Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Harshvardhan Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:50270) on 20 November, 2025
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:50270]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20343/2025
Harshvardhan Singh S/o Shri Indrajeet Singh, Aged About 22
Years, (Neet Roll Number 3921101322 Ews Category Candidate),
Resident Of 396, Society Nagar, Sardar Samand Road, Pali
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary.
Department Medical Education, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Union Of India, Through Its Director, Ministry Of
Personnel, Public Grievances And Pensions (Department
Of Personnel And Training), New Delhi-110011.
3. The Director General Of Health Sciences, Medical
Counselling Committee, Ministry Of Health And Family
Welfare, Govt. Of India, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi-
110011
4. National Medical Commission, Through Its Secretary
(Undergraduate Medical Education Board). Sector 8,
Pocket 14, Phase-1, Dwarka, New Delhi 110077
5. The Chairman, Neet Ug Medical And Dental
Admission/counseling Board-2025, Neet 2025, Sms
Medical College, Jln Marg. Jaipur.
(Www.rajugneet2025.com).
6. Fee Regulatory Committee, Through Its Member
Secretary, Department Of Medical Education (Group-I),
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
7. The Principal Secretary, Social Justice And Empowerment
Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, G-3/1, Ambedkar
Bhawan, Behind Raajmahal Palace, Jaipur.
8. American International Institute of Medical Sciences,
Nearr Transport Nagar, Airport Road, Bedwas, Udaipur-
313001 through its director/ Principal.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. DS Beniwal
Mr. YP Khileree
For Respondent(s) : Mr. NS Rajpurohit, AAG with
(Uploaded on 25/11/2025 at 06:25:27 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/11/2025 at 07:29:44 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50270] (2 of 19) [CW-20343/2025]
Mr. SS Rathore
Mr. Akhilesh Rajpurohit
Mr. BP Bohra, Sr. CGC with
Ms. Divyanshi Thanvi
Mr. Vaibhav Bhansali
Mr. Bhutid Gupta for Mr. Siddharth
Tatiya
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order REPORTABLE 20/11/2025
1. This writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks the following reliefs:-
"a. the record of the case may kindly be called for:
b. the action of the respondents in charging the annual tuition fee vide the fee information seats Annex.12, in excess tothe income limit prescribed for the EWS category reservation, as provided vide office memorandum dated 17.01.2019 (Annex.2&3), as well as the letter dated 22.02.2019 (Annex.5), may kindly be declared arbitrary, Illegal and bad in the eyes of law and quash accordingly:
c. the petitioner may kindly be declared eligible for admission in MBBS course in private medical colleges in the State of Rajasthan pursuant to revised notification dated 10.10.2025 Annex.15 under the EWS category OS per the income limit prescribed vide office memorandum dated 17.01.2019 (Annex.2&3), as well as the letter dated 22.02.2019 (Annex.5) and accordingly, the respondents may kindly be directed not to charge the annual tuition fee in the allotment letter so issued, in excess to the income limit. prescribed for the EWS category vide documents Annex.2 to Annex.6; d. the respondent counselling board may kindly be directed not to forfeit the security amount (Rs.5.00 Lakh in total)deposited by the petitioner, pursuant to notification dated 26.07.2025 Annex. 10. and the revised notification dated 10.10.2025 Annex.15, if he is unable to take admission in MBBS course in a private medical college due to huge annual tuition fee exceeding the income limit prescribed for EWS category reservation;
e. the respondents may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner to participate in the 3rd State counseling process and consider his candidature under EWS (Uploaded on 25/11/2025 at 06:25:27 PM) (Downloaded on 25/11/2025 at 07:29:44 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:50270] (3 of 19) [CW-20343/2025] category as per the the income limit of EWS category and grant him admission. under State Seat quota under the EWS category. as provided vide the Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, 2019 pursuant to the NEET- UG course/ MBBS Course-2025:
f. the respondent Fees Regulatory Committee may kindly be directed to frame the policy for determining the reasonable and affordable annual tuition fee for the economically weaker sections/EWS candidates like petitioner, while considering the income limit prescribed vide documents Anne.2 to Annex.6 i.e. Rs.8.00 Lakh and consequently apply the same in the present admission process for admission in NEET-UG course- 2025;"
2. Briefly stated facts, are that the petitioner is a bonafide resident of Rajasthan and a citizen of India. After the introduction of reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) through the Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, 2019, the Union Government issued Office Memorandam dated 17.01.2019 providing 10% reservation to EWS candidates for appointments and admissions. The State of Rajasthan adopted the said policy by issuing notifications dated 19.02.2019 and 22.02.2019, followed by a circular dated 12.03.2019 prescribing the procedure for issuance of income and asset certificates. The petitioner, belonging to the Rajpurohit caste under the unreserved/general category, claims to satisfy all eligibility requirements for EWS reservation, including having a family income below Rs.8,00,000. Accordingly, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pali, issued an income and asset certificate dated 14.05.2025 recognising him as an EWS candidate.
