HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) v. Radhe Shyam Kumawat Son of

Judgment

11. Department Of E.n.t., Through Head Of Department, S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur. Rajasthan University Of Health Sciences, Through Registrar, Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur. ----Proforma Respondents Connected With D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1332/2022 IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12917/2017 Rehabilition Council of India, through its Chairperson, B-22, Qutub Industrial Institutional Area, New Delhi 110016. [2025:RJ-JP:20900-DB] (2 of 12) [SAW-224/2024]

11. ----Appellant/Respondents Versus

Devendra Samota Son Of Shri Banwari Lal Choudhary, Aged About 21 Years, Resident Of Village Kirarod, Tehsil Kotputali, District Jaipur Manoj Kumar Jat Son Of Shri Ram Pratap Jat, Aged About 21 Years, Resident Of Nayabas, Tehsil Bansur, District Alwar, Rajasthan Sunil Kumar Saini Son Of Shri Madan Lal Saini, Aged About 21 Years, Resident Of Village Leelamandha, Post Bassi, Jogiyan, Tehsil Thanagazi, District Alwar Devendra Singh Awana Son Of Shri Bhagwat Gurjar, Aged About 21 Years, Resident Of N.b.c. Quarter No. 2, Bhairav Nagar, Hatwara Road, Jaipur. Hansraj Sharma Son Of Shri Satyanarayan Sharma, Aged About 20 Years, Resident Of Village Kalyanpura, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur Geeta Sharma Daughter Of Shri Bodu Ram Sharma, Aged About 20 Years, Resident Of Nadi Wali Dhani, Village Vimalpura, Via Kaladera, District Jaipur. ----Respondent/Petitioners State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur Directorate Of Medical Education, State Of Rajasthan, Chikitsa Shiksha Bhawan, Govind Marg, Jaipur Principal And Controller, S.m.s. Medical College, Jaipur, Rajasthan Department Of Physical Medicine And Rehabilitation, Through Head Of Department, S.m.s. Hospital, Jaipur Rajasthan University Of Health Sciences, Through Registrar, Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur ----Proforma/Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ashish Kumar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Himanshu Jain Mr. Gaurav Jain Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG assisted by Mr. Yash Joshi for RUHS Ms. Jaya Mitra for respondents No. 1 to 6 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Judgment Date of Reserve :

19.05.2025 [2025:RJ-JP:20900-DB] (3 of 12) [SAW-224/2024] Date of Pronouncement :

27.05.2025 (Per Hon. Anand Sharma, J.)

1. These intra Court Appeals have been filed by the appellant- Rehabilitation Council of India (hereinafter to be referred as 'RCI') challenging the order dated 20.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petitions filed by the petitioners were allowed and the appellant- Council was directed to grant approval to the courses acquired by the petitioners for the sessions 2013-14 & 2014-15; and also directed for their registration with the Council by treating the petitioners as having valid qualification acquired from recognized institution.

2. As both the aforesaid writ petitions have been decided by common order dated 20.09.2022, therefore these appeals have been heard analogously and are being decided by the instant order.

3. As a matter of convenience, facts stated in SAW No. 224/2024 are being taken into consideration.

4. The petitioners have come out with the case that non- petitioner- Rajasthan University Health Sciences (hereinafter to be referred as 'RUHS') issued an advertisement dated 21.05.2013, whereby applications were invited from eligible persons for admission in the year academic sessions of 2013-14 & 2014-15 for various Para Medical Courses including Bachelor in Prosthetics and Orthotics (hereinafter to be referred as 'BPO') & Bachelor in Audiology and Speech Language Pathology (hereinafter to be referred as 'BASLP'). It has further been stated by the petitioners that pursuant to aforesaid advertisement dated 21.05.2013, RUHS also issued one information booklet providing the procedure for [2025:RJ-JP:20900-DB] (4 of 12) [SAW-224/2024] admission in aforesaid courses. So far as BPO & BASLP are concerned, such courses were to be conducted in SMS Medical College.

5. The petitioners have contended in the writ petition that being eligible for seeking admission in aforesaid courses, they submitted the application forms and after undergoing the process they were admitted in the aforesaid courses. The petitioners further stated that in the aforesaid admission process they were declared successful and got admission in SMS Medical College, Jaipur. They also deposited the requisite fee in order to pursue the aforesaid academic courses of BPO & BASLP in SMS Medical College.

6. After passing the examination, they also underwent the mandatory internship, however, on account of ongoing dispute between the appellant- RCI with the respondent- RUHS approval was not granted by Rehabilitation Council of India for conducting aforesaid courses during the sessions 2013-14 & 2014-15 in SMS Medical Colleges.

