Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Supendra Meena S/O Shri Harikesh Meena vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jp:7628) on 18 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:7628]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18458/2025
Supendra Meena S/o Shri Harikesh Meena, Aged About 23 Years,
Resident Of Village Buda Mandawara, Tehsil Sapotara, District
Karauli (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Medical And Health, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. State Institute Of Health And Family Welfare (Sihfw),
Through Its Director, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur.
3. The Registrar, Rajasthan Paramedical Council, Jaipur, Plot
No. 6, Everest Colony, Near Apex Mall, Lal Kothi, Jaipur.
4. The Controller Of Examination, Mahatma Gandhi
University, Sitapura Industrial Area, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahamad
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC with
Mr. Rahul Verma
Mr. Bharat Saini
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA
Order
18/02/2026
1. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition with
following prayer:
“It is therefore humbly prayed that Your Lordship,
may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this
writ petition and by an appropriate writ, order or
direction:
1. The respondents may be directed to consider of
the candidature of the humble petitioner for selection
and consequential appointment on the post of Lab
Technician in pursuant to the advertisement dated
31.05.2023 (Annexure-1) with all consequential
benefits with effect from the date any candidate with
less marks than the humble petitioner in ST Category
has been given appointment by the respondents, in
the interest of justice.
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 11:16:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/02/2026 at 08:58:48 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7628] (2 of 8) [CW-18458/2025]
2. The result of the petitioner which was withheld on
11.06.2024, in the result dated 11.06.2024
(Annexure-6), may be directed to be declared with
all consequential benefit of selection and
appointment in the interest of justice.
3. The action/omission on the part of the
respondents in not making registration earlier and
now making registration of the petitioner on
08.07.2004 with the same qualification and
specifications without any further addition may be
ordered to be treated to have been committed a
delay at the end of the respondent-Rajasthan
Paramedical Council and the same may be ordered
not to cause any adverse effect or fetal effect on the
selection and consequential appointment of the
humble petitioner in the interest of justice.
4. Any other appropriate order, which may be found
just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case, be passed in favour of the petitioner. ”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
although, petitioner acquired requisite qualification of B.Sc. MLT
for the post of Lab Technician, 2021 and subsequently, the
petitioner also submitted an application for registration with
Rajasthan Paramedical Council on 31.12.2021 yet, on the pretext
that the degree was obtained from Mahatma Gandhi University of
Medical Sciences and Technology therefore, his registration was
withheld.
3. Learned counsel submits that the controversy with
regard to veracity and validity of degree of the aforesaid
University has already been decided by the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Rajasthan Para Medical Council Vs. Tara
Chand Sharma & Ors. in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.
66/2021 and other connected appeals decided on 06.05.2024,
therefore, the petitioner was subsequently registered with
Rajasthan Para Medical Council.
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 11:16:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/02/2026 at 08:58:48 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7628] (3 of 8) [CW-18458/2025]
4. Learned counsel submits that only on account of non-
registration of the petitioner’s degree with Rajasthan Para Medical
Council, at the relevant time, his candidature was not considered
pursuant to advertisement dated 31.05.2023 issued by the
respondents for recruitment on the post of Lab Technician.
Learned counsel submits that in the light of judgment of Pinki
Yadav & Ors.Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 17418/2016, the respondents are required to
consider the candidature of the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has participated in the recruitment process for the post
of Lab Technician pursuant to aforesaid advertisement where, he
has secured 44.481% marks in the category of ST (Male) and cut
off marks for the aforesaid category as declared by the
respondents is 36.6807.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ
petition and submitted that it is a settled proposition of law that
the candidate submitting application pursuant to any recruitment
advertisement, is bound to possess the requisite qualification as
well as requirement of registration on the last date of submitting
the application form. In the instant case, admittedly, the
petitioner was not registered with Rajasthan Para Medical Council
on the last date of submitting the application form. Hence, he
could not have been considered. Therefore, there is no infirmity in
the action taken by the respondents.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent-Rajasthan Para
Medical Council has submitted that after the judgment of Tara
Chand Sharma (Supra), Rajasthan Paramedical Council has
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 11:16:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/02/2026 at 08:58:48 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7628] (4 of 8) [CW-18458/2025]registered the degree of the petitioner and has issued necessary
certificate; however, such certificate has been issued subsequent
to the last date of submitting application pursuant to aforesaid
advertisement.
