Dismissed¶44

Yogesh Dadhich S/O Shri Sharwan Kumar Sharma v. University of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC16 Jan 2026CW/10922/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

University of Rajasthan; MPEd Course continuation; 3rd and 4th semester; permission to sit in examination; discontinuation due to government employment; study leave; maximum course duration of three years expired; interim orders permitting appearance; declaration of results; Course Completion Certificate denied; writ petitions held misconceived and dismissed; Jaipur Bench; single Judge Munnuri Laxman; decided 16/01/2026.

What did the court decide?

The maximum period allowed for the Course was 03 years, and the petitioner could not show any power existing with the University to relax that condition; he also produced no permission from his employer. ¶38

Yogesh Dadhich S/O Shri Sharwan Kumar Sharma Vs University of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, having discontinued the 2nd year of the two-year MPEd Course after gaining employment and with the maximum permitted duration expired, is entitled to continue the Course (3rd and 4th semester) and appear in the examination. +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

¶38

Ratio / Principle

Unless the petitioner is allowed to sit in the Course, he cannot be allowed to sit in the examination; no such permission having been granted till date, he had no right to participate in the examination.

¶38

Key takeaways

Even though the petitioner participated in the examination as a consequence of this Court's interim directions, and even if his results are declared and he has passed the 3rd and 4th semesters, he is not entitled to a Course Completion Certificate, the Course being a regular Course and his attendance in the 3rd and 4th semesters lacking authorization.ratio¶38
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petitions are misconceived and liable to be dismissed.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench), Munnuri Laxman J. (decided 16/01/2026): two connected writ petitions, S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 501/2020 and 10922/2020, by Yogesh Dadhich against the University of Rajasthan, dismissed. The petitioner joined the two-year MPEd Course in 2015-16, completed the first year, and discontinued the second year on gaining employment with the Government; after his Appointing Authority recommended study leave, he sought the University's permission to resume the 3rd and 4th semesters, which was not given, and he likewise produced no employer permission. With the maximum permitted duration of three years (completion required by 2017-18) expired and no power to relax the condition shown, the Court held that without permission to sit in the Course the petitioner had no right to sit the examination; and that although he appeared pursuant to this Court's interim orders, and even if he passed and his results were declared, he was not entitled to a Course Completion Certificate, the Course being a regular one and his attendance unauthorised. Both petitions were dismissed as misconceived; pending applications disposed of.

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:1844]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 501/2020

¶4

Yogesh Dadhich S/o Shrawan Kumar Sharma, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Laxmi Nagar, Krishnapuri, Madanganj, Kishangarh, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

University Of Rajasthan, Through Its Registrar, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10922/2020

¶11

Yogesh Dadhich S/o Shri Sharwan Kumar Sharma, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Laxmi Nagar, Krishanpuri, Madanganj, Kishangarh, District Ajmer

¶12

----Petitioner

¶13

Versus University Of Rajasthan, Through Its Registrar, J.l.n Marg, Jaipur

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Akshit Gupta.
	Mr.	Nakul Bansal.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Ajit Maloo.
	Mr.	Vishnu Bohra.

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN

¶17

Order

¶18

16/01/2026

¶19

Both the writ petitions arising out of issue relating to the petitioner's entitlement to continue the Course by pursuing the 3rd and 4th semester of MPEd Course and appearance of petitioner in examination.

¶20

SBCW No. 10922/2020 is filed challenging the action of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to sit in the Course and SBCW No. 501/2020 is filed challenging the

(2 of 5)

[2026:RJ-JP:1844]

[CW-501/2020]

action of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to sit in the examination.

¶25

This Court by way of interim orders in both the writ petitions, directed the respondent-Authority to allow the petitioner to sit in the examination.

¶26

The application is now filed seeking direction that the results may be declared as the interim direction was given not to declare the result, even though the petitioner was allowed to sit in the examination.

