Manish Kardam Vs State Medical an Healt Dept Ors.

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:40397-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1501/2016

¶4

Nims University Rajasthan, Jaipur, Shobha Nagar, Jaipur, Through Its Registrar

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan through its Secretary, Medical Health And Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur

¶8

The Additional Director Administration, Medical And Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur

¶9

Sidheshwar Jajra Lab Assistant S/o Hanuman Jajra Through Office Of The Additional Director, Medica, Jaipur

¶10

Gaurav Sharma Lab Assistant S/o Satya Prakash Sharma Through Office Of The Additional Director, Me, Jaipur

¶11

Deepak Joshi S/o Bhanwar Lal Joshi, 36-A, Ojha Ka Bagh, Near Gabdhi Nagar Post Office, Tonk Road, District Jaipur Raj.

¶12

Vijay Pal Singh Kherawat S/o Ganpat Singh, Vpo Menadwas, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur Raj.

¶13

Kailash Chand Choudhary S/o Kalu Ram Jat, Village Bhuranpura Jatan, Post Rajpurwas Tala, Via Achrol, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur Raj.

¶14

Umesh Jangid S/o Shiv Pratap Jangid, Station Road, Subhash Chowk, Ward No. 20, District Hanumangarh Raj.

¶15

Vikas Chander S/o Ram Singh, Vpo Karawan, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh Raj.

¶16

----Respondents

¶17

Connected With

¶18

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 241/2017

¶19

Manish Kardam Son Of Shri Gopal Kardam, Jarga, Post Jarga, Tehsil Basedi, District Dholpur, Rajasthan.

¶20

----Appellant

¶21

Versus

¶22

State Of Rajasthan Through The Principal Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur

¶23

(2 of 7)

¶24

[2025:RJ-JP:40397-DB]

¶25

[SAW-1501/2016]

¶26

The Director, Medical And Health Department, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur

¶27

The Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board Through Its Secretary Having Its O, Durgapura, Jaipur

¶28

Rajasthan Paramedical Council, G-1, Kishan Bhawan, Lal Kothi, Jaipur Through Its Registrar.

¶29

Niims University Of Rajasthan, Shobha Nagar, Delhi Highway, Jaipur- 303121 Through Its Registrar.

¶30

Giriraj Kumhar Son Of Shri Hanuman Sahai, Village Jajai Kalan, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan

¶31

----Respondents

¶32

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 55/2021

¶33

Gopal Lal Yadav Son Of Shri Bhagwan Sahai Yadav, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Dabron Ki Dhani, V.p.o. Rundal, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶34

Richhpal Saini Son Of Shri Santosh Kumar Saini, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Ward No.5, Nai Kothi Ki Dhani, Vpo Rundal, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶35

Surjeet Singh Puri Son Of Shri Jagdish Prasad Puri, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of 38, Jat Mohalla, V.p.o. Barsinghpura, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶36

Chetan Singh Jatav Son Of Shri Rameshvar Jatav, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Vpo Chandangaon, District Karauli, Rajasthan.

¶37

----Appellants

¶38

Versus

¶39

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶40

Additional Director (Admn.) Medical And Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.

¶41

Chairman, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶42

Registrar, Rajasthan Para Medical Council, G-1, Kishan Bhawan, Lal Kothi, Jaipur.

¶43

Registrar, Niims University, Rajasthan, Shobha Nagar,

¶44

[2025:RJ-JP:40397-DB]

¶45

[SAW-1501/2016]

¶46

(3 of 7)

¶47

Jaipur Delhi Highway, Jaipur-303121.

¶48

----Respondents

¶49

For Appellant(s)	:	Mr. Swadeep Singh Hora with Mr. Achintya Kaushik and
		Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma
		Mr. Tanveer Ahamad Mr. Raghunandan Sharma with
		Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava
		Ms. Kritika Rajawat
		Mr. Ayush Bishnoi
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Bharat Saini

¶50

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶51

Judgment

¶52

06/10/2025 AVNEESH JHINGAN,J:-

¶53

These intra-court appeals are being decided by a common order as the facts and issues involved are similar. For convenience, the facts are being taken from D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1501/2016.

¶54

These appeals are filed by NIMS University Rajasthan (for short ‘University’) and the candidates affected by rejection of their candidature for not possessing the desired qualification, against the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 19.09.2016 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17990/2015 and connected matters. The University was not the party in the writ petition but was granted leave to file appeal vide order dated 20.01.2017.