8. Heard and considered.
9. This Court finds that the issue involved in the present
writ petition is no more res integra and similar controversy has
arisen in the case of Pinki Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan
(supra) wherein this Court has made following observations and
held as under:
“8.Learned Counsel for the petitioners also highlighted
that the matter further travelled in a batch of cases
culminating in judgment dated 06.05.2024 rendered by a
Division Bench of this Court in Rajasthan Para Medical
Council v. Tara Chand Sharma & Others. (D.B. Civil
Special Appeal (Writ) No. 66/2021 & other
connected appeals), wherein the Division Bench
conclusively held that diplomas/degrees in Lab Technician
course conferred by NIMS University and other similarly
placed Universities are valid qualifications and that the
RPMC was bound to grant registration. Para 21 and 22 of
the above judgment are relevant and quoted as under:
“21. We are of the considered view that there is no
mention that the Universities which were
established did not follow any rules and regulations
or norms issued by the regulating body. Since, the
diploma/degree of Lab Technician course was
mentioned in Schedule II, the appellant-RPMC was
bound to register the persons, who had applied for
registration under Regulation 42 of Rules.
22. Learned Single Judge has rightly directed the
appellants to register all the candidates who
possess diploma and have done regular courses
from NIMS University and other Universities.
However, the direction with regard to ‘other
Universities’ within the State of Rajasthan was not
called for because Issue No. ‘E’ was pertaining to
the Universities mentioned in Para 9 viz. NIMS(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 11:16:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/02/2026 at 08:58:48 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7628] (5 of 8) [CW-18458/2025]University, Singhania University, JRN Vidyapeeth
(Deemed) University, Jaipur National University,
Mahatma Gandhi University of Medical Sciences
and Technology, Mahatma Jyoti Rao Phoole
University, SMS Medical and Madhav University.”
9.The Division Bench also observed that there was
nothing on record to demonstrate that the Universities
concerned did not follow the rules and regulations
prescribed by the regulating bodies. It was, therefore,
directed that all such candidates must be registered
under Regulation 42 of the RPMC Regulations. The said
judgment has attained finality as the challenge before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court was dismissed.
10. In light of the authoritative pronouncement of the
Division Bench in the case of RPMC vs. Tara Chand
(supra.), the controversy raised herein is no longer res
integra. All the petitioners stand registered with the
RPMC during the pendency of the present writ petitions,
pursuant to the aforesaid judgment. Their participation in
the recruitment process was protected by interim orders
of this Court. Once their registration is validly granted,
the embargo created by the advertisement stands
removed and their candidature cannot be denied
consideration.
11. The argument of alternative remedy is of no avail in
view of the fact that the petitioners were provisionally
allowed by this Court to participate and during pendency,
the very foundation for denial of registration has been
negated by the Division Bench judgment. Similarly, the
reliance placed by the respondents on earlier coordinate
Bench decisions is misplaced, as those stand impliedly
overruled by the Division Bench in RPMC vs Tara Chand
(supra).
12. It deserves to be emphasised that having obtained
diplomas from a duly established University under a State
Act, the petitioners were under a legitimate expectation
that their qualifications would be recognised by statutory
bodies of the State. The denial of registration by the
Rajasthan Para Medical Council, despite timely
applications and payment of prescribed fees, effectively
deprived them of the opportunity to compete on equal
footing with other candidates.
13. This Court cannot remain oblivious of the fact that
such denial was not on account of any default or
deficiency on the part of the petitioners. The impediment
arose entirely from the arbitrary stance of the
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 11:16:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/02/2026 at 08:58:48 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7628] (6 of 8) [CW-18458/2025]
respondents, who, contrary to law and in defiance of
settled principles, refused to recognise qualifications
conferred by Statutory University. The result was that the
petitioners, though fully qualified, were compelled to
approach this Court and undergo prolonged litigation
merely to secure a right which was already vested in
them under law.
14. The resultant injustice is twofold; firstly, the
petitioners lost valuable years in their professional career
due to adamance of the respondents; and secondly, they
were subjected to avoidable mental, social, and financial
hardship despite possessing lawful qualifications. When
similarly situated candidates, possessing equivalent
diplomas from other institutions, were permitted to
participate, the petitioners were singled out and excluded
without any rational basis. Such action is manifestly
arbitrary and cannot withstand judicial scrutiny.
15. It is also pertinent to note that denial of registration
had a cascading effect. It not only frustrated the
petitioners’ right to be considered for appointment but
also undermined the sanctity of a merit-based selection
process. The prolonged deprivation of opportunity has
irreparably prejudiced the petitioners, some of them may
have suffered a lot during the pendency of these
petitions. Such consequences are wholly unjust and
attributable exclusively to the arbitrary conduct of the
authorities. The respondents, being statutory authorities,
were duty-bound to act fairly, reasonably, and in
accordance with law. Their failure to discharge this
obligation not only violated legitimate rights of the
petitioners, but has also eroded the faith of the
petitioners in the system.