2.1 The petitioner appeared in NEET (UG)-2025 conducted by the National Testing Agency (NTA) under the EWS category. He was allotted Roll No. 3921101322 and took the examination on 04.05.2025. The result declared on 14.06.2025 shows that he (Uploaded on 25/11/2025 at 06:25:27 PM) (Downloaded on 25/11/2025 at 07:29:44 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:50270] (4 of 19) [CW-20343/2025] secured 339 marks out of 720 and obtained an All-India EWS category rank of 38,534. Thereafter, the Rajasthan NEET-UG Counselling Board issued a notification dated 26.07.2025 commencing the admission process.
2.2 As per the fee information uploaded on 05.08.2025, the tuition fee for State quota seats in private medical colleges in Rajasthan ranges between Rs.18,90,000 and Rs.25,00,000 per annum for all categories including EWS, with the fee structure certified as having been determined by the Fees Regulatory Committee/Government of Rajasthan. The petitioner contends that the prescribed fees are wholly incompatible with the income ceiling of Rs.8,00,000 for EWS eligibility and also contrary to the Office Memorandum dated 03.02.2022 (Annex.11) issued by the National Medical Commission. Due to the exorbitant fee structure, he could not opt for private medical colleges in the first and second rounds of counselling, more so as public sector banks limit education loans for MBBS to Rs.27.5 lakh. He has placed fee structures from other States to show that private medical colleges in Rajasthan charge disproportionately higher fees (Annex.14). 2.3 A revised notification dated 10.10.2025 for the third round mandates a security deposit of Rs.5,00,000 for candidates opting for private colleges, with forfeiture in case the allotted seat is not joined. The petitioner asserts that, as this is the last round of counselling, he is compelled to submit choices despite being unable to afford the prescribed fees. The petitioner approached the Fees Regulatory Committee seeking fixation of a reasonable and affordable fee structure for EWS candidates in light of the prescribed income limit; however, no relief was granted. Having (Uploaded on 25/11/2025 at 06:25:27 PM) (Downloaded on 25/11/2025 at 07:29:44 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:50270] (5 of 19) [CW-20343/2025] completed registration and paid the requisite fee pursuant to the notification dated 26.07.2025, the petitioner has now challenged the fee information sheets dated 05.08.2025 and the failure of the respondents to determine an appropriate fee structure for EWS candidates. Aggrieved by the alleged arbitrariness and discrimination in fee fixation, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
3. Mr. D.S. Beniwal learned counsel representing the petitioner, makes following submissions:-
(a) The action of the respondent-Fees Regulatory Committee, in failing to determine a reasonable and affordable tuition fee for candidates belonging to the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), has resulted in a constructive denial of admission to the MBBS course. It is urged that although the petitioner is fully eligible for EWS reservation under the Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, 2019 and the notifications issued by the Union and the State Governments (Annex.2 to 6), the exorbitant tuition fees fixed for private medical colleges, ranging from Rs. 18.90 lakh to Rs. 25.00 lakh per annum, effectively exclude genuine EWS candidates whose annual family income necessarily is below Rs. 8.00 lakh.
This, according to counsel, frustrates the very object of EWS reservation.
(b) The respondent Fee Regulatory Committee is duty-bound to frame a fee structure that is rational, equitable and commensurate with the financial constraints of EWS candidates. However, the fee determination approved by the Committee is arbitrary and insensitive, resulting in the petitioner not being able to opt for (Uploaded on 25/11/2025 at 06:25:27 PM) (Downloaded on 25/11/2025 at 07:29:44 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:50270] (6 of 19) [CW-20343/2025] private medical colleges during the first and second rounds of counselling.
(c) The college fee details for medical UG admissions-2025 (Annex.12), determined by Fee Regulatory Committee of Rajasthan, demonstrate that even EWS seats carry unaffordable tuition fees, rendering the reservation merely illusory. The petitioner participated in NEET-UG 2025 examination under the EWS category, secured 339 marks, paid the prescribed EWS counselling fee, and, after the interim order granted by this court, participated in third round of counselling and deposited the required security amount and submitted 73 choices exclusively under the EWS category.