7. The petitioners submitted that after having knowledge with regard to such dispute, they approached the respondent- RUHS and the State Government for resolving the dispute with regard to approval by the appellant- RCI and when nothing was done they filed writ petition before the learned Single Judge of this Court with a prayer to give direction to the State Government for approaching appellant- RCI for seeking necessary approval for the academic courses for the sessions 2013-14 & 2014-15 and a prayer was also made against the appellant- RCI to grant approval to the courses of BPO & BASLP conducted by SMS Medical College, Jaipur. [2025:RJ-JP:20900-DB] (5 of 12) [SAW-224/2024]

8. This is a matter of record that during pendency of the writ petition and on completion of entire course, the petitioners were also conferred degrees of the courses by RUHS. The grievance raised in the matter was that despite having obtained the degrees the appellant- RCI was not granting registration to the petitioners. On account of non-registration with the Council, the petitioners were not in a position to carry on their practice pursuant to such degree of BPO & BASLP.

9. It has also been submitted by the petitioners that the aforesaid courses were started by the respondent- University and SMS Medical College under Government of India's centrally sponsored scheme namely "Supporting State Government Medical College for conducting Para Medical Courses through one time grant". While releasing grant-in-aid for such scheme a Committee of Government of India duly visited SMS Medical College with a proposal to start Para Medical Courses.

10. After such direction from the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Welfare, and upon release of the grant-in-aid, the aforesaid courses were started by the State Government through RUHS. It was also submitted that SMS Medical College is one of the largest medical colleges of India running since 1947, with more than 500 faculty members. Numerous programmes/courses are being conducted in the aforesaid government college. For the purpose of award of degrees, the college is affiliated to respondent- RUHS, which is also a government university.

11. It was submitted by the petitioners that Rehabilitation Council of India has been constituted by Central Act namely; Rehabilitation Council of India Act, 1992 (hereinafter to be [2025:RJ-JP:20900-DB] (6 of 12) [SAW-224/2024] referred as 'RCI Act, 1992) and is a body created by the Central Government. Since the aforesaid courses BPO & BASLP were started by SMS Medical College and RUHS on the directions given by the Central Government and were also sponsored by the Central Government, therefore it cannot be said that the courses were either unapproved or recognized.

12. The petitioners prayed before the learned Single Judge for directing the appellant- RCI to grant approval for the courses for the sessions 2013-14 & 2014-15 and also to register the petitioners with the Council.

13. The writ petition filed by the petitioners was supported by respondent- RUHS as well as by the State Government.

14. Learned Single Judge vide order dated 20.09.2022, allowed the writ petition filed by the petitioners. Appellant- RCI was directed to accord its approval to aforesaid courses BPO & BASLP for the academic year 2013-14 & 2014-15 and to register the petitioners with the Council.

15. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 20.09.2022, the appellant- RCI has filed this Special Appeal contending therein that as per RCI Act 1992, no rehabilitation professional course can be started by any institute or university without prior approval of the Council. However, SMS Medical College and respondent- RUHS illegally started the aforesaid courses BPO & BASLP without seeking necessary approval from the appellant- RCI.

16. It has further been submitted by the appellant that the directions given by learned Single Judge in its order dated

20.09.2022 are contrary to the provisions of RCI Act, 1992. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that [2025:RJ-JP:20900-DB] (7 of 12) [SAW-224/2024] applications for seeking approval were made by RUHS in the office of appellant- Council, yet on inspection carried out by the experts of RCI, it was found that the SMS Medical College has shown poor performance and was lacking in essential parameters; such as, the building was not found as per the norms of RCI due to lack of class-room with adequate furniture, Rooms for teaching staff were not there etc. It was also objected by the team of visiting experts that human resources, laboratory, library and community promotional activities available in SMS Medical College were also not as per the norms of appellant- RCI, nor was there any proper researcher development facility available with SMS Medical College.

17. By pointing out the aforesaid shortcomings and defects, it was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that under such circumstances, on account of want of approval parameters, it was not possible for the RCI to grant approval to respondent to RUHS and SMS Medical College to run and conduct the aforesaid courses.

18. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that without properly appreciating the defects and shortcomings pointed out by the RCI, learned Single Judge has directed for according approval for the aforesaid courses and for registering the petitioners with the Council. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that such direction would run contrary to the provisions of Act and would amount to perpetuating the illegalities committed by SMS Medical College and RUHS.

19. Mr. Vigyan Shah, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State seriously objected to the submissions [2025:RJ-JP:20900-DB] (8 of 12) [SAW-224/2024] made on behalf of the appellant- RCI and has stated that the appellant- RCI being a body under the absolute control, command and authority of Central Government, cannot object against running of BPO & BASLP Courses in SMS Medical College through RUHS; for the reason that the aforesaid courses were started and successfully conducted only under the aforesaid scheme of Central Government. Even the funds were made available by the Central Government in the form of grant-in-aid. It was submitted that prior to issuing such directions to conduct courses and releasing funds, team of expert of Central Government had already visited the premises of SMS Medical College and found the college having all the necessary and proper facilities for running the aforesaid courses.

20. Learned Additional Advocate General would further submit that in view of the above, where a team of Central Government, Ministry of Medical Health Department had already inspected and visited the premises, there was no occasion whatsoever available to the appellant- RCI to conduct a fresh inspection.