¶27

The facts relevant for the disposal of the writ petitions are that the petitioner has joined the MPEd Course in the year 2015-16 and the said Course is for the period of two years. The petitioner completed 1st year Course by sitting in the 1st and 2nd semester. Before commencing the 2nd year Course i.e. 3rd and 4th semester, it appears that the petitioner gained employment with the Government. As a result, he could not pursue his 2nd year Course. After completing the probation, he made a request before the Appointing Authority to pursue the said discontinued Course while granting him study leave. The Appointing Authority recommended the case for grant of study leave to the Higher Authority. Basing on such recommendation, the petitioner seems to have made a request before the University to allow him to continue the 2nd year MPEd Course i.e. to allow him to pursue the 3rd and 4th semester of the said Course. When the permission was not given to pursue the remaining discontinued Course, the petitioner filed the present writ petition being SBCW No. 501/2020. When the examination

(3 of 5)

[2026:RJ-JP:1844]

[CW-501/2020]

schedule was declared, the petitioner filed another writ petition being SBCW No. 10922/2020 seeking direction to the respondent-Authorities to allow him to sit in the examination.

¶32

The case of the respondents is that the duration of the said Course is of 02 years and the Course must be completed within the extended period of one year. The petitioner, after completing the 1st year Course, discontinued the 2nd year Course on account of his gainful employment and subsequently, he approached the respondent-University seeking permission to allow him to sit in the Course without obtaining any permission from the Employer i.e. the State Government. However, when such a permission was not granted, he was not allowed to sit in the examination. Challenging the same, the writ petition being SBCW No. 501/2020 has filed and this Court by way of interim orders, permitted the petitioner to sit in the examination and subsequently, the petitioner filed another writ petition being SBCW No.10922/2020 seeking direction to the respondentAuthorities to allow him to sit in the Course. Without pursuing the said Course, the petitioner cannot be permitted to sit in the examination and his results cannot be declared and he is not entitled for any issuance of Course' Completion Certificate.

¶33

It is also the case of the respondents that the Course' Duration was of 02 years and further extended for 01 year. That means the Course must have been completed by 201718. The writ petitions are filed in the year 2020. Though the

[2026:RJ-JP:1844]

[CW-501/2020]

(4 of 5)

interim directions were given to the petitioner to allow him to sit in the examination, even though when the results are declared, the petitioner is not entitled to grant any Course' Completion Certificate for the reason that the petitioner did not sit in the Course by completing the remainder one year duration; therefore, the writ petitions are devoid of merit and prayed for dismissal of the present writ petitions.

¶38

The undisputed facts revealed from the case of both the parties are that the petitioner's duration of the Course was 02 years, from which, 1st year Course is completed and the 2nd year Course is discontinued for the reason of gainful employment. The petitioner has not produced any permission from the Employer to allow him to complete the remaining Course. Further the maximum period allowed for the Course was 03 years and the petitioner is not able to bring out before this Court any power to relax such a condition existing with the University. Further, unless the petitioner is allowed to sit in the Course, he cannot be allowed to sit in the examination; till date no such permission is granted. Therefore, he has no right to participate in the examination. Even though, the petitioner participated in the examination, as a consequence of interim directions granted by this Court and even the petitioner's results are declared, he is not entitled for grant of any Course' Completion Certificate, even if, he has successfully passed 3rd and 4th semester of the 2nd year Course for the reason that the Course itself is a regular Course and he had

(5 of 5)

[2026:RJ-JP:1844]

[CW-501/2020]

not appeared in the Course for 3rd and 4th semester of the 2nd year Course with the authorization.

¶43

In view aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels that the present writ petitions are misconceived and the same are liable to be dismissed.

¶44

Consequently, the present writ petitions are dismissed.

¶45

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶46

(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J

¶47

Poonam/8-9

Yogesh Dadhich S/O Shri Sharwan Kumar Sharma v. University of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh Dadhich S/O Shri Sharwan Kumar Sharma v. University of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. Seema Verma Vs the State Bank of India

Pradeep Singh Chauhan Vs State of Rajasthan

The Nagaur Central Cooperative Bank Limited Vs Union of India

Kanaram Son of Rupa @Ruplya Vs Competent Authority (L.a.O.) Cum S.D.O.

Yogesh Dadhich S/O Shrawan Kumar Sharma, Vs University of Rajasthan

Jayoti Vidyapeeth Womens University Vs State of Rajasthan