AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Gopal Krishan VyasÂ
The instant special appeal has been filed by the Rajasthan Para Medical Council under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules read with
Article 225 of the Constitution of India so as to challenge the judgment dated 7.2.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in SBCWP
No.13990/2016 (Hitesh Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) whereby the learned Single Judge while following the judgment in
the case of Sunil Bishnoi & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP No.8149/2015), decided on 1.2.2018 allowed the writ petition only to the
extent that respondent no.3 Rajasthan Para Medical Council, Jaipur shall register the petitioners-respondents in case they are otherwise found eligible
within a period of one month from the date of receiving certified copy of the order.Â
 Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that in the writ petition, the respondents nowhere stated that their technical qualification i.e.,
diploma in Medical Lab Technology (DMLT), or Diploma in Radiology Technology (DRT) or Diploma in Ophthalmic Technology (DOT) obtained
from the Pacific Medical University, Udaipur is recognized by the State of Rajasthan, as well as by the Rajasthan Para Medical Council Regulations,
2014. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that in the case of Gand Mal Dhakar & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors (DBSAW
No.955/2011, decided on 17.2.2017) the candidates not possessing the requisite statutory eligibility cannot be considered for appointment on
the post created under the statue, therefore, the respondents are not entitled for any appointment.  Further, the learned counsel for the appellantÂ
invited our attention towards the judgment of this court in the case of Ajju Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan (SBCWP No.700/2016) in which the petitioner
sought equivalence of the diploma or certificate course in laboratory technician obtained from the private Universities with the requisite
recognized qualification as per the provisions of Rules of 1965 and that writ petition was dismissed on 19.9.2016, therefore, it is submitted that the
respondents are not entitled for any relief granted by the learned Single Judge.Â
 Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant argued that under Section 17 of the Rajasthan Para Medical Council Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to
as the Act of 2008 for short) and Regulation 42 and 43 of the Regulations of 2014 a person having recognized para medical qualification is
entitled to be registered as para medical professional, noneelse, but this aspect of the matter has not been considered properly by the learned Single
Judge, therefore, this appeal may kindly be allowed and the judgment impugned may kindly be quashed. Â
 Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents argued that two prayers were made in the writ petition by the respondents-
petitioners; one for considering their candidature for appointment in pursuance of advertisement notification dated 10.10.2016 and another prayer was
made that respondent Rajasthan Para Medical Council may be directed to register the petitioner as per provisions of the Law. The learned Single
Judge allowed the writ petition only to the extent that respondent no.2 shall register the petitioners in case they are otherwise found eligible in view of
the judgment in the case of Sunil Bishnoi (supra). It is also argued that institution from where they acquired qualification is University established by
law and as per Section 17 a person having recognized para medical qualification shall be entitled to be registered as para medical professionals.Â
Further, it is submitted that as per regulation 42 framed in the year 2014, there is provision that a candidate eligible for registration, who has obtained
certificate of para medical course from any government body or private body permitted by the government for that purpose who has run the course
and awarded certificate before the commencement of these regulations and admittedly, the aforesaid regulations were framed in the month of
Dec., 2014 and petitioners being eligible to take admission in para medical course applied with the University in the month of Jan., 2014 and
admittedly, after following due process in the course of two year, therefore, there is complete fallacy in the arguments of learned counsel for the
appellant that qualification is not recognized by the Rajasthan Para Medical Council and therefore, they are not entitled for registration in the
Rajasthan Para Medical Council. While inviting attention towards the regulation 42(1) it is submitted that the candidate who has passed the para
medical course from any government body or private body permitted by the government for the purpose who has run the course and awarded
certificate before the commencement of these regulations. Admittedly, the respondents-petitioners acquired qualification from the Pacific Medical
University, Udaipur which is established under the Act, therefore, the case of the respondents fully covered with the judgment in the case of
Sunil Bishnoi (supra) case. In view of the above arguments it is submitted that there is no force in this appeal, therefore, this appeal may kindly be
dismissed.Â
 After hearing learned counsel for the parties, first of all, we have considered the fact which is not in dispute that respondents were admitted in the
respondent Pacific University, Udaipur for acquiring course in the month of Jan.2014. The regulations were framed as per the Rajathan Para
Medical Council Act, 2008 in the month of Dec., 2014. Section 17 of the Act of 2008 is as follows:
“Section 17. Persons entitled to be registered- A person having recognized Para-medical qualification shall be entitled to be registered as
Para-medical profession.â€Â
 The regulations farmed under the provisions of the Act by the Rajathan Para Medical Council. The regulation 42 was incorporated in which
eligibility for registration was provided. The regulation 42 is as follows:
“Regulation 42. Eligibility for registration â€" The following persons be eligible for registration-Â
(i) Who has obtained certificate of a para-medical course from any Government body or private body permitted by the Government for the
purpose who has run the course and awarded certificate before the commencement of these regulations.Â
(ii) Who has passed the Para-medical course from any institution recognized by the Rajasthan Para medical Council.
