Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 489 (RAJ)

NISHA D/O SH. VIJENDRA SINGH v. RAJASTHAN STATE ALLIED AND HEALTHCARE COUNCIL

CW/15393/2025 · 2026-03-10

Ganesh Ram Meena

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:10339] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15393/2025 1. Nisha D/o Sh. Vijendra Singh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Ward No. 12, Chinchroli, Tehsil Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu, Rajsthan-333024 2. Ajay Saini S/o Radhey Shyam Saini, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Ward No. 04, Chak, Jodhapura, Po Jodhpura, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan-333801 ----Petitioners Versus 1. Rajasthan State Allied And Healthcare Council, Through Its Secretary, Plot No. 7 Sultan House, Sawai Jaisingh Highway, Banipark, Jaipur-302016. 2. CKRD Memorial Paramedical Institute (C-0002), Through Its Principal, Jaipur State Highway, Vpo Dhigal, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan-333001. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anirudhha Sharma Mr. Abhinav Tetarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Saini Mr. Suresh Kumar Dhenwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 10/03/2026 1. By filing the instant writ petition, the petitioners have prayed to issue directions to respondent No.2 to correct/update the impugned Second Year Examination result of them by replacing the wrongful entry of ‘absent’ with ‘present’ status in the internal assessment and viva. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners appeared for the internal assessment, however, the [2026:RJ-JP:10339] (2 of 2) [CW-15393/2025] respondents, while declaring the result, have shown the petitioners as absent. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents while declaring the result of the petitioners, have shown them as absent, as they did not appear for the internal assessment on the due date. 4. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties. 5. Since there are disputed questions of facts involved in the present writ petition, the same cannot be adjudicated by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to avail the alternative remedy available to them under law for their grievances. 7. The stay application and pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) stand disposed of. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J ARTI SHARMA /230