SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Raj) 792

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
DINESH MEHTA, J.
Prof. S. Karan Institute Of Veterinary, Mukundgarh Jhunjhunu Being Run By Society Prof. S. Karan Shiksyha Samiti – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8604/2024
Decided on : 06-09-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. C.S.Kotwani, Mr. RJ Punia, Mr. Yash Rajpurohit, Mr. Ankur Mathur, Mr. Abhimanyu Singh
For the Respondent(s): Mr. I.R. Choudhary, AAG assisted by Mr. Pawan Bharti, Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari with Mr. Yuvraj Singh and Ms. Vandana Bhansali, Ms. Santosh Karol, Deputy Director, AH Department

IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that institutions must seek prior approval for admissions beyond the prescribed quota, but students may have legitimate expectations based on past practices.

Headnote:

Admissions - Animal Husbandry Diploma Course - Policy of 2022, State Quota - The court discussed the implications of the Policy of 2022 regarding admissions post-counseling, emphasizing the need for prior approval from the State for admissions beyond the prescribed quota, which influenced the decision to regularize or reject admissions.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner institutions sought to regularize admissions granted to students in the Animal Husbandry Diploma Course after the second round of counseling, arguing that past practices allowed such admissions and that students faced significant risks due to the State's withdrawal of approval.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that while the admissions were irregular under the new policy, the students had a legitimate expectation based on past practices, and directed the State to consider regularizing these admissions based on attendance and prior approvals.

Issues: Whether the admissions granted by the petitioner institutions after the second round of counseling were valid under the Policy of 2022 and if the students had a legitimate expectation of enrollment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the admissions were irregular but acknowledged the students' legitimate expectation based on past practices, directing the State to consider their attendance and the financial implications of denying enrollment.

Result: The court directed the State to consider regularizing admissions based on attendance and to refund fees if admissions were rejected.

ORDER :

1. Mr. Kotwani, learned counsel for the petitioner-Institute (in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8604/2024) invited Court’s attention towards various orders which the State Government has passed, permitting the petitioner– Institution and other Institutions to give admissions in the Animal Husbandry Diploma Course (hereinafter referred to as ‘AHDP’) and submitted that considering the past practice of the State, the petitioner– Institutions have/students were given admission on the vacant seats which remained unfilled after the counselling undertaken by the respondent – Rajasthan University of Veterinary & Animal Sciences (hereinafter referred to as ‘the University’).

2. While informing that admissions to the students were given in the month of February, 2024, learned counsel submitted that though the list of students who have been admitted in the AHDP course had been forwarded by the respective colleges to the respondent – University, but the respondent – University did not enroll the students deviating from its past practice. He contended that on account of approach of the respondents rights of the students who have taken education under the subject course have been put to risk.

3. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner– Institutions/students had legitimate expectation of getting approval, may be post-facto, as was being done in previous years and also submitted that the students who have been bonafidely given admission will be deprived of their right to pursue the course and will not only waste their precious year, but also suffer huge financial burden. He prayed for following reliefs:-

    “(i) By appropriate writ/order or direction, Direct the respondents to immediately open the enrollment portal for the students of the petitioner institution admitted against vacant seats.

(ii) Allow the students of the petitioner institution admitted against vacant seats to enroll and appear in the examination scheduled for 20.05.2024.

(iii) Any other appropriate relief which this Hon’ble High Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

4. He referred to a number of orders passed by the respondents (annexed with the additional affidavit) and submitted that for the years 2020-21, 2021-22 and even for 2022-23 the admissions granted to the colleges at their level have been regularized. He also relied upon the corresponding observation made by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the order dated 29.06.2020 in the case of Kiran Kasniya Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4354/2020), decided on 29.06.2020 in order to buttress his stand that the respondents have been regularizing the admissions of the students who are/were given admission on the vacant seats after second counselling is over.

5. He pointed out in the same line that an order dated 02.07.2024 has been issued by the State Government and permission has been accorded to give admission to the students on the vacant seats for academic session 2023-24 but the said order was later on withdrawn on 21.08.2024.

6. Mr. Kotwani, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the reasons for which the order dated 02.07.2024 has been withdrawn as indicated in the order of 21.08.2024 is, that according to the State Government, the students would not be able to complete the bench mark of 75% attendance. He argued that the students were given admission by the petitioner-colleges (on the basis of past practice) in the month of February, 2024 and therefore, they have completed 75% attendance. He thus, prayed that their admissions be ordered to be regularized and the respondents be directed to enrol the students who have been given admission.

7. Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari, learned counsel for the respondent– University submitted that the petitioner– Institutions/students have been irregularly granted admissions, inasmuch as after promulgation of Policy of 2022, none of the Institutions could give admis

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top