¶55

The brief facts are that an advertisement was issued inviting applications for the post of Assistant Radiographer, Lab Technician and Laboratory Assistant. The candidates filed the writ petition

¶56

[SAW-1501/2016]

¶57

[2025:RJ-JP:40397-DB]

¶58

(4 of 7)

¶59

raising a grievance that despite possessing the required qualification and experience, the candidature was rejected considering them to be ineligible. The appellants got diplomas from Janardan Rai Nagar Rajasthan Vidyapeeth University, Udaipur; NIMS University; Technical University, Punjab; Jiwaji University; Manav Bharti University and other institutions. The issue considered by the learned Single Judge was as to whether the candidates were possessing qualification in terms of the advertisement and Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 (for short ‘the Rules of 1965’). The candidates got diploma of Assistant Radiographer and Lab Technician from their respective institutes. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the petitioners failed to submit documents that the Universities or the institutions were having required infrastructural facilities as required under Rajasthan Pre-Medical Council Regulations, 2014 (for short ‘Regulations of 2014’) (wrongly mentioned in the impugned order as Regulations of 2013). It was considered that no documents were produced to show that the institutions had recognition from State/Central Government or Rajasthan Para Medical Council (for short ‘RPMC’) for enabling the candidates to apply for the post of Assistant Radiographer and Lab Technician.

¶60

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the issue is covered by the decision of this Court in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.66/2021 titled as Rajasthan Para Medical Council versus Tara Chand Sharma And Ors. decided on 06.05.2024 wherein, it was held that the courses find mention in Schedule II of NIMS

¶61

[2025:RJ-JP:40397-DB]

¶62

[SAW-1501/2016]

¶63

(5 of 7)

¶64

University Rajasthan, Jaipur Act, 2008 and RPMC was bound to register the candidates who had applied for registration under Regulation 42 of Regulations of 2014. The contention is that the diploma finds mention in Schedule II of the University Act. It is submitted that the documents to show the requisite permissions were applied for and were granted, have already been placed on record.

¶65

Learned counsel for the respondents relies upon the decision of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.800/2017 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16694/2015 and connected matters decided on 04.03.2021 to contend that the impugned decision of the learned Single Judge was upheld by Division Bench. However, fairly submits that in consonance to the subsequent litigation, similarly situated candidates have been registered as per directions of this Court.

¶66

Learned Single Judge vide impugned order decided bunch matters. During the course of hearing of intra-court appeals, it is revealed that bunch included candidates having been granted diploma by their respective institutes through distance education as well as through regular courses.

¶67

Factual aspect which goes to the root of the matter is as to whether the diplomas granted by the institutes finds due mention in Schedule II of the Act applicable to them. It needs to be considered as to whether each of the institute has recognition from University Grants Commission (‘UGC’) or by the State Authorities which itself will have different fall outs.

¶68

(6 of 7)

¶69

[2025:RJ-JP:40397-DB]

¶70

[SAW-1501/2016]

¶71

The issue that once the course finds mention in Schedule II of the University Act, RPMC is bound to register those candidates, has been decided in the case of Tara Chand Sharma (supra) and nothing has been brought before this Court that this decision has been challenged by either of the parties.

¶72

The reliance of learned counsel for RPMC on the decision of Davendra Singh Dagur (supra) does not enhance case of respondent. The issue dealt by the Division Bench in the Special Appeal in case of Davendra Singh Dagur (supra) was qua the candidates who were granted diploma through distance education. The relevant para of the judgment is reproduced below:-

¶73

“Admittedly, all the appellants had obtained diploma

¶74

through distance education mode. Appellants were denied appointment on the ground that the Universities from where they had obtained diploma were not recognized by the State.”

¶75

For deciding the issues and for applicability of the decision of this Court in Tara Chand Sharma (supra), following factual aspect needs determination:-

¶76

(i) the course of diploma given by institute finds mention in Schedule II of the Act applicable;

¶77

(ii) candidate undertook distance education programme for diploma or attended regular course.

¶78

(iii) institute was recognized by UGC or the State authorities; and (iv) lastly the petitioners now in writ are similarly situated to candidates who have already been registered.

¶79

(7 of 7)

¶80

[2025:RJ-JP:40397-DB]

¶81

[SAW-1501/2016]

¶82

The impugned order qua the candidates not possessing the diploma through distance education is set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Single Judge to decide the writ afresh apart from the candidates possessing diploma through distance education.

¶83

The special appeals are allowed.

¶84

It would not be out of place to mention that the writ petitions were dismissed apart from other things primarily taking into consideration that the candidates failed to produce the recognition and the required documents of compliance by the institutes as such the institutes and RPMC shall be necessary party and if need so arises, shall be permitted to be impleaded as party.

¶85

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶86

(AVNEESH JHINGAN),J

¶87

Simple Kumawat/ Chandan/36, 37 & 41

¶88

Whether Reportable: Yes/ No

Manish Kardam v. State Medical an Healt Dept Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Kardam v. State Medical an Healt Dept Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs Bhagwan Singh

Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Vs Satish Kumar Agarwal

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1, Jaipur Vs Shri Surendra Meena

Nims University Rajasthan Vs State Medical Healt Welfare Dept Ors.

Dhoklaram @ Dhokalya S/O Jangla Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Ashok Kumar Agrawal and Ors. Vs Shri Rajhans Upadhya and Ors.