part-IV course and after completion of regular course of studies for one academic year shall be eligible for B.Sc. Nursing Part-IV examination.”

¶25

Admittedly, petitioners have not attended the classes for one year after giving B.Sc. Part-III examination.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the courses run by various colleges affiliated to the University were running late, therefore, to overcome the delay they can appear for two classes in one year.

¶27

¶28

Learned counsel further submitted that even though it is correct that the petitioners have to study for one year but University had permitted other students to undertake examination without attending classes. However, on the pointed query raised by the court, the learned counsel for the petitioners could not name any student who had undertaken examination of two classes in one year.

¶29

Thus, I find no merit in these writ petitions as Ordinance 299-V-8 clearly dis-entitle the petitioners to undertake examination of two classes in one year.

¶30

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the order passed by another coordinate Bench in Kamlesh Kumar Yadav v. Rajasthan University of Health Science & Anr., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7184/2014 decided on 23.2.2015 to urge that the penalty leveled upon the petitioners to write examination under the interim order of this court can be refunded. A coordinate Bench while dismissing the petition of Kamlesh Kumar Yadav (supra) had observed as under:-

¶31

“In view of dismissal of writ petition holding that the petitioner was not entitled to be admitted to B.Sc. Nursing Part-IV or write examination of B.Sc. Nursing Part-V, I would direct that penalty levied on petitioner even while he wrote the examination of B.Sc. Nursing Part-IV under order of this court dated 20-6-2014, be refunded to him.”

¶32

In view of above direction issued by the learned Single Judge of this court, it is ordered that the penalty leveled upon the petitioners even if they have undertaken examination of B.Sc. Nursing Part-IV

¶33

¶34

under the interim order of this court, be refunded to them.

¶35

In view of above, these writ petitions are dismissed. Stay applications also stand dismissed.

¶36

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J.

¶37

Govind/-

¶38

All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.

¶39

Govind Sharma, Sr.PA

Atul Kumar Jain and Anr. v. Raj University of Health Sci Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atul Kumar Jain and Anr. v. Raj University of Health Sci Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Parwati Devi Vs B S Singh and Others

Alka Chaturvedi Vs J K Jain and Another

Sunil and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Balveer Singh Rathore and Ors. Vs Raj University of Health Sci Anr.

Nagrik Grah Nirman Sehkari Vs Kushal Chand Badher andORS

Ranveer Singh Vs State Home Departmentanr