Partly allowed

Nitender Kumar Meena S/O Shri Ram Avtar Meena v. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences

Rajasthan HC2 Sept 2023SAW/942/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the student's appeal regarding his lack of eligibility for BDS admission due to failing Chemistry theory, upheld the university's decision, and set aside costs imposed on the college, holding it not at fault for the error.

What did the court decide?

Appeal by student dismissed; appeal by college allowed; cost imposed on college set aside.

Nitender Kumar Meena S/O Shri Ram Avtar Meena… — Municipal and Town Planning | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:23451-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 937/2021

¶4

¶5

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9052/2020

¶6

Principal, Darshan Dental Medical College & Hospital, Ranakpur Road, Village-Loyara, Udaipur-313011.

¶7

----Appellant(Non Petitioner No.4)

¶8

Versus

¶9

Nitender Kumar Meena Son of Shri Ram Avtar Meena, Aged About 21 Years, Resident of Village Nagla Hetram, Post Bhootuli, Tehsil Weir District Bharatpur (Rajasthan)

¶10

----Petitioner/Respondent

¶11

Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, Through Its Registrar, Sector-18, Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur 302033.

¶12

Comptroller of Examinations, Rajasthan University Of Health Sciences, Sector-18 Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur-302033.

¶13

Chairman, National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test (NEET) (UG), Medical & Dental Admission, Counseling Board - 2019 & Principal & Controller, SMS Medical College & Attached Hospitals, Jaipur-302004.

¶14

State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Medical Education Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur-302005

¶15

Central Board of Secondary Education, Through Its Chairman, Regional Office, PS 1-2, Patparganj, I.P. Extension, Institutional Area, New Delhi - 110092. ----Respondents/Non-Petitioners

¶16

Connected With

¶17

D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 942/2021

¶18

¶19

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9052/2020

¶20

Nitender Kumar Meena S/o Shri Ram Avtar Meena, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village Nagla Hetram, Post Bhootuli, Tehsil Weir, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan)

¶21

----Appellant

¶22

Versus

¶23

Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, Through Its Registrar, Sector-18, Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur 302033

¶24

Controller of Examinations, Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, Sector-18 Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur-

¶25

(2 of 7)

¶26

[2023:RJ-JP:23451-DB]

¶27

[SAW-937/2021]

¶28

302033

¶29

Chairman, National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test (NEET) (UG), Medical And Dental Admission, Counseling Board - 2019 And Principal And Controller, SMS Medical College And Attached Hospitals, Jaipur-302004

¶30

Principal Darshan Dental Medical College And Hospital, Ranakpur Road, Village-Loyara, Udaipur 313011

¶31

State of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Medical Education Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur-302005

¶32

Central Board of Secondary Education, Through Its Chairman, Regional Office, PS 1-2, Patparganj, I.P. Extension, Institutional Area, New Delhi - 110092.

¶33

----Respondents

¶34

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Jai Raj Tantia, Advocate (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 937/2021) Mr. R.D. Meena, Advocate (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 942/2021)
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Virendra Lodha, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Rachit Sharma, Advocate
	Mr. M.S. Raghav, Advocate
	Mr. Sunil Samdaria, Advocate

¶35

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶36

Judgment

¶37

02/09/2023

¶38

By this common judgment aforesaid two appeals are being disposed off as they arise out of order dated 14.09.2021 passed by learned Single Judge. By impugned order though learned Single Judge has held that the student/writ petitioner was not eligible for admission to BDS course, compensation has been directed to be paid to the writ petitioner both by NEET Counselling Board and Appellant- Darshan Dental Medical College & Hospital, Udaipur (For short ‘College’).

¶39

[2023:RJ-JP:23451-DB]

¶40

[SAW-937/2021]

¶41

(3 of 7)

¶42

Aggrieved by the impugned order insofar as it holds that the writ petitioner was not eligible to be admitted in BDS course, Nitender Kumar Meena has filed D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 942/2021.

¶43

Aggrieved by the part of the order by which cost of Rs. 10 lacs has been imposed, the College has filed D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 937/2021.

¶44

The appellant-student had applied for BDS course. He appeared in the National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test (For short ‘NEET’) (UG) examination on 05.05.2019 and on the strength of his All India Rank of 416816 with category rank for ST at 13012, was shortlisted and called for counselling conducted by NEET Counselling Board. A provisional allotment letter dated 08.07.2019 was issued by which the appellant-student was allotted Darshan Dental Medical College & Hospital, Udaipur. The appellant-student deposited requisite fee, hostel fee as also documents and started undergoing the said course. When he submitted his application for enrollment in the examination to the University, it was revealed that the University Authority found that the appellant-student was in-fact not even eligible for admission in BDS course as he had failed in the subject of Chemistry at the Higher Secondary Level. Accordingly, he was not allowed to appear in the examination. This gave arise to cause of action to the appellant-student to file writ petition. The main contention of the appellant-student was that in the mark-sheet of Senior Secondary Examination (10+2) issued in the year 2017, his result was shown as “pass” even though in the subject of Chemistry, the remark was “fail in Theory”. Under the rules or bye-laws of the

¶45

[2023:RJ-JP:23451-DB]

¶46

[SAW-937/2021]

¶47

(4 of 7)

¶48

Central Board of Secondary Education (For short ‘CBSE’), he was declared “pass” as the aggregate of theory and practical marks were 39, whereas, the minimum passing marks were 33. This was fully known and disclosed to the Respondent-NEET Counselling Board and the College and they, treating the appellant-student as eligible, granted admission, collected fee and allowed the appellant-student to pursue study for one year. Therefore, the action of the Respondent-University in not admitting the appellantstudent to appear in the examination was bad in law.

