Allowed

Joga Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 Jul 2020CW/4924/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court allowed a writ petition concerning veterinary course admissions, relying entirely on a recent decision by a coordinate bench. The court validated prior admissions and directed respondents to formulate clear policies for future vacant seat filling.

What did the court decide?

Admissions stood validated; State directed to grant permission for the course and lay down specific policies for filling vacancies.

Joga Ram Vs State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4924/2020

¶4

Joga Ram S/o Hari Ram, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Village Aollay, District Nagaur.

¶5

Jayant Vaishnav S/o Purshotam Das, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Village Nayapura, Shergarh, District Jodhpur.

¶6

Kavita Choudhary D/o Amma Ram, Aged About 18 Years, R/o Mandor, District Jodhpur.

¶7

Premlata D/o Kheta Ram, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Karala, Sanchor, District Jalore.

¶8

Rakesh Golia S/o Kishna Ram, Aged About 18 Years, R/o V.p. Roon, District Nagaur.

¶9

Ravi Kumar S/o Shiv Raj Choudhary, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Pancholiya, District Ajmer.

¶10

Suman D/o Mohan Lal, Aged About 18 Years, R/o Village Tilwasani, District Jodhpur.

¶11

Suresh Chandra Dhaker S/o Ramchandra, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Ukholia District Chittorgarh.

¶12

Vishnu D/o Raju Ram, Aged About 18 Years, R/o Village Vishnoiyo Ka Bera, Bilara, District Jodhpur.

¶13

----Petitioners

¶14

Versus

¶15

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Animal And Husbandry Department, Jaipur.

¶16

Registrar, Rajasthan University Of Veterinary And Animal Science, Bikaner.

¶17

Controller Of Examinations Rajasthan Of Veterinary And Animal Science, Bikaner.

¶18

Co-Coordinator AHDP, Rajasthan Univeristy Of Veterinary And Animal Science, Bikaner.

¶19

Shree S.L. Jangu Institute Of Veterinary Scinece, 427Opp, Sancheti Cancer Hospital, Pal Link Road, Jodhpur.

----Respondents

(2 of 3)

[CW-4924/2020]

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.J. Punia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anupam Gopal Vyas for Mr. Anil Kumar Gaur Additional Advocate General

¶24

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶25

Judgment

¶26

02/07/2020

¶27

Mr. R.J. Punia, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 29.06.2020, rendered in a bunch of writ petitions led by Kiran Kasniya & Ors. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4354/2020)

¶28

Mr. Anupam Gopal Vyas, learned counsel for the respondent is not in a position to dispute the aforesaid position of law.

¶29

The present writ petition is, thus, allowed in terms of above referred judgment. The directions given therein are reproduced hereinfra for the sake of ready reference.

¶30

"(i) All eligible candidates who have paid their fee and have taken admission in the Course on the vacant seats after the second counselling and prior to the communication dated 20.03.2020, such admissions shall stand validated.

¶31

(ii) The State shall give requisite permission for conducting the AHDP Course for Academic Session 2019-20 accordingly, to the University and the College(s) concerned for legalizing the admissions on

¶32

(3 of 3) [CW-4924/2020]

¶33

vacant seats after the second counselling. All other eligibility criteria and essential conditions shall be strictly adhered to by all concerned.

¶34

(iii) The present judgment shall apply to all the students, who have already taken admission in AHDP Course for the Academic Session 2019-20 on vacant seats after second counselling; however, in future, while taking the necessary decision, the respondents are directed to lay down their specific policy and norm/ rule regarding filling up of the vacant seats categorically in the advertisement itself or before the final counselling, so that the students stand cautioned at the threshold itself, regarding their ultimate fate and are not left in a lurch on account of delayed decision-making.”

¶35

Stay application also stands disposed of.

¶36

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶37

Suppl. 1-Ramesh/-

Joga Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joga Ram v. State of Rajasthan

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

Achlaram Vs Shri Sen Kul Chorasi Purbia Piao

Jai Singh Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Paras Ram Vishnoi Vs the Director,Cbi

Umashankar Meena Vs State

Yateen Upadhyaya Vs State of Rajasthan

Sunil Kumar Gupta Vs Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur