1. Non-registration with Paramedical Council—Denial of candidature for Lab Technician post due to delayed registration. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 660
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANAND SHARMA, J.
Supendra Meena S/o Shri Harikesh Meena - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18458 of 2025
Decided On : 18-02-2026
Important Points
A candidate cannot be denied appointment if the failure to obtain professional registration by the application deadline was due to an arbitrary or illegal refusal by the statutory regulatory body, provided the candidate is otherwise qualified and subsequently registered.
Subject
Service Law - Recruitment & Appointment
Act Referred
RPMC Regulations: Reg.42
Headnote
(A) Recruitment and Registration - Lack of professional registration by the cutoff date - Candidate applied for registration timely, but the statutory body withheld it arbitrarily - Subsequent judicial pronouncements validated the qualification and directed registration - Registration granted after the deadline for application - Candidate should not be penalized for the lapse of the regulatory authority - Merit should prevail over technical irregularities caused by the State. (Paras 8-11)
(B) Employment Law - Principle of fairness - Where a candidate's failure to produce a required document or registration at the relevant time is due to the administrative failure or arbitrary stance of the authority, and the candidate is otherwise qualified and more meritorious than the last appointed candidate, denial of appointment is unjustifiable. (Paras 17-19)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, possessing the requisite professional qualification, had applied for registration with the statutory professional council. However, the council withheld registration based on the university from which the degree was obtained. Following a subsequent court ruling validating such degrees, the council registered the petitioner. However, this registration occurred after the closing date for applications for a technical post. Consequently, the petitioner's candidature was not considered despite having marks higher than the cutoff for the reserved category.
Findings of Court:
The refusal of the statutory body to grant registration in a timely manner was arbitrary and illegal. The candidate suffered professional loss due to the administrative failure. Since the registration is now valid and the delay was not attributable to the candidate, the embargo created by the recruitment advertisement should be removed.
Issues: Whether a candidate can be denied appointment for lacking the required professional registration by the application deadline, if such lack was caused by the arbitrary refusal of the regulatory body to register the candidate despite timely application.
Ratio Decidendi: A candidate cannot be punished for the fault or lapse of the employer or regulatory authority. If the denial of a required registration is arbitrary and unlawful, and the candidate possesses the qualification and is subsequently registered, the candidate is entitled to be considered for appointment based on merit, including notional seniority and pay fixation. (Paras 17-19)
Result: Writ petition allowed.
(B) Employment Law - Principle of fairness - Where a candidate's failure to produce a required document or registration at the relevant time is due to the administrative failure or arbitrary stance of the authority, and the candidate is otherwise qualified and more meritorious than the last appointed candidate, denial of appointment is unjustifiable. (Paras 17-19)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, possessing the requisite professional qualification, had applied for registration with the statutory professional council. However, the council withheld registration based on the university from which the degree was obtained. Following a subsequent court ruling validating such degrees, the council registered the petitioner. However, this registration occurred after the closing date for applications for a technical post. Consequently, the petitioner's candidature was not considered despite having marks higher than the cutoff for the reserved category.
Findings of Court:
The refusal of the statutory body to grant registration in a timely manner was arbitrary and illegal. The candidate suffered professional loss due to the administrative failure. Since the registration is now valid and the delay was not attributable to the candidate, the embargo created by the recruitment advertisement should be removed.
Issues: Whether a candidate can be denied appointment for lacking the required professional registration by the application deadline, if such lack was caused by the arbitrary refusal of the regulatory body to register the candidate despite timely application.