21. It was further submitted by learned AAG that the objections raised by the visiting team of appellant- RCI through letter dated

20.02.2015 was duly replied by the Principal and Head of Department, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Department of SMS Medical College, Jaipur by way of issuing letter dated

27.05.2015, in which each and every objection was properly addressed by giving the necessary details and after receiving such reply on behalf of SMS Medical College, no further objection or letter revealing dissatisfaction of appellant- RCI was ever received [2025:RJ-JP:20900-DB] (9 of 12) [SAW-224/2024] either by SMS Medical College or by RUHS. It was also submitted that thereafter no fresh Inspection was made by appellant- RCI.

22. Learned counsel for RUHS as well as counsel for the petitioners have supported the arguments raised by learned AAG and have further added that the students cannot be made sufferer on account of any dispute between the two bodies constituted by the Central Government and the State Government. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it is not a case where the petitioners took admission in some private college having no proper infrastructure, recognition and qualified staff.

23. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that notification for inviting applications for admission in the aforesaid courses was issued by the RUHS, which is a government university established by the State Government in accordance with the norms of University Grants Commission. The aforesaid courses were to be conducted by the SMS Medical College, which is the oldest Government college in the State of Rajasthan. Hence, by no stretch of imagination, the petitioners could have any idea whatsoever that the courses offered by RUHS were not recognized or approved by the appellant- Council.

24. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the students have got no role whatsoever in applying or getting approval. They are simply expected to remain enough vigilant while taking admission, about the reputation of the institution where they were seeking admission. In the instant case, looking at the fact that a government university was granting admission in a government college, there was no occasion available with the [2025:RJ-JP:20900-DB] (10 of 12) [SAW-224/2024] students to even iota of suspicion with regard to the validity or veracity of the degrees to be awarded in respect of aforesaid courses by RUHS.

25. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also submitted that both the aforesaid courses BPO & BASLP are professional courses, which have been done by the petitioners in order to carry on their professions for the purpose of earning their livelihood. They underwent the due procedure for admission, deposited the requisite fee, took the classes for years together and also competed the necessary internships. Thereafter, on completion of courses, they have also been awarded degree by RUHS. Now after so many years, in case the appellant- RCI denies registration to them with the Council, then it would certainly cause grave prejudice and miscarriage of justice to the petitioners-students and this denial would ruin their entire career. They supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge and prayed for rejecting the instant appeal.

26. We have examined the record and carefully heard the arguments raised at the Bar by learned counsels.

27. It is an undisputed fact that RUHS is a Government University and SMS Medical College is a Government college. Learned counsel for the appellant also could not dispute that the aforesaid courses BPO & BASLP were started by the University and SMS Medical College only on directions of the Central Government under the aforesaid scheme, for which funds were also disbursed by the Central Government.

28. Learned counsel for the appellant also could not dispute that prior to asking SMS Medical College and RUHS to run the aforesaid [2025:RJ-JP:20900-DB] (11 of 12) [SAW-224/2024] courses the team of Central Government had also visited the premises of SMS Medical College and only after release of grant- in-aid by the Central Government, the aforesaid courses were started. It has also not been disputed by any of the party that RCI is a body constituted by the Central Government for the purpose of regulating Para Medical Courses. In the instant case, where special scheme was framed by the Central Government for conducting Para Medical Courses, there cannot be any doubt with regard to recognition of such courses by the Central Government and the State Government.

29. It is also a matter of record that the visiting expert team of appellant- RCI raised certain objections with regard to infrastructure and staff available with the SMS Medical College and such objections were communicated by appellant- RCI to the Principal of the college, who in turn submitted a detail parawise reply to all such objections.

30. Nothing has been placed on record that aforesaid reply to the objections submitted by the Principal of SMS Medical College vide letter dated 27.05.2015 was followed by any other objection raised by appellant- RCI; nor is there any other document on record to show that after such reply to the objection by SMS Medical College any fresh inspection whatsoever was conducted by the appellant- RCI. This would obviously means that the appellant- RCI was totally satisfied with the reply given by the SMS Medical College and under these circumstances no plausible reasons has come forward, which may enable the appellant- RCI to withhold its approval for the aforesaid courses for the sessions 2013-14 & 2014-15. [2025:RJ-JP:20900-DB] (12 of 12) [SAW-224/2024]

31. Thus, withholding of such approval and non-registration of the petitioners even after possessing the degree of BPO & BASLP, has rightly been held arbitrary and illegal by the learned Single Judge.

32. Learned counsel for the appellant has utterly failed to point out any error or negligence on the part of petitioners-students in seeking admission to the courses run by RUHS/SMS Medical College. No allegation with regard to misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the petitioners was ever pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant- RCI. Under these circumstances, it would be totally unjustified to deprive the petitioners of registration with appellant- Council, which would evidently enable the petitioners to carry on their profession for the purpose of earning their livelihood.

33. We have also been informed that after 2013-14 & 2014-15, the aforesaid courses have been discontinued only on account of fact that the courses were started under a special scheme of one time grant.

34. Thus, in view of the above, we do not find any error or infirmity in the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge and accordingly, the aforesaid appeals filed by the appellant- Council are hereby dismissed.

35. Pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of.

36. The Registry is directed to place a copy of this order in connected case file. (ANAND SHARMA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J DIVYA/34-35