Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8354 (RAJ)

DR PRADEEP YADAV v. STATE MEDICAL AND HEALTHORS

CW/20907/2013 · 2026-05-20

Sameer Jain

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:21287] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20897/2013 Dr. Ankita Goyal aged about 27 years D/o Shri Ravi Goyal, R/o 18, Chitrakoot Colony, Dilwara Road, Beawar District Ajmer. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur 2. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences through its Registrar, Sector-18, Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur- 302033 3. Jaipur Dental College through its Principal, Jaipur 4. Dental Council of India through its Secretary, Aiwan-E- Galib Marg, Kotla Road, New Delhi- 110002 ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20907/2013 Dr Pradeep Yadav aged about 28 years son of Shri Gajanand Yadav, R/o C-331, Talwandi, Kota. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Rajasthan University of Health Sciences through its Registrar, Sector-18, Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur-302033. 3. Jaipur Dental College through its Principal, Jaipur. 4. Dental Council of India through its Secretary, Aiwan-E-Galib Marg, Kotla Road, New Delhi- 110002 ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : None For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Choudhary Mr. Nitin Soni for Mr. Angad Mirdha HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 20/05/2026 1. The instant matters pertain to the year 2013. [2026:RJ-JP:21287] (2 of 2) [CW-20897/2013] 2. The issue as per the respondents is whether the Court can direct payment of stipend to a medical student. It is submitted that the matter has become infructuous, as the petitioner- students have already graduated form the concerned medical College. 3. In view of the facts submitted by learned counsel for the respondents, this Court is inclined to dismiss the instant petitions, as rendered infructuous, keeping the law point open. 4. Accordingly, the instant petitions are dismissed as rendered infructuous. Howsoever, liberty is granted to the petitioners to revive the petitions if the facts are otherwise. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J JKP/31-32