Station, Sapotra, District Karauli (Rajasthan) v. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary

Judgment

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To The Government Medical Education (Group-I), Rajasthan Jaipur.

2. The Principal And Controller, Jawahar Lal Nehru Medical College And Associate Group Of Hospitals, Ajmer.

3. The Director, Ugmeb, National Medical Commission (O/o Secretary), Pocket-14, Sector-8, Dwarka, Phase-I, New Delhi.

4. The Registrar Rajasthan University Of Health Sciences, Jaipur.

5. The Control Of Examination, Rajasthan University Of Health Sciences, Jaipur. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6644/2025

Bhagwan Singh S/o Shri Shankar Singh, Aged About 21 Years, Resident Of Rajputo Ka Mohalla, Ren, Dist. Nagaur, Raj. ----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Secretariat, Jaipur Raj.

2. The Rajasthan University Of Health Science, Jaipur Through Its Registrar, Sector 18, Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur, Raj.

3. The Principal And Controller, Jawahar Medical College, N.h.12, Kota Road, Jhalawar, Raj.

4. The National Medical Commission, Through Its (2 of 8) [CW-7108/2025] Registrar, Aiwan-A Galib Market,pocket- 14,sector-8, Dwarka, Phase-I, New Delhi

5. The Director, Central Bureau Of Investigation (Cbi), Plot No. 5-B, Cgo Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi- 110003 For Petitioner(s) ----Respondents : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta with Mr. Lokendra Sharma Mr. Ghanshyam Singh Rathore Mr. Santosh Singh Shekhawat, Mr. Kirti Vardhan Singh Rathore, Mr. Gajraj Singh Rajawat and Mr. Tayyab Ali For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yash Joshi for Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG Mr. Pradhuman Singh Rathore Mr. Chinmay Saxena and Mr. Waseem Ahmed for Mr. Pradeep Kumar JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 11/07/2025

1. Since common controversy is involved in both these petitions, hence, with the consent of counsel for the parties, arguments have been heard together and both matters are being decided by this common order.

2. For convenience, the facts and the prayer pleaded in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7108/2025 is taken into consideration.

3. By way of filing this writ petition, the following prayer has been made: “(i) by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned order (3 of 8) [CW-7108/2025] dated 21.04.2025 passed by the Principal and Controller, Jawahar Lal Nehru Medical College and Associate Group of Hospitals, Ajmer may kindly be quashed and set aside; (ii) by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly allow the petitioner to continue his MBBS studies which shall be subject to final outcome of the criminal case arising out of the F.I.R. NO.394/2024 registered at Police Station, Mathuragate, Bharatpur; (iii) any other order or directions which this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case also be passed in favour of humble petitioner.”

4. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 21.04.2025 passed by the respondents by which the petitioner has been suspended from the college.

5. Counsel submits that an FIR was registered against the students, wherein, allegations were levelled against them that they being students of MBBS, appeared as dummy students in NEET Examination on behalf of other students. Counsel submits that on the basis of registration of FIR, only the students have been suspended from the college by passing different orders. Counsel submits that identical orders passed by the respective colleges in case of other students, were assailed by them before the Principal Seat of this Court at Jodhpur by way of filing a batch of writ (4 of 8) [CW-7108/2025] petitions with the lead case of Vikas Vishnoi vs. Controller of Examinations and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8864/2025). Counsel submits that all those petitions have been allowed vide order dated 23.05.2025 and order of suspension of the students has been quashed and set aside and the respective colleges have been directed to allow the students to attend classes and appear in the examination in accordance with law and complete their courses, but a direction has been issued to the respondents to not to issue them degree and not to register them as medical practitioner until conclusion of the trial initiated against them and until they are acquitted from the charges.

6. Counsel for the respondents does not dispute the factum of the order dated 23.05.2025 passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat in the cave of Vikas Vishnoi (supra).

