[2026:RJ-JP:10115] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11988/2025 Deependra Sharma S/o Shri Anand Kumar Sharma, Aged About 23 Years, R/o House No. 7, Near ESI Hospital And National Insurance Company, Jaipur Bypass, Dausa, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. National Medical Commission, Through Its Director, Under Graduate Medical Examination Board, Government Of India, Pocket-14, Sector-8, Dwarka, New Delhi-110077. 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare Govt. Of Rajasthan, Room No. 2202, Main Building Government Secretariat, Jaipur-302005. 3. Rajasthan University Of Health Science, Through Its Registrar, Sector 18 Road, Kumbha Marg, Sector 11, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur-302033. 4. Principal And Controller, Shri Jagannath Pahadiya, Government Medical College, Bharatpur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hitesh Mishra For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yash Joshi for Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI Order 09/03/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:- “It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition, and - (I) By issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned suspension order dated 16.04.2025 and directing the respondent to allow the Petitioner for [2026:RJ-JP:10115] (2 of 5) [CW-11988/2025] attending the classes and appearing in the examination. (ii) Directing the respondents to allow the Petitioner for completing his medical course without any obstacle. (iii) Directing the Respondents, if the Petitioner is acquitted in trial proceedings, then the Petitioner will be issued his Degree on successful completion of his medical course. (iv) Any other appropriate relief, which is deemed just and proper in above mentioned facts and circumstances, may also be granted to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the present controversy stands covered by the order passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7108/2025, titled as Abhishek Kumar Jindal Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. with other connected matters, wherein following directions were issued : “7. Considering the above factual aspect of the matter that the controversy involved in these petitions has already been decided by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur in the case of Vikas Vishnoi (supra) with the following observations and directions in paras 23 to 40, which reads as under “23. The Act of 2024, which deals with malpractices in public examination though provides for punishment but does not contain any provision for suspension. 24. There is a provision in the form of Regulation No.24 in the Regulations of 2021, which provides for power to suspend in case of ragging. But these regulations are confined to the cases of ragging and naturally, do no provide for suspension in the cases of impersonation. 25. So far as argument of Mr. Tatia based upon section 24 of the Act of 2019 and section2(1)(a) of the Act of 2024 is concerned, according to this Court the petitioners do not fall within the ambit of candidate, because it is indicative of the candidate and a person, who appears for a candidate as a ‘scribe’. The petitioners, who have impersonated on behalf of the candidate can neither be treated to a candidate nor can they be alleged to be scribes, because scribe is a person, who has been authorised by the examining body to appear on behalf of the [2026:RJ-JP:10115] (3 of 5) [CW-11988/2025] candidate, whereas, the allegation against the petitioners is that they have impersonated the actual candidates and unauthorisedly rather fraudulently appeared in their place. 26. The petitioners would fall within the contours of a crime or organized crime as defined under sub- clause (h) of sub-section(1)of section 2 of the Act of 2024. They may also be treated to be persons associated with the service provider defined in sub- clause(i) of sub-section (1) of section 2 and sub- clause (v) of section 3of the Act of 2024, but whether or not they really fall within the ambit and scope of these sections will ultimately based upon the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the finding recorded by the trial court in this regard. 27. Suspension usually presupposes initiation or contemplation of inquiry. While, observing that no inquiry has so far been initiated against the petitioners, this Court would like to add that even if the respondents so wish or propose, no inquiry is possible because the acts of impersonation were done outside the college(s) in which the petitioners are studying and because all the material, oral or occular evidence is with the police and not with the college(s). Hence, even if an inquiry is conducted, it will be a futile exercise or a farce. 28. Hence, unless such finding is recorded and petitioners are held guilty, their future cannot be kept in suspended animation for indefinite period. Had there been a case of the petitioners getting admission in the medical course by asking someone else to appear on their behalf, perhaps this Court would have not granted them any indulgence on the basis of sympathy or equitable consideration, because then their merit or eligibility itself was in doubt. 29. Allegation against each of the petitioners herein is, that they have impersonated for other students in the NEET UG Examination. However, so far as their own admission in medical colleges is concerned, there is no iota of allegation of getting admission fraudulently or by using unfair means – there is no quarrel about their merit and eligibility of getting admission in the medical courses. 30. According to this Court, unless there is any statute or regulation, which provides for suspension, rustication or even cancellation of the admission of the candidates involved in impersonation in the examinations, the respondents cannot place the petitioners under suspension. 31. If the suspension is allowed to continue, the loss would be irreversible and irreparable, inasmuch as the period which the criminal trial will take, the petitioners would not be able to continue with their studies and their future will be left in lurch. And if, they are ultimately acquitted, they would have lost 3-4 precious years of their student life doing nothing. [2026:RJ-JP:10115] (4 of 5) [CW-11988/2025] 32.This Court not even for a moment approves petitioners’ action of impersonation and firmly believes that looking to the increasing number of such cases, it is high time the Central Government brings appropriate legislation, but in absence of such legislation and without any power to suspend, placing the petitioners under suspension is not only illegal, without jurisdiction, but also violative of their fundamental rights guaranteed under Article19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. 33. The action on the part of the respondents in placing the petitioners under suspension is like holding them guilty and punishing them before the competent court convicts them. 34. But, since the allegation against the petitioners is, that they have appeared for other candidates in subsequent examination, this Court is persuaded to take somewhat lenient view, however, with caution and circumspection. 35. The writ petitions are, therefore, allowed. 36. The petitioners’ suspension order(s) in each of the writ petitions are, hereby, quashed. Their suspension shall naturally be treated quashed from the date of order instant. 37. The respondent-college(s) shall forthwith allow them to attend classes. In case, petitioners fulfill the requisite attendance criteria, they shall be allowed to appear in the ensuing examination in accordance with law. 38.The petitioners shall be allowed to complete their course, but the respondents shall neither issue them degree nor shall they be registered, unless the trial is concluded and they are acquitted of the charges. 39. In case, the petitioners are held guilty in the trial, the NMC shall be free to take appropriate decision in accordance with law, which may include even cancellation of their admission in the medical course. 40. Needless to observe that in case, the petitioners are acquitted, then obviously, they shall be issued degree(s) as so on as they are acquitted.” 8. Since the controversy involved in these petitions has already been set at rest in the case of Vikas Vishnoi (supra), this Court finds no valid reason to take different view. 9. Accordingly, both the instant writ petition stand allowed in terms of the order passed in the Vikas Vishnoi (supra) with similar directions. The suspension order of the petitioners stands quashed and set aside. 10. The respondent-College is directed to allow the petitioners to attend classes and appear in the examination in accordance with law and complete their courses. The respondents are further directed to declare result of the petitioners, but not to issue degrees to them and not to register them as medical practitioners, until they are acquitted by the [2026:RJ-JP:10115] (5 of 5) [CW-11988/2025] competent Court of law from the charges levelled against them.” 3. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed with similar directions and the suspension order dated 16.04.2025 is quashed and set aside. The respondent – College is directed to allow the petitioner to attend classes and appear in the examination and complete his course in accordance with law. The respondents are further directed to declare result of the petitioner, however, the degree shall not be issued to him and he shall not be registered as a medical practitioner until he is acquitted by the competent Court of law from the charges levelled against him. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dipsoed of. 5. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (ANUROOP SINGHI),J VINAY MEENA /270