¶49

Learned Single Judge by impugned order has held that the appellant-student having failed in theory in the subject of Chemistry, could not be treated as “pass” and, therefore, it has been concluded that he was wrongly admitted and such wrong admission of ineligible candidate could not be protected. At the same time, learned Single Judge was of the view that without proper scrutiny of the application, the appellant-student was granted admission and fee was collected, his one year was wasted, therefore, cost has been imposed.

¶50

Learned counsel for the parties stated at the bar that against the order of the learned Single Judge imposing cost on University, writ appeal was filed, which has been dismissed.

¶51

The finding of the learned Single Judge after detailed consideration of the relevant clauses of Bye-Laws of the CBSE and the condition of eligibility as incorporated in the information booklet issued by the NEET Counselling Board that a candidate passing each of the subject was a pre-condition and if the subject comprises of theory as well as the practical, the candidate was required to pass in both. The appellant-student was given (E)

¶52

[2023:RJ-JP:23451-DB]

¶53

[SAW-937/2021]

¶54

(5 of 7)

¶55

grade in the subject of Chemistry which means fail, specifically mentioning that the appellant-student failed in Chemistry (theory). It was further held that the appellant-student was fully aware of this aspect that he had failed in Chemistry paper and therefore would not be eligible to get admission as he failed to fulfill the minimum eligibility criteria for admission to BDS course, applied for the same.

¶56

Therefore, there is no case made out warranting interference with the finding of the learned Single Judge that the appellantstudent having failed in one of the essential subject of Chemistry was not eligible for admission to BDS course.

¶57

The appeal of the College is directed against the order of imposition of costs. Learned counsel for the appellant-College would submit that the costs have been imposed on incorrect factual premise that it was the mistake of the College in not properly verifying the credential certificates and mark-sheet of the appellant-student. According to him, the material on record clearly revealed that when Counselling Board sent letter to the College for sending representative to remain present at the time of conselling, it’s officials were present, however, on those days, the appellantstudent was not present. Later on, when the appellant-student appeared, the NEET Counselling Board and it’s officers verified the credentials and documents and a provisional allotment letter was sent to the College, therefore, the College was left with no option but to grant admission on the basis of the declaration given by the student in the admission form.

¶58

The record of the writ petition, the pleadings of the parties and various documents attached thereto reflect that the NEET

¶59

[2023:RJ-JP:23451-DB]

¶60

[SAW-937/2021]

¶61

(6 of 7)

¶62

Counselling Board and College have thrown burden on each other. While NEET Counselling Board’s stand is that it was the responsibility of the College to verify the documents, the stand of the College was that the documents were submitted and remained in possession of the NEET Counselling Board and they had issued a provisional allotment letter on their own satisfaction which was binding on the College, therefore, blame could not be passed on the College, later on it was revealed that the appellant-student was otherwise not eligible for admission to BDS course.

¶63

The record reveals that the writ petitioner was allotted seat after he reported to NEET Counselling Board and deposited original documents and demand draft of fee in SMS Medical College on 11.07.2019 and thereafter the College was informed by the Principal and Controller that the appellant-student has been allotted seat in the College, thereafter, he reported and deposited the original documents and demand draft in SMS Medical College on 11.07.2019.

¶64

We have also perused the E-mail received by the College on 12.07.2019. It is also borne out from the affidavit of the College that initially on 05.07.2019, a letter was received by the College, wherein, it was informed that the NEET (UG) Online Counselling 2019 was to be conducted amongst meritorious candidates and their original documents and requisite fee was to be received from 06.07.2019 to 09.07.2019 in SMS Medical College. The letter required the College to nominate their representatives and maximum two employees for taking original documents of the candidates for the purpose of verification and for receipt of fee to be paid by the candidate for admission.

¶65

[2023:RJ-JP:23451-DB]

¶66

[SAW-937/2021]

¶67

(7 of 7)

¶68

The affidavit further shows that from 06.07.2019 to 09.07.2019, though the staff/representative of the College were present, the appellant-student did not appear in the counselling. He appeared before the Counselling Board on a later date on which date, the College representative were not called.

¶69

Sending of a letter for provisional allotment by the Counselling Board while having custody of the original documents of the appellant-student clearly shows that in the absence of representatives of the College, NEET Counselling Board Officials collected the original records of the appellant-student and sent a letter for provisional allotment to the College. Even at that point of time, the original documents/certificates of the appellant-student were not forwarded to the College. The student submitted admission form in which he declared himself as “pass”. On the face of provisional letter, the College granted admission.

¶70

In view of the above, we are of the view that the blame could not be laid on the College. Accordingly, imposition of the cost on the College does not appears to be proper and is, therefore, set aside.

¶71

In the result, the appeal filed by the Nitender Kumar Meena is dismissed, whereas, the appeal filed by the Principal, Darshan Dental Medical College & Hospital, Udaipur is allowed.

¶72

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

¶73

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J

¶74

Mohita /22-23

Nitender Kumar Meena S/O Shri Ram Avtar Meena v. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitender Kumar Meena S/O Shri Ram Avtar Meena v. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kedar Singh S/O Shri Rajpal Vs Usha Sharma

Ruchi Pandey W/O Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, D/O Shri Vinod Kumar Pandey, Vs Miss. Nidhi Pandey, Secretary/Commissioner

Narendra Prasad Gupta S/O Late Shri Ramjilal Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary

M/S Gurunanak Arecanut Traders Vs Additional Commissioner, Enforcement Wing-Ii

Smt Munni Tailor Wife of Shri Rajendra Kumar Tailor Vs State of Rajasthan

Girdhar Gopal Jagrawal Son of Mahaveer Jagrawal, Vs Smt. Aparna Arora