Dismissed

Rahul Palsaniya Son of Shri Phool Chand Jat v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC24 Aug 2023CW/468/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged his bar from B.Sc. Nursing counseling due to exceeding the age limit by one day, arguing discrimination and requesting relaxation. The High Court dismissed the petition, noting the University's autonomy in setting criteria and the unavailability of vacant seats.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands dismissed with no relief granted regarding admission.

Rahul Palsaniya Son of Shri Phool Chand Jat Vs the… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 468/2023

¶3

Rahul Palsaniya Son Of Shri Phool Chand Jat, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Jaswantpura, Post Bari Jori, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health, Govt. Secretariat, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶7

The Registrar, Rajasthan University Of Health And Science (Ruhs), Sector 18, Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Raj)

¶8

The Chairman, B.sc. Nursing Counseling Board 2022, Rajasthan University Of Health And Science (Ruhs), Sector 18, Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Raj)

¶9

The Convener-Coordinator Of B.sc. Nursing Entrance Examination, 2022, Rajasthan University Of Health And Science (Ruhs), Sector 18, Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Raj)

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G.S. Gouttam For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.B. Sharma Ganthola Mr. Bharat Saini, AGC

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

¶13

Order

¶14

24/08/2023

¶15

Instant writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner with the following prayers:-

¶16

“It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed ,

¶17

[CW-468/2023]

¶18

(2 of 4)

¶19

i) The Hon’ble Court may be declare illegal and unjustified the action of the respondents by which respondents debar to the petitioner to participate in counseling process on the ground of crossed upper age limit 25 years on 31.12.2022;

¶20

ii) Further the respondents may be directed to given relaxation to the petitioner in upper age limit of 1 day and allow to participate in counseling program for B.Sc. Nursing course 2022-23; iii) Further the respondents may kindly be directed to given relaxation in upper age limit to the petitioner under OBC category i.e. given to the female category candidates; iv) Further may kindly be directed to the respondents to allow to the petitioner in counseling process for B.Sc. Nursing course 2022-23 after lapse of last date i.e. 10.01.2023 under offline mode; v) Any other appropriate order, or direction which this Hon’ble court deem fit and proper in favour of the appellant may also kindly be passed.”

¶21

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner applied for taking admission in B.Sc. Nursing Course 2022-2023 in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the respondent-University. The respondents have considered the case of the petitioner for admission through their online counselling process and rejected the candidature of the petitioner after verification of his documents and held that the petitioner is not eligible, as on the date of submitting the application form the petitioner crossed the upper age limit of 25 years by one day on 31.12.2022 the cut off date fixed by the respondent-University.

¶22

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondent-University in not given admission to the petitioner is

¶23

[CW-468/2023]

¶24

(3 of 4)

¶25

arbitrary in nature and the petitioner is over age only by one day, therefore, the respondent-University ought to have relaxed the age criteria. Counsel further submits that as per book-let issued by the respondents, in case of female candidates the maximum age limit for taking admission prescribed by them is 28 years, whereas, in the male candidates, they have prescribed the age limit is 25 years as on 31.12.2022, which is discriminatory and violative of Article 14. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has immediately filed the present writ petition prior to starting of the course. Counsel further submits that the respondentUniversity be directed to give admission in the aforesaid course and allow the present writ petition.

¶26

Counsel for the respondent-University has opposed the writ petition and submits that the petitioner has failed to challenge the condition mentioned by the respondent with regard to age in the information book-let. Counsel further submits that since the petitioner has crossed the upper age limit of 25 years on the cut off date fixed by the respondent-University therefore, the respondent-University has rightly denied the admission in the B.Sc. Nursing Course 2022-2023 to the petitioner. Counsel further submits that the University has also filed additional affidavit that all the seats in the subject course has already been filled and as on the date no vacant seat is available with the respondentUniversity and prayed for dismissal of the present writ petition.

¶27

The respondent-University has fixed the age limit in the information booklet, which reads as under:-

¶28

“A candidate must have completed the age of 17 years but not completed 28 years in case of

¶29

(4 of 4)

¶30

[CW-468/2023]

¶31

females and 25 years in case of males on or before 31^st December, 2022.”

¶32

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶33

This writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner deserves to be dismissed; for the reasons, firstly, the petitioner has failed to challenge the criteria regarding fixing the age limit by the University mentioned in the information book-let, secondly, the petitioner has crossed the upper age limit of 25 years, which is required by the respondent-University on the cut off date as 31.12.2022, thirdly, the fixing of cut off date for admission is within sole domane of the respondent-University, lastly, as per additional affidavit submitted on behalf of the respondentUniversity as on the date, no seat is lying vacant with them in the aforesaid course, therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, in my considered view, no case is made out for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶34

Hence, the present writ petition stands dismissed.

¶35

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

¶36

Upendra Pratap Singh /23

Rahul Palsaniya Son of Shri Phool Chand Jat v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Palsaniya Son of Shri Phool Chand Jat v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sunder Daughter of Modya Wife of Genda Vs Jagdish Son of Kalya

Vimla Devi W/O Nathu Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Rupendra Electronics Vs State of Rajasthan

Gajendra Singh S/O Jagtawar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Hemraj Saini S/O Hanuman Sahay Vs State of Rajasthan

Kishan S/O Pura Vs Kanwariya @ Kanwarlal S/O Pura Ji