(iii) Who has passed the Para medical course from any institution/Government body, outside the territories of Rajasthan, recognized for the purpose by
the concerned State Government or Central Government.Â
(iv) Who has passed the para-medical course from any institution outside the territories of India, recognized for the purpose by the Government for
the purpose by the Government of the country concerned and verified by the Government of India.â€Â
There is no doubt that as per Section 17 of the Act of 2008 a person having recognized para medical qualification is entitled for registration as para
medical professional, therefore, obviously the respondents-petitioners who acquired qualification after getting admission in the month of Jan., 2014
became entitled for registration in view of Section 17 of the Act.  The regulation 42(1) of the Rajasthan Para Medical Regulation, 2014Â
clearly provides that those candidates who obtained certificate of para medical course from any government body or private body permitted by the
government for the purpose who has run the course and awarded certificate before the commencement of these regulations. The aforesaid
regulation 42 is for the recognized institutions, but the University from where respondents-petitioners acquired degree diploma is established by law,
therefore, question of recognition is irrelevant. In case of
Rajasthan Nursing Council, Jaipur Vs. Singhania University & Ors, (DBSAW No.671/2018), this court dismissed the special appeal today itself in
which following adjudication is made, which reads as under: -
 “After hearing learned counsel for the parties, first of all it is required to be observed that in the grounds of the writ petition no other ground has
been taken by the appellant except the ground which is incorporated and mentioned above. The only argument and ground taken in the appeal
is that registration is required from appellant RNC by the Singhania University, which is established by law.Â
We have considered the rival submissions and come to the conclusion that once the controversy has already been adjudicated by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Dr. B.L. Asawa Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors reported in AIR 1982 SC 933 and in case of Mrs. Madhu Santosh Vs. State of
Rajasthan (SBCWP NO.2502/1989), decided on 21.2.1991 while relying upon the aforesaid judgment then there is no question to hold that any error
has been committed by the learned Single Judge in directing the appellant RNC so as to deny the registration on the pretext that recognition is
necessary from the appellant Rajasthan Nursing Council. Â
We are of the firmed opinion that if any University is established by law and imparting the course in the form of diploma and degree or qualification,
that cannot be questioned by the appellant RNC for the purpose of registration.Â
We have considered the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant in the case of Gand Mal Dhaker & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
(DBSAW No.955/2011), decided on 17.2.2017 in which question of appointment and qualification was involved and hear the controversy is only
with regard to registration, therefore, the judgment rendered in aforesaid case not applicable in the present case.Â
In our opinion no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge so as to allow the writ petition filed by the respondents while following the
adjudication made by the Hon'ble Apex Court , in the case of Dr. B.L. Asawa (Supra) which is subsequently followed by this court in the case of
Mrs. Madhu Santosh (supra).Â
Consequently, the instant special appeal is hereby dismissed.â€
After considering the judgment and the fact that the respondents petitioners acquired qualification from the University established by law, therefore, no
further recognition was required. Therefore, in our opinion, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge so as to issue direction to the
Rajasthan Para Medical Council to register the respondents-petitioners in the writ petition filed by the respondents while following the adjudication
made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of B.L. Asawa Vs.
State of Rajasthan & ors. reported in AIR 1982 SC 933 and in case of Mr. Madhu Santosh Vs. State of Rajasthan (SBCWP No.2502/1989), decided
on 21.2.1992 and decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Ms. Neelam Devi & Anr. Vs. Haryana Nurses Registration Council &
Ors. (Civil Writ petition No.4021/2009), decided on 19.2.2010 reported in 2010 158 PLR 323.Â
Consequently, there is no force in this appeal filed by the Rajasthan Para Medical Council, Jaipur. Hence, this special appeal is hereby dismissed.Â