Ineligible Admission Sparks Legal Blowback | Rajasthan HC Slams RUHS Over 'Blatant Negligence' | Orders ₹10 Lakh Compensation For Wasted Academic Year
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Rajasthan Single Bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand has dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of enrolment for a student in the B.Sc. Medical Lab Technology course and directed the Rajasthan University of Health Sciences to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000 to the petitioner and an equivalent amount to the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority. The Court held that the petitioner, being ineligible for admission, cannot claim continuation in the course, even if the university had erroneously admitted him. The Court further held the university accountable for its negligence in verifying eligibility at the time of admission.
The petitioner, a 20-year-old resident of Dhani Navodi, Neemkathana, filed the writ petition seeking quashing of the letter and email dated 12.01.2024 from Rajasthan University of Health Sciences and JLNM College, which denied him enrollment in the B.Sc. MLT program. He further requested the Court to direct the University and College to allow him to continue his studies and appear in the examinations or, alternatively, permit him to reappear in the biology theory paper conducted by the CBSE.
According to the pleadings, the petitioner had completed his Senior Secondary Examination in 2020 under CBSE. He claimed to have been declared pass and based on the said marksheet, secured admission to the B.Sc. MLT course at JLNM College under the Rajasthan University of Health Sciences. However, he was subsequently denied permission to appear in the first-year examination on the ground that he had not passed Biology, a compulsory subject for eligibility.
The petitioner contended that at the time of admission, no objection was raised by the university regarding his marks in Biology and he was allowed to complete one academic year. His mark-sheet was in possession of the University, which failed to verify his eligibility at the time of admission. Hence, the petitioner argued that the University could not raise objections belatedly.
In response, counsel for the respondents argued that the minimum requirement for admission in B.Sc. MLT includes passing the Senior Secondary examination with Physics, Chemistry, and Biology. The petitioner had secured only 17 out of 70 marks in the theory paper of Biology, failing to meet the minimum passing marks of 23 (33%). Despite this, he claimed to be a pass candidate by adding practical marks to theory, totalling 46 marks, and obtained admission. The mark-sheet explicitly stated that the theory paper had to be repeated, which was not done.
The respondents maintained that an ineligible candidate cannot be allowed to continue in the course and that similar issues had been previously adjudicated. In the case of Nitender Kumar Meena v. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9052/2020), the High Court had stated against a similarly situated petitioner, holding such candidate’s ineligible. Though the Division Bench allowed the college's appeal, the candidate's appeal was dismissed.
The petitioner countered this by noting that the State's special appeal in the earlier case was dismissed, and the court had awarded compensation to the wrongly admitted student.
The Court perused the records, which showed that the petitioner had opted for Biology as an additional subject and failed in its theory paper, with only 17 out of 70 marks. A note in the marksheet required repetition of the paper. The University admitted the petitioner without verifying his eligibility and allowed him to study for one full year. This discrepancy was only discovered at the time of examination enrolment.
The Court framed the core legal issue: whether an ineligible candidate is entitled to admission in B.Sc. MLT when the prerequisite qualification mandates passing Biology in the Senior Secondary examination.
"It is settled proposition of law that a candidate who takes admission in any College or University or appears in any examination, has to ensure that he/she fulfils the minimum required educational qualification and any other conditions, which are required, before entering into fray for writing the examination."
"The specific requirement of educational qualification cannot be framed by any Court of law, as the requirement of possessing and passing the subjects, is a pre-condition making a candidate eligible."
"This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner has not passed in the subject-Biology and he was not eligible to get admission but even then, he applied for the same and admission was granted to him by the respondent-University."
"It was the duty of the University to verify the documents of the petitioner, at the time of admission, instead of directly allowing him to pursue the aforesaid course."
"Once the petitioner was allowed to pursue the aforesaid course for the entire one year and an objection was raised only at the time of examination i.e. at the fag end of one year, this Court cannot exercise its equitable jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner, who was not eligible to get admission in the aforesaid course."
"No ineligible candidate can be permitted to take admission to any course or allowed to complete it, under the shelter or protection of the Court’s order. Any illegality cannot be allowed to be perpetuated."
"The University admitted him, without proper verification of his documents and permitted him to pursue the course for an entire year."
"The respondent/University, by such an overt act and conduct, not only benefited themselves but also caused loss of one year to the petitioner and financial loss to his parents as well. Hence, they are required to be adequately compensated by the University for their negligent and casual act."
The Court directed the respondent Rajasthan University of Health Sciences to pay Rs.5,00,000 (Rupees Five Lakhs only) to the petitioner for the loss of one academic year and the associated financial hardship caused to his family due to negligent admission.
The Court further ordered the University to deposit an additional Rs.5,00,000 (Rupees Five Lakhs only) with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority.
It was directed that the University shall comply with the payment order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.
A copy of the order was also directed to be sent to the Member Secretary, Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, to ensure compliance.
The Court cautioned that in case of non-compliance, appropriate steps shall be taken by the RSLSA in accordance with law.
The writ petition, along with the stay and all pending applications, was dismissed.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. R.D. Meena with Mr. Nitin Jain and Mr. Hemant Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr. R.B. Sharma Ganthola, Mr. Bharat Saini, Mr. M.S. Raghav, Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG with Ms. Tanvisha Pant, Ms. Ritika Naruka and Mr. Yash Joshi
Case Title: Balram Yadav v. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Ors.
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 973/2024
Bench: Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand
[Read/Download order]
