Rajasthan High Court Grants Relief To Unani Student Whose Admission Was Cancelled For Not Submitting Open School Marksheet

The Rajasthan High Court granted relief to a student whose provisional admission in Rajashtan Unani Medical College, Jaipur, was cancelled after he could not submit original mark-sheets of clearing Biology from the Rajasthan State Open School. It was ruled that if the candidate had met substantive thresholds, strict compliance with technical formalities undermined the object of the admission scheme.

The bench of Justice Sameer Jain held that clauses 23 and 31 of the National Council For Indian System of Medicine (NCISM) had to be interpreted using the principles of “Ejusdem Generis” and “Noscitur a Sociis” to mean that while final approval of admission could not be granted without original documents, it did not mandate outright cancellation of a provisional admission if the failure to comply was due to reasons beyond candidate's control.

Holding that the interpretation of these Clauses as canvassed by the State was unduly restrictive, the Court not only directed provisional validation of the petitioner's admission, but also directed the State to take all steps including arrangement of extra classes, for the petitioner to enable him to compensate for any missed classes, and complete the course.

The Petitioner was provisionally allotted a seat at Rajasthan Unani Medical College, Jaipur, subject to submission of original documents to the Counselling Board. The petitioner had cleared Biology from the Rajasthan State Open School, which failed to issue the original mark sheet on time.

Petitioner had already submitted the web-copy of his result, and thereafter, he also submitted an affidavit affirming that the original mark sheet would be submitted within 15 days of its receipt from the Open School. However, his admission was cancelled by the State, which was challenged before the Court for being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

It was argued on behalf of the State that, as per Clauses 23 and 31 of the NCISM guidelines, it was mandatory to submit original mark sheets as a prerequisite for admission.

After hearing the contentions, the Court held the NCISM clauses did not mention outright cancellation of admission in case the candidate failed to fulfil the mandate for reasons beyond its control. Such interpretation taken by the State was unduly restrictive, the Court held.

The Court highlighted that non-furnishing of the original mark sheets was not a willful or deliberate omission on the part of the petitioner, but rather on account of delay by the Open School in providing the mark sheets.

Furthermore, the Court opined that, “Courts while applying the Doctrine of Substantial Compliance have repeatedly held that where a procedural requirement is directory and the candidate has otherwise met the substantive thresholds, strict insistence on a technical formality, particularly one frustrated by the authorities themselves, undermines the very object of the admission scheme.”

The Court also referred to the case of Dolly Chhanda v Chairman, JEE and Ors, (2005) 9 SCC 779in which it was held that depending on the facts of the case, there could be some relaxation in the matter of submission of proof and it won't be proper to apply any rigid principle as it pertained to the domain of procedure. Reference was also made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Divya vs. Union of India and ors(2023).

In this light, the Court held that cancellation of the petitioner's admission was unsustainable in law, and directed the State to accept the mark sheet if produced by the candidate within 15 days of this order. If the same was still not issued by the Open School, the admission shall be provisionally validated subject to final verification.

The State was further directed to take all necessary steps to enable the petitioner to complete the course, including arrangement of extra classes to compensate for the missed ones.

Accordingly, the petition was disposed of. 

Title: Mohammad Anwar v the Chairman, Rajashtan NEET Ayush, and Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 204

Click here to read the judgment