[2025:RJ-JP:36305]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7047/2025 Dr. Shankar Kumar S/o Malu Ram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o 59, Ram Nagar, Sector 23 Chb, P.s. - Jhanwar Road, Jodhpur (Rajasthan)-342008 ----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Medical Education Department, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) - 302005 Through Secretary.

2. Chairman, Neet Pg Admission And Counselling Board

2024, Sms Medical College, Jln Marg, Jaipur (Raj.) -

302004.

3. Mahatma Gandhi Medical College And Hospital, Ricco Industrial Area, Sitapura, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Raj.) -

302022.

4. National Medical Commission, Through Its Secretary, Pocket 14-Sector 8, Dwarka, Phase-1, New Delhi-110077.

5. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi-110001.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anshuman Singh Khangarot Mr. Aditya Mishra Mr. Anupam Bhargava For Respondent(s) : Mr. B. S. Chhaba, AAG with Mr. Avinash Choudhary Mr. Shubendu Pilania Mr. Satyam Bhardwaj Mr. Angad Mirdha Mr. Rakesh Choudhary with Mr. Siddhhant Jain Mr. Saransh Saini HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Judgment

09/09/2025

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as on date, limited prayer is made qua return of the fee deposited in the NEET PG, 2025 which approximately amounts to the tune of Rs. 5 Lacs. It is further submitted that fee is imposed based on the concept of quid pro quo. It is also submitted that on account of policy decision and time taken by the respondents, petitioner is unable to participate in the NEET PG counseling. Furthermore, it is submitted that the petitioner was in possession of the long term visa for which clarification was issued by the respondents at a later date, due to which petitioner was unable to seek admission.

2. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has stoutly opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that the petitioner has qualified the NEET PG

2025, qua which petitioner was required to deposit the fee.

3. Heard and considered the facts of the case and submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court has made the following observations:-

3.1 That the petitioner is a bonafide candidate, who was declared eligible in the NEET PG, 2025 however on account of delay in policy decisions, petitioner was unable to seek admission qua which requisite fee was also deposited in advance, which was mandatory to be deposited to participate in the counseling process.

3.2 That there is failure on the part of the respondents to recognize the concept of quid pro quo, qua deposition of the fee. 3.3 That the petitioner is a Hindu by religion and is citizen of Pakistan, who is given a long term visa and has qualified the NEET PG exam.

4. Taking note of the aforementioned, this Court is of the opinion that a student should not bear the burden by depositing the fee in advance, therefore it is directed that fee deposited by the petitioner should be refunded, within a period of four weeks by the concerned authorities.

5. Other points, on account of development that petitioner is eligible in NEET PG 2025 are not pressed. Howsoever, same are kept open and the petitioner is at liberty to revive the present petition, if need so arises in future.

6. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of.

(SAMEER JAIN),J Pooja/181