Lalita Jingar D/O Murlidhar Jingar Vs Rajasthan University of Health Sciences

By way of filing this writ petition, a prayer has been made for issuing direction to the respondents to accept the petitioner’s application form for supplementary examination of Bachelor of Physiotherapy (for short, ‘the BPT’) Part-IV and conduct his examination by permitting him to appear in the aforesaid examination.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner took admission in a Course of BPT, during the academic session 2014-15. Counsel submits that owing to certain health issues, the petitioner could not pass her first year of BPT till the year 2020 and thereafter, she passed the same in the year 2021. Counsel

¶17

[2025:RJ-JP:30101]

¶18

[CW-9302/2023]

¶19

(2 of 7)

¶20

submits that the petitioner passed his BPT Part-II and Part-III Examination in the year 2022. When she appeared in the BPT Part-IV Examination, she passed some of the examinations, but she could not pass in one paper, i.e., SURGICAL & OBST. & GYNAE CONDITIONS. Counsel submits that when the petitioner approached the respondent-University to submit the application form to appear in the supplementary examination and complete her BPT Course, the respondent-University denied the petitioner for the same. Counsel submits that by issuing a direction to the respondent-University, a mercy chance be given to the petitioner. 3. Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that as per Regulation 15(e) of the University Regulations, the candidate is entitled to complete the prescribed Course within a maximum period of eight years, but herein the instant case, in spite of passing of more than eight years, the petitioner has failed to complete her Course and pass the same within the above stipulated time. Counsel further submits that the total duration of the petitioner’s Course was four years, but she has failed to pass the same even in the eight years permitted under Regulation 15(e) of the University Regulations, hence, under these circumstances, no further period can be granted to the petitioner to complete the aforesaid Course. Counsel submits that even this Court while exercising its powers contained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot grant relaxation to the petitioner beyond provisions of the Statute.

¶21

In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of State

[2025:RJ-JP:30101]

[CW-9302/2023]

(3 of 7)

of Maharashtra Vs. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale & Ors. reported in (1992) 4 SCC 435 . Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the relief sought for in this writ petition cannot be granted by this Court and the writ petition is liable to be rejected. 5. This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner took admission in four year BPT Course in the year 2013. This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner has not completed the aforesaid four year Course until January, 2023. The chart annexed with the reply indicates the total attempts availed by the petitioner for completing his four year BPT Course which is reproduced in tabulation form:-

¶26

S.No.	Examination	Month & year of Examination	Attempt	Result
1.		Nov-15	1	Fail
2.		Dec.-16	2	Fail
3.		Jun-17	3	Fail
4.		Oct-17	4	Fail
5.	BPT Part-I	Apr-18	5	Fail
6.		Sep-18	6	Fail
7.		Apr-19	7	Fail
8.		Aug-19	8	Fail
9.		Feb-20	9	Fail
10.		Feb-21	10	Pass
1.		Dec.-16	1	Fail
2.	BPT Part-II	Sep-21	2	Fail
3.		Jan.22	3	Pass
1.		Jan.-22	1	Fail
2.	BPT Part-III	Jun-22	2	Pass
3.		Jun-22	1	Fail
4.	BPT Part-IV	Jan-23	2	Fail

[2025:RJ-JP:30101]

[CW-9302/2023]

(4 of 7)

Perusal of the aforesaid indicates that more than nine years have passed in between and this fact is not in dispute that as per Regulation 15(e) of the University Regulations, the candidate would be permitted by the University to avail any number of attempts to pass the failed subjects and would be required to complete the aforesaid Course within a period eight years of her admission in BPT Course. This fact is not in dispute that the aforesaid eight year period has already expired in the year 2023. 7. It is trite law that Court should not interfere in the matters of academic discipline.

¶31

A three judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale and Ors. reported in (1992) 4 SCC435 , held as under:

¶32

“12. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Slackening the standard and judicial fiat to control the mode of education and examining system are detrimental to the efficient management of the education. The directions to the appellants to disobey the law is subversive of the rule of law, a breeding ground for corruption and feeding source for indiscipline. The High Court, therefore, committed manifest error in law, in exercising its prerogative power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution, directing the appellants to permit the students to appear for the examination etc.”