7. Considering the above factual aspect of the matter that the controversy involved in these petitions has already been decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur in the case of Vikas Vishnoi (supra) with the following observations and directions in paras 23 to 40, which reads as under “23. The Act of 2024, which deals with malpractices in public examination though provides for punishment but does not contain any provision for suspension. 24. There is a provision in the form of Regulation No.24 in the Regulations of 2021, which provides for power to suspend in case of ragging. But these regulations are confined to (5 of 8) [CW-7108/2025] the cases of ragging and naturally, do no provide for suspension in the cases of impersonation. 25. So far as argument of Mr. Tatia based upon section 24 of the Act of 2019 and section 2(1)(a) of the Act of 2024 is concerned, according to this Court the petitioners do not fall within the ambit of candidate, because it is indicative of the candidate and a person, who appears for a candidate as a ‘scribe’. The petitioners, who have impersonated on behalf of the candidate can neither be treated to a candidate nor can they be alleged to be scribes, because scribe is a person, who has been authorised by the examining body to appear on behalf of the candidate, whereas, the allegation against the petitioners is that they have impersonated the actual candidates and unauthorisedly rather fraudulently appeared in their place. 26. The petitioners would fall within the contours of a crime or organized crime as defined under sub-clause (h) of sub-section (1)of section 2 of the Act of 2024. They may also be treated to be persons associated with the service provider defined in sub-clause(i) of sub-section (1) of section 2 and sub-clause (v) of section 3of the Act of 2024, but whether or not they really fall within the ambit and scope of these sections will ultimately based upon the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the finding recorded by the trial court in this regard. 27. Suspension usually presupposes initiation or contemplation of inquiry. While, observing that no inquiry has so far been initiated against the petitioners, this Court would like to add that even if the respondents so wish or propose, no inquiry is possible because the acts of impersonation were done outside the college(s) in which the petitioners are studying and because all the material, oral or occular evidence is with the police and not with the college(s). Hence, even if an inquiry is conducted, it will be a futile exercise or a farce. 28. Hence, unless such finding is recorded and petitioners are held guilty, their future cannot (6 of 8) [CW-7108/2025] be kept in suspended animation for indefinite period. Had there been a case of the petitioners getting admission in the medical course by asking someone else to appear on their behalf, perhaps this Court would have not granted them any indulgence on the basis of sympathy or equitable consideration, because then their merit or eligibility itself was in doubt. 29. Allegation against each of the petitioners herein is, that they have impersonated for other students in the NEET UG Examination. However, so far as their own admission in medical colleges is concerned, there is no iota of allegation of getting admission fraudulently or by using unfair means – there is no quarrel about their merit and eligibility of getting admission in the medical courses. 30. According to this Court, unless there is any statute or regulation, which provides for suspension, rustication or even cancellation of the admission of the candidates involved in impersonation in the examinations, the respondents cannot place the petitioners under suspension. 31. If the suspension is allowed to continue, the loss would be irreversible and irreparable, inasmuch as the period which the criminal trial will take, the petitioners would not be able to continue with their studies and their future will be left in lurch. And if, they are ultimately acquitted, they would have lost 3-4 precious years of their student life doing nothing. 32. This Court not even for a moment approves petitioners’ action of impersonation and firmly believes that looking to the increasing number of such cases, it is high time the Central Government brings appropriate legislation, but in absence of such legislation and without any power to suspend, placing the petitioners under suspension is not only illegal, without jurisdiction, but also violative of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. 33. The action on the part of the respondents in placing the petitioners under suspension is (7 of 8) [CW-7108/2025] like holding them guilty and punishing them before the competent court convicts them. 34. But, since the allegation against the petitioners is, that they have appeared for other candidates in subsequent examination, this Court is persuaded to take somewhat lenient view, however, with caution and circumspection. 35.The writ petitions are, therefore, allowed. 36. The petitioners’ suspension order(s) in each of the writ petitions are, hereby, quashed. Their suspension shall naturally be treated quashed from the date of order instant. 37. The respondent-college(s) shall forthwith allow them to attend classes. In case, petitioners fulfill the requisite attendance criteria, they shall be allowed to appear in the ensuing examination in accordance with law. 38. The petitioners shall be allowed to complete their course, but the respondents shall neither issue them degree nor shall they be registered, unless the trial is concluded and they are acquitted of the charges. In case, the petitioners are held guilty in 39. the trial, the NMC shall be free to take appropriate decision in accordance with law, which may include even cancellation of their admission in the medical course. 40. Needless to observe that in case, the petitioners are acquitted, then obviously, they shall be issued degree(s) as so onas they are acquitted.”

8. Since the controversy involved in these petitions has already been set at rest in the case of Vikas Vishnoi (supra), this Court finds no valid reason to take different view.

9. Accordingly, both the instant writ petition stand allowed in terms of the order passed in the Vikas Vishnoi (supra) with similar directions. The suspension order of the petitioners stands quashed and set aside. (8 of 8) [CW-7108/2025]

10. The respondent-College is directed to allow the petitioners to attend classes and appear in the examination in accordance with law and complete their courses. The respondents are further directed to declare result of the petitioners, but not to issue degrees to them and not to register them as medical practitioners, until they are acquitted by the competent Court of law from the charges levelled against them.

11. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/13-14