Allowed

Vishnu Kumar Garg v. Union of India and Ors.

Rajasthan HC15 May 2018CW/17489/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed the writ petition treating the petitioner's veterinary degree as valid for all purposes. This decision relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Vikas Verma, holding that degrees obtained under conditional recognition are valid, ensuring the petitioner's qualifications are recognized.

What did the court decide?

Degree of the petitioner shall be treated as valid for all purposes.

Vishnu Kumar Garg Vs Union of India and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 17489/2017

¶3

Vishnu Kumar Garg Son Of Shri Murari Lal Garg, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Ward No. 24, Kumher Road, Katra, Nadbai, Bharatpur, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Union Of India, Ministry Of Agriculture, Through Secretary, Government Of India, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi.

¶7

Veterinary Council Of India, Through Member Secretary, A Wing, 2Nd Floor, August Krantibhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110066

¶8

Rajasthan University Of Veterinary And Animal Sciences, Bikaner, Through Its Registrar.

¶9

State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Animal Husbandry Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶10

The Registrar, Rajasthan State Veterinary Council, Rajasthan Pashudhan Bhawan, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Tanveer Ahamad
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Devesh Kumar Bansal
	Mr.	M.K. Dhakad on behalf of
	Mr.	R.A. Katta

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

15/05/2018

(2 of 4)

[CW-17489/2017]

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:-

¶19

“1. The respondents may be directed to accord/grant similar treatment to the degree of the petitioner which has been made/ granted to the batch mates of the petitioner who have acquired their degree from the same college in the same year alongwith the petitioner and accordingly the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ, order or direction for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to pass the notification or circular adding the name of the colleges in second schedule of the Veterinary Council of India Act qua the degree of the petitioner; and

¶20

issue a suitable writ, order or direction for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing that the degree of the petitioner be treated valid for all purposes; or

¶21

Any other appropriate order, which may be found just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, be passed in favour of the petitioner.

¶22

Cost of the writ petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner.”

¶23

During the course of agreement, counsel for the petitioner restricted his claim only to prayer No.2.

¶24

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the prayer No.2 made by the petitioner deserves to be allowed in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vikas Verma Vs. Rajasthan University of Veterinary & AN. SC & Ors passed in S.L.P. (C) No.5537/2014 decided on 12.01.2016 wherein it has been held as under:-

¶25

“Heard Mr. Bharat Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sanjay Tyagi learned counsel for the Veterinary Council of India (VCI) and Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, learned counsel

¶26

(3 of 4)

¶27

[CW-17489/2017]

¶28

for the Rajasthan University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences.

¶29

Though many an issue was raised by the petitioner in course of hearing, he restricted to a singular prayer, that is, as he has appeared in the university examination conducted by the first respondent and become successful, his degree should be accepted inasmuch as he had taken admission in Aravali Vaterinary College, Sikar, respondent no.3 herein, when the college was recognised by the VCI.

¶30

There is no cavil over the fact that there was a conditional recognition for one year at the time of admission of the present petitioner. Thus, the admission was valid. The prayer for migration to the other college has been negatived by the High Court. We have been apprised that the writ petition preferred by the College is pending before the High Court of Rajasthan. Regard being had to the same, we do not intend to express any opinion in that regard. However, we are of the view that the students who had taken admission keeping in view the conditional recommendation granted by the VCI and in view of the judgment passed in Apollo College of Veterinary Medicine vs. Rajasthan State Veterinary Council & Ors. [(2015) 2 SCC 291], we direct that the degrees obtained by the petitioner shall be treated as valid for all purposes. We may hasten to add that our treating the degree of the petitioner as valid for all purposes would not extend any kind of equity in respect of the college, the third respondent herein.

¶31

The special leave petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.”

¶32

The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 06.03.2017 in the matter of Arvind Bairwa & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. observed as under:-

¶33

W.P.(C) Nos.760, 761, 762 and 763 of 2016

¶34

“It is admitted at the Bar that the relief sought in these writ petitions is covered by the order dated 12th August, 2016, passed in S.L.P.(C) Nos.13465-13466 of 2016.

¶35

In view of the concession given at the Bar, these writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the order dated 12th August, 2016 passed in S.L.P.(C) Nos.13465-13466 of 2016. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶36

S.L.P.(C) No.13465-13466/2016

¶37

On mentioning, this matter is taken on Board. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that a

¶38

(4 of 4)

¶39

[CW-17489/2017]

¶40

typographical error has occurred in the order passed in the special leave petition on 12th August, 2016, while reproducing the order from S.L.P.(C) No.5537 of 2014 [Vikas Verma vs. Rajasthan University of Cet. & An. Sc. and Others].

¶41

WP(C) 760/2016

¶42

This Court had used the words “extend any kind of enquiry”, whereas it it should have been “extend any kind of equity”. Let the rectification be carried out accordingly.

¶43

W.P.(C) No.815/2016

¶44

Let this writ petition be listed on 20th March, 2017.

¶45

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2, Veterinary Council of India, shall obtain instructions whether the controversy raised in this writ petition is covered by the earlier orders passed by this Court.”

¶46

Counsel for the respondents have no objection to the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner.

¶47

In that view of the matter, writ petition stands allowed in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vikas Verma (supra) and it is directed that degree of the petitioner shall be treated as valid for all purposes.

¶48

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

¶49

Jyoti/58

Vishnu Kumar Garg v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu Kumar Garg v. Union of India and Ors.

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

Sharwan Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rohitashaw Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Yogesh Kumar Soni Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Maya Devi Vs Prem Singh

Rais Ahmed Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Smt Kishan Pyari Vs Smt Deepa Subin