Ratio Decidendi: A candidate cannot be punished for the fault or lapse of the employer or regulatory authority. If the denial of a required registration is arbitrary and unlawful, and the candidate possesses the qualification and is subsequently registered, the candidate is entitled to be considered for appointment based on merit, including notional seniority and pay fixation. (Paras 17-19)
Result: Writ petition allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Tanveer Ahamad
For the Respondent: Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC with Mr. Rahul Verma, Mr. Bharat Saini
For the Petitioner: Mr. Tanveer Ahamad
For the Respondent: Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC with Mr. Rahul Verma, Mr. Bharat Saini
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued delayed registration not his fault; respondents argued registration must exist on last application date. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
3. Denial of registration was arbitrary, delay attributable to Council; candidates cannot suffer for Council's unlawful stance. (Para 9 )
4. Candidature cannot be denied for non-registration before last application date if delay is solely attributable to Council's unlawful refusal. (Para 9 , 10 )
5. Writ allowed; direct consideration for appointment with notional seniority but no back wages. (Para 10 )
6. Can candidature be denied for lack of registration before the last application date when delay is caused by the Council?
No. When delay in registration is solely attributable to the Council's unlawful refusal, candidates cannot be penalised; their candidature must be considered. (Para 9 )
7. What is the binding effect of a Division Bench judgment on denial of registration to graduates from certain universities?
The Division Bench conclusively held that degrees from specified universities are valid, and the Council was bound to register holders under Regulation 42 of the RPMC Regulations. (Para 9 )
8. What relief is available to a candidate who was wrongfully denied registration but later obtained it?
Such candidate is entitled to consideration for appointment based on merit, with notional seniority and pay fixation, but no back wages for the period prior to actual joining. (Para 10 )
ORDER :
ANAND SHARMA, J.
1. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition with following prayer:
"It is therefore humbly prayed that Your Lordship, may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:
1. The respondents may be directed to consider of the candidature of the humble petitioner for selection and consequential appointment on the post of Lab Technician in pursuant to the advertisement dated 31.05.2023 (Annexure-1) with all consequential benefits with effect from the date any candidate with less marks than the humble petitioner in ST Category has been given appointment by the respondents, in the interest of justice.
2. The result of the petitioner which was withheld on 11.06.2024, in the result dated 11.06.2024 (Annexure-6), may be directed to be declared with all consequential benefit of selection and appointment in the interest of justice.
3. The action/omission on the part of the respondents in not making registration earlier and now making registration of the petitioner on 08.07.2004 with the same qualification and specifications without any further addition may be ordered to be treated to have been committed a delay at the end of the respondent-Rajasthan Paramedical Council and the same may be ordered not to cause any adverse effect or fetal effect on the selection and consequential appointment of the humble petitioner in the interest of justice.
4. Any other appropriate order, which may be found just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, be passed in favour of the petitioner. "
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although, petitioner acquired requisite qualification of B.Sc. MLT for the post of Lab Technician, 2021 and subsequently, the petitioner also submitted an application for registration with Rajasthan Paramedical Council on 31.12.2021 yet, on the pretext that the degree was obtained from Mahatma Gandhi University of Medical Sciences and Technology therefore, his registration was withheld.
3. Learned counsel submits that the controversy with regard to veracity and validity of degree of the aforesaid University has already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajasthan Para Medical Council Vs. Tara Chand Sharma & Ors. in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 66/2021 and other connected appeals decided on 06.05.2024, therefore, the petitioner was subsequently registered with Rajasthan Para Medical Council.
4. Learned counsel submits that only on account of non- registration of the petitioner's degree with Rajasthan Para Medical Council, at the relevant time, his candidature was not considered pursuant to advertisement dated 31.05.2023 issued by the respondents for recruitment on the post of Lab Technician. Learned counsel submits that in the light of judgment of Pinki Yadav & Ors.Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17418/2016, the respondents are required to consider the candidature of the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has participated in the recruitment process for the post of Lab Technician pursuant to aforesaid advertisement where, he has secured 44.481% marks in the category of ST (Male) and cut off marks for the aforesaid category as declared by the respondents is 36.6807.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that it is a settled proposition of law that the candidate submitting application pursuant to any recruitment advertisement, is bound to possess the requisite qualification as well as requirement of registration on the last date of submitting the application form. In the instant case, admittedly, the petitioner was not registered with Rajasthan Para Medical Council on the last date of submitting the application form. Hence, he could not have been considered. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the action taken by the respondents.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent-Rajasthan Para Med