¶33

Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. vs. St. Joseph Teachers Training Institute and Ors. reported in (1991) 3 SCC87 , held as under:

¶34

“6.xxxxxxxxxxxx The Court declared that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 or of the

(5 of 7)

[2025:RJ-JP:30101]

[CW-9302/2023]

High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be frittered away for such a purpose. In A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. MANU/SC/0046/1986 : [1986]2SCR749 a similar request made on behalf of the institution and the students for permitting them to appear at the examination even though affiliation had not been granted, was rejected by this Court. The Court observed that any direction of the nature sought for permitting the students to appear at the examination without the institution being affiliated or recognised would be in clear transgression of the provision of the Act and the regulations. The Court cannot be a party to direct the students to disobey the statute as that would be destructive of the rule of law. The Full Bench noted these decisions and observations and yet it granted relief to the students on humanitarian grounds Courts can not grant relief to a party on humanitarian grounds contrary to law. Since the students of unrecognised institutions were legally not entitled to appear at the examination held by the Education Department of the Government, the High Court acted in violation of law in granting permission to such students for appearing at the public examination. The directions issued by the Full Bench are destructive of the rule of law. Since the Division Bench issued the impugned orders following the judgment of the Full Bench, the impugned orders are not sustainable in law.

¶39

In another case of University Grants Commission and

¶40

Ors. vs. Neha Anil Bobde (Gadekar) reported in (2013) 10

¶41

SCC519 , the Hon’ble Apex Court, held as under:

¶42

“31.We are of the view that, in academic matters, unless there is a clear violation of statutory provisions, the Regulations or the Notification issued, the Courts shall keep their hands off since those issues fall within the domain of the experts. This Court in University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda

[2025:RJ-JP:30101]

[CW-9302/2023]

(6 of 7)

Rao MANU/SC/0268/1963 : AIR 1965 SC 491, Tariq Islam v. Aligarh Muslim University MANU/SC/0623/2001 : (2001) 8 SCC 546 and Rajbir Singh Dalal v. Chaudhary Devi Lal University MANU/SC/7924/2008 : (2008) 9 SCC 284, has taken the view that the Court shall not generally sit in appeal over the opinion expressed by expert academic bodies and normally it is wise and safe for the Courts to leave the decision of academic experts who are more familiar with the problem they face, than the Courts generally are.

¶47

Their Lordships in the case of National Board of Examinations vs. G. Anand Ramamurthy and Ors. reported in

¶48

(2006) 5 SCC 515, held as under:

¶49

“6. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the learned Senior Counsel. In our opinion, the High Court was not justified in directing the petitioner to hold examinations against its policy in complete disregard to the mandate of this Court for not interfering in the academic matters particularly when the interference in the facts of the instant matter lead to perversity and promotion of illegality. The High Court was also not justified in exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to merge a past practice with decision of the petitioner impugned before it to give relief to the respondents herein.

¶50

A co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in case of Rishiraj

¶51

Sharma and Ors. Vs. Raj. University of Health Sciences and

¶52

Ors. reported in MANU/RH/0067/2009 , held as under:

¶53

“8. Suffice is to say that Ord. 272 does not give absolute power to the Vice Chancellor to act in contravention of MCI Regulations, 1997, according to which, the term of MBBS course is being regulated; and even if at one point of time, Vice Chancellor considered to grant students of Part-I MBBS course in July, 2007 as a special chance

[2025:RJ-JP:30101]

[CW-9302/2023]

(7 of 7)

which in no manner can be considered as a precedent being cited for all times to come. It is always expected from the authority to exercise its discretion judiciously and within parameter of law. If one is not permitted to appear in Part-II MBBS (Prof.) examination unless he completes 3^rd , 4^th & 5^th semester each of six months duration in terms of MCI Regulations, 1997 – period prescribed under which could not have been relaxed by the authority even in exercise of powers under Ord. 272 of the University. Granting special chance in the opinion of this Court will be in contravention of MCI regulations, 1997, which certainly cannot be permitted under law. This Court does not find any error committed while rejecting request of petitioner for grant of special chance vide order impugned.”

¶58

In the background of the aforesaid settled legal proposition, this Court is not inclined to extend the petitioner any other chance to write the supplementary examination of the due papers in violation of the mandate contained under Regulation 15(e) of the University Regulations. This Court finds no merit and substance in this writ petition. Accordingly, the same is hereby rejected.

¶59

Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed.

¶60

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶61

Aayush Sharma /3

Lalita Jingar D/O Murlidhar Jingar v. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalita Jingar D/O Murlidhar Jingar v. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Keshar Devi Vs State Revenu Departmentors

Rajesh Kumar Vs State Mines Departmentors

Kumar Sain, S/O Ratiram Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sardar Balbir Singh (Deceased) S/O Late Sardar Balwant Singh Basur Vs Rent Appellate Tribunal

Ramvilas Son of Shri Ganga Das Vs a U Small Finance Bank Limited

M/S Ridhi Sidhi Medical Agency Vs Anil Kumar Jain Son of Shri P.C. Jain