'Both At Fault': Rajasthan High Court Fines State Varsity ₹10 Lakh For Admitting Ineligible Student, Rejects His Plea To Continue BSc Course

The Rajasthan High Court fined State University of Health Sciences Rs 10 Lakh for admitting an ineligible student in the B.Sc course, and had later disallowed him to give first year final exams observing that the varsity's negligent act had caused loss of one year to the student, creating an obstacle in his future educational pursuits.

Concurrently, Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand rejected the petition filed by the ineligible student seeking directions to Rajasthan Univeristy of Health Sciences (RUHS) to allow him to pursue his studies, opining that "no ineligible candidate could be permitted to take admission to any course and be allowed to complete it under the protection of a court's order". The court further said that no illegality could be allowed to be perpetuated. It further said:

"Both the petitioner as well as the respondent-University are at fault. It was the duty of the University to verify the documents of the petitioner, at the time of admission, instead of directly allowing him to pursue the aforesaid course. Once the petitioner was allowed to pursue the aforesaid course for the entire one year and an objection was raised only at the time of examination i.e. at the fag end of one year, this Court cannot exercise its equitable jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner, who was not eligible to get admission in the aforesaid course. Therefore, he is not entitled to get any relief from this Court and the instant writ petition is liable to be and is hereby rejected. This Court also finds the respondent-authority guilty, of improperly granting admission to the petitioner, thereby causing loss of one precious academic year to the petitioner".

The petitioner passed his senior secondary examination in 2020 wherein he failed in the theory paper of Biology, and a note was appended to his mark-sheet directing reappearance in that paper. Despite the same, the petitioner used the same marksheet to apply in the B.Sc course, and was granted admission by RUHS.

No objection was raised by the university at the time of admission. After completing one year, at the time of appearing in the final examination, the petitioner was not permitted to appear. The university said that owing to his marks in Biology in the 12^th standard, he was ineligible to get admission.

Petition was filed arguing that since petitioner's mark-sheet was available with the university, at such a belated stage, it could not raise objections regarding the petitioner's admission.

After hearing the contentions, the Court highlighted that it was settled position that a candidate who took admission in any college/university or appeared in any examination shall ensure fulfilment of minimum eligibility criteria. However, at the same time, it was also college/university's duty to verify the candidates' documents before admitting them.

Ascertaining the fault of both the petitioner as well as the university, the Court held that the Court could not exercise its equitable jurisdiction in the petitioner's favour by allowing him to continue his course. At the same time, the Court observed that RUHS was also guilty of improperly admitting the petitioner and causing him loss of one precious academic year.

In this light, while rejecting the petition, the Court referred to the Supreme Court ruling in Krina Ajay Shah & Ors. v. The Secretary, Association of Management of Unaided Private Medical & Dental Colleges & Ors. to impose a cost of Rs. 10,00,000 on RUHS

“This Court finds that the petitioner had undergone one year of study in B.Sc, MLT, after paying requisite fees to the University. His parents have incurred expenses for one year… The petitioner might have devoted his complete one year… The respondent/University, by such an overt act and conduct, not only benefited themselves but also caused loss of one year to the petitioner and financial loss to his parents as well...For the loss of one year of the petitioner and creating an obstacle in his future educational pursuits, the respondent-University is liable to compensate him for their blatant negligence”

Out of Rs. 10,00,000, Rs. 5,00,000 had to be given to the petitioner and remaining Rs. 5,00,000 had to be deposited with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority.

Accordingly, the petition was disposed of.

Title: Balram Yadav v Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 180

Click Here To Read/Download Order