[2026:RJ-JP:7824-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 736/2025 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.973/2024 1. Rajasthan University Of Health Sciences, Sector-18, Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur Through Its Registrar. 2. Comptroller Of Examinations, Rajasthan University Of Health Sciences, Sector-18, Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur. ----Appellants Versus 1. Balram Yadav S/o Shri Badri Prasad Yadav, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Dhani Navodi, Village Arniya, Tehsil Shrimadhopur District Neemkathana 2. Rajasthan Para Medical Council, G-1, Kisan Bhawan, Everest Colony, Near Apex-Mall. Lalkothi, Jaipur, Through Its Registrar. 3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 4. Principal And Controller, J.L.N. Medical College, Ajmer. 5. Central Board Of Secondary Education, Through Its Chairman, Regional Office, Ps 1-2, Patparganj, I.p. Extension, Institutional Area, New Delhi-110092. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mohd. Ashfaq Khan Ms. Shama Khan Ms. Rekha Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.D. Meena Mr. Bharat Saini Mr. M.S. Raghav HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order [2026:RJ-JP:7824-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-736/2025] 18/02/2026 1. This special appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the order dated 13.05.2025 passed by learned Single Judge, whereby the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed on behalf of petitioner-respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred as ‘petitioner’) imposed a cost of Rs.10 lacs upon the appellants (hereinafter referred as ‘University’). 2. Learned counsel for the University submitted that the petitioner took admission in the Course of B.Sc. (MLT) in the year 2022. He further submits that the petitioner was not having the required eligibility as prescribed in the information booklet, therefore, he was not permitted to fill the examination form. He further submits that admittedly, as per the mark-sheet annexed before learned Single Judge, the petitioner had failed in the theory paper of Biology and was marked as “RT” (Repeat in Theory). Admittedly, the petitioner never gave the repeat test of theory examination in (Biology). He further submits that as per the information booklet, application procedure prescribed which reads as under:- “APPLICATION PROCEDURE Before filling the on-line application form, read the information booklet and instructions for filling on-line application form etc. very carefully. Ensure the eligibility and other requirements for admission as given in this booklet. You should be very careful in filling-up the on-line application form. If any lapse is detected during the scrutiny, your candidature will be rejected even if you come through the final stage of admission process or even at a later stage.” 3. Learned counsel further submits that according to the application procedure as provided in the information booklet, the University has the right to cancel the admission of any student [2026:RJ-JP:7824-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-736/2025] found ineligible at any stage. It is the responsibility of the student to check the eligibility prior to submission of his application form for the subject course. He further submits that it is the duty of the concerned college to check the original documents. This fact has also been mentioned in the information booklet, issued by the University, which reads as under:- “Reporting at allotted college and depositing of fees & other documents At the time of reporting at the allotted college, the candidate will have to carry printout of the allotment letter. The candidate is required to deposit prescribed fee along with original and one set of attested photocopies of requisite documents. The colleges shall be provided the list of candidates allotted. The colleges shall verily the credentials of reporting candidates as per this list and check the documents and other required certificates with originals.” 4. He further submits that since it was the duty of the college to check the documents, there was no fault on the part of the University. The University noted the fact that the petitioner is not eligible for the subject course only when he submitted the enrollment form, thereafter, a show cause notice dated 12.01.2024 was issued by the concerned College to the petitioner. He further submits that since there was no fault on the part of the University, however, the learned Single Judge has imposed a cost of Rs. 10 lacs upon the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. We have considered the fact that the petitioner is satisfied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, his [2026:RJ-JP:7824-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-736/2025] writ petition was dismissed and he has not filed any appeal against the said order. He is only opposing the present appeal as costs of Rs. 5 lacs have been ordered to be paid to the petitioner. 8. We have also considered the fact that the learned Single Judge has imposed the costs upon the petitioner on account of their negligence in giving admission to the respondent-petitioner, whereas according to the information booklet, it was the duty of the concerned college to check the original documents. 9. We have also considered the fact that the petitioner was only responsible according to the application procedure. It was the duty of the petitioner to read carefully the information booklet, which clearly stated that in case, the petitioner is found ineligible for the said course, his admission can be cancelled at any stage, including at the stage of examination. 10. Lastly, admittedly, the petitioner had not cleared the theory paper at the time of getting admission, therefore, in our considered view, it was the petitioner who was negligent in taking the admission and not the University in granting admission. 11. In that view of the matter, imposition of cost of Rs.10 lacs upon the University by the learned Single Jude vide its order dated 13.05.2025 is set aside. 12. The special appeal is accordingly allowed. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J PAYAL/TUSHAR/70