[2025:RJ-JP:50329] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19412/2025 Dr. Kehri Singh S/o Ajeet Fauzdar, Aged About 30 Years, R/o P.o. Manjhi, Nadbai, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan - 321602 ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Medical, Health And Family Welfare, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan 2. The Director (P.h.), Department Of Medical, Health And Family Welfare, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Swasthaya Bhawan, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. Director, All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (Aiims), Ansari Nagar, New Delhi - 110029 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.S. Sinha Mr. Yash Joshi for Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI Order 11/12/2025 1. The present petition has been filed with the following prayers:- “In view of the above it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly: I. Declare illegal and arbitrary the action of the respondents in not providing the Sponsorship Certificate in prescribed format and cancelling of candidature of the petitioner. II. Direct Respondent No.2 to issue Sponsorship Certificate in prescribed format as desired by AIIMS, forthwith and direct the Respondent No.3 to allow the petitioner to participate further in counselling of seat allocation and allot him seat as per his rank/score. III. Pass any other order deemed fit in the interest of justice.” [2025:RJ-JP:50329] (2 of 4) [CW-19412/2025] 2. A perusal of the prayers sought by the petitioner reveals that the entire controversy hinges upon the issuance of a Sponsorship Certificate by the respondent-State No.1 and 2 in favor of the petitioner in a specific format, which is appendix E of the information brochure of INI-CET, in absence of which the petitioner would not be permitted to appear in the counselling of the Post-graduate programme at the Institute of National Importance INI-CET in January, 2026 session, being conducted by AIIMS, New Delhi under the State Sponsorship category. 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the petitioner, who is a State Government employee working as a Medical Officer with the respondent-State, has been permitted by the State to appear in the said entrance examination wherein, the petitioner has been declared successful, enabling him to participate further in the counselling process, there is no occasion for the respondent-State to not to issue the Sponsorship Certificate as prescribed by respondent No.3-AIIMS. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to bear any financial burden over and above what the State would grant. Learned counsel further submits that he will furnish an undertaking in this regard before the state authorities so as to enable the State to issue the Sponsorship Certificate as desired by respondent No.3-AIIMS. Learned counsel further submits that even specific pleading in this regard has been made in the writ petition and he would remain bound by the same. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent-State has specifically submitted that issuance of Sponsorship Certificate [2025:RJ-JP:50329] (3 of 4) [CW-19412/2025] would stand governed by Rule 112 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules of 1951”) and thus, in case, the petitioner submits an undertaking to personally bear the amount over and above what is permissible under Rule 112 of the Rules of 1951, the State Government will issue the Sponsorship Certificate in the format as required by respondent No.3. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3-AIIMS submits that the petitioner can be permitted in counselling only upon furnishing upon the requisite Sponsorship Certificate and that too in the proforma as prescribed by it. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The factual matrix involved in the matter is limited to two aspects, viz. the extent of sponsorship to be granted by the respondent-State and the issuance of Sponsorship Certificate by the State in the proforma as prescribed by respondent No.3. Once the petitioner undertakes to bear the costs and expenses beyond what the State would be awarding by applying the provisions of Rule 112 of the Rules 1951, there is no occasion for the State to not to issue the Sponsorship Certificate in the proforma as prescribed by respondent No.3-AIIMS. Further, once such Sponsorship Certificate is so issued by the respondent-State, there is no occasion for respondent No.3-AIIMS to not to permit the petitioner. 8. However, as the said exercise of submission of undertaking by the petitioner and consequential issuance of Sponsorship Certificate by the respondent-State would take some time and [2025:RJ-JP:50329] (4 of 4) [CW-19412/2025] today being the last day for announcement of seat allocation, it would be in the interest of justice to direct the respondent No.3 to provisionally permit the petitioner to participate in the counselling of seat allocation of mock of first round. However, the same would be provisional subject to the petitioner furnishing the required undertaking with the State Government and the consequential issuance of a Sponsorship Certificate by the State in the format as prescribed by respondent No.3. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent No.3 to provisionally permit the petitioner to participate in the counselling of seat allocation of mock of first round. It is further directed that the petitioner would submit the required undertaking with respect to bearing the additional amount over and above, what the State will bear in terms of Rule 112 of the Rules of 1951, within a period of 5 days from today and on receipt of the said undertaking, the State Government will issue the Sponsorship Certificate within a period of 5 days thereafter in the format/proforma as prescribed by respondent No.3, which the petitioner would duly submit before the respondent No.3 on or before 24.12.2025. Needless to say that as a specific time table is prescribed for the said examination/seat allocation, the above directed time schedule be strictly adhered by the parties. 10. All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (ANUROOP SINGHI),J JAYANT KUMAR /44