16.In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioners
have suffered grave injustice which can be remedied only
by granting substantive relief to undo the prejudice
already caused as well as to effectively grant benefits of
the judgment by the Division Bench in RPMC vs Tara
Chand (supra.).
17.In the case of Narendra Singh vs State of Haryana
& Others, (2022) 3 SCC 286, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has observed as under:
“19. Whatever was the lapse and/or the delay was, it
was on the part of the employer of the appellant, who
did not issue the NOC though applied on 22-3-2016
and which was issued only on 6-6-2018 and that too
after the intervention of the High Court. Even the
learned Single Judge also noted that there was a delay(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 11:16:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/02/2026 at 08:58:48 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7628] (7 of 8) [CW-18458/2025]and/or lapse on the part of the District Elementary
Education Officer, and therefore, even the learned
Single Judge also imposed the costs of Rs 50,000 on
the employer of the appellant.
20. Once it is found that there was no lapse and/or
delay on the part of the appellant and/or there was no
fault of the appellant in not producing the NOC at the
relevant time and when it was produced immediately
on receipt of the same and that too before the
appointments were made and when it is found that the
last candidate, who is appointed i.e. Respondent 4
herein is having less marks than the appellant and thus
the appellant is a more meritorious candidate than the
last candidate appointed i.e. Respondent 4, to deny
him the appointment is not justifiable at all. He cannot
be punished for no fault of him. Both, the learned
Single Judge Narender Singh v. State of Haryana, 2019
SCC OnLine P&H 3621 as well as the Division Bench
Narender Singh v. State of Haryana, 2021 SCC OnLine
P&H 3059 of the High Court have committed grave
error in not exercising the jurisdiction vested in it and
in not directing the respondents to appoint the
appellant though he is found to be more meritorious
candidate than the last candidate appointed i.e.
Respondent 4.”
18.Aforesaid judgment in the case of Narendra Singh
(supra) was further followed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Laxmi Saroj & Others vs State of
Uttar Pradesh & Others, (2022) 17 SCC 477 and it
was held in the following manner:
“13. The issue involved is directly covered by the decision
of this Court in Narender Singh v. State of Haryana
[Narender Singh v. State of Haryana, (2022) 3 SCC 286 :
(2022) 1 SCC (L&S) 537. In the said decision, it is observed
and held by this Court that once it was found that there was
no lapse/delay on the part of the applicant and/or there was
no fault of the appellant/applicant in not producing the NOC
at the relevant time, he cannot be punished for the same.”
19.Thus, it is held that the action of the RPMC in denying
registration was arbitrary and without authority of law.
Consequently, the respondents no. 2 & 3 cannot deny
consideration of their candidature for appointments to the
petitioners only on account of non-registration before the
last date of application, since the delay was wholly
attributable to the unlawful refusal by RPMC. The
petitioners possess the requisite qualification and are
duly registered now with RPMC. They are, therefore,
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 11:16:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/02/2026 at 08:58:48 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7628] (8 of 8) [CW-18458/2025]
entitled to appointment in accordance with other
eligibility criteria and their merit position in the selection
process initiated under advertisement dated 10.10.2016.
This judgment shall be applicable in respect of all the
petitioners, who have acquired the requisite qualification
from the Universities mentioned in para 22 of the
judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of
RPMC vs Tara Chand (supra.).”
10. In view of above judgment of Pinki Yadav, this writ
petition also stands allowed in following terms:-
(i) It is declared that the Rajasthan Para Medical
Council had no authority to deny registration to the
petitioners and the denial was arbitrary and illegal.
(ii) The respondents are directed to consider the
candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the
posts of Lab Technician in ST Category, pursuant to
advertisement dated 31.05.2023, provided he is
otherwise eligible and has secured suitable place in merit,
while doing so no objection shall be raised on the ground
that their registration with RPMC was not granted prior to
last date of submission of application form.
(iii). Petitioner shall be accorded appointment in
accordance with his merit position in the selection
process. Upon appointment he shall be granted notional
seniority and notional pay fixation from the date persons
lower in merit to him were appointed. However, he shall
not be entitled to claim back wages or arrears of salary
for the period prior to his actual joining. Necessary
compliance shall be made accordingly by the
Respondents within a period of two months from the date
of receipt of a certified copy of this order.”
(ANAND SHARMA),J
NEERU/31
(Uploaded on 23/02/2026 at 11:16:13 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/02/2026 at 08:58:48 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