(d) An additional affidavit has been filed by taking on record the (Annex.25). It is urged that the respondent issued the seat matrix for stray vacancy round, as per the vacant seat matrix placed on record as Annex.25, which indicate two seats under the EWS category were still lying vacant, namely at GMC, Pali (S. No. 14) and JMC, Jhalawar (S. No. 50) under EWS category. It is submitted that the petitioner had specifically opted for both these colleges in his choice-cum-preference list (Annexure-20). Despite this, the said seats were not allotted to the petitioner. It is urged that the subsequent notification dated 11.11.2025 though reflects EWS seats lying vacant, however as per the NMC guidelines issued for the purpose of conducting counselling the petitioner shall not be permitted to participate in the stray round of counselling.
(e) The respondents' action is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 15(6) and 21 of the Constitution, on (Uploaded on 25/11/2025 at 06:25:27 PM) (Downloaded on 25/11/2025 at 07:29:44 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:50270] (7 of 19) [CW-20343/2025] account of failure to frame an affordable fee structure for EWS candidates and it has resulted in denial of the petitioner's rightful admission and forfeiture of his security deposit.
(f) The impugned actions of the respondents be set aside, that an EWS seat be allotted to the petitioner in accordance with his merit and preference, and that appropriate directions be issued to ensure that the object of EWS reservation is not rendered nugatory by an unreasonable and unaffordable fee regime.
4. Upon instructions, learned counsel further submits that the petitioner does not want to continue with the admission in the respondent-college.
5. Per Contra, Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Sher Singh Rathore, Advocate, representing the respondent No.5 and 6, submits that he is ready with the argument and reply is not required to be filed, on the contrary, makes following submissions:-
(a) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking relaxation in the fee prescribed for admission to a private medical college for the academic year 2025-26. The fee structure applicable to private medical institutions in the State stands duly fixed by the Fee Regulatory Committee of Rajasthan vide order dated 26.10.2022 (Annex.A/3), in compliance of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka : (2003) 6 SCC 697. The said order dated 26.10.2025 (Annex.A/3) remains unchallenged by the petitioner and has attained finality. Therefore, the prayer for relaxation in fee, without questioning the validity of the fee structure, is not maintainable in law.
(Uploaded on 25/11/2025 at 06:25:27 PM) (Downloaded on 25/11/2025 at 07:29:44 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:50270] (8 of 19) [CW-20343/2025]
(b) The petitioner's claim for relaxation on the ground of belonging to the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category is misconceived as no separate or relaxed fee is provided for the EWS category under the prevailing fee structure notified on 26.10.2022(Annex.A/3). The petitioner's reliance on the Office Memorandum dated 03.02.2022 (Annex.11), suggesting that 50% seats in private medical colleges may have fees at par with government medical colleges, would not help the petitioner, as the said memorandum is merely recommendatory and carries no statutory force and till date State has not implemented/adopted the said Memorandum dated 03.02.2022 (Annex.11). In the absence of statutory law/rules guideline mentioned ine order passed by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Islamic Academy of Education (Supra), are considered by the State Government while determining the fee structure, and the Fee Regulatory Committee continues to take steps to regulate and rationalize the fee structure in accordance with guidelines. In absence of any statutory provision, notification, or binding direction extending fee relaxation for EWS candidates in private medical colleges, the petitioner has no enforceable legal right to seek such relief. The prayer made in the writ petition is not sustainable under the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and deserves to be rejected.
6. Mr. Akhilesh Rajpurohit, representing Respondent No.8 makes the following submissions:-
(a) The petitioner appeared in NEET-UG 2025 and secured All-
India Rank 3,42,851 as reflected in Annex.9. The petitioner had applied under the EWS category but failed to secure a seat in the (Uploaded on 25/11/2025 at 06:25:27 PM) (Downloaded on 25/11/2025 at 07:29:44 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:50270] (9 of 19) [CW-20343/2025] 1st and 2nd rounds of counselling. The present writ petition has been filed primarily to seek admission under the EWS category and to claim EWS fee relaxation, despite the petitioner having already been allotted a seat against General Unreserved Boys (URB) category, during pendency of this writ petition pursuant to an interim order of this Court, which specifically clarified that such provisional admission would not create any equity in favour of the petitioner.
(b) In the third round of counselling, the petitioner was allotted a seat in Respondent No. 8 College vide provisional allotment letter dated 06.11.2025 (Annex.A/2), under the General Unreserved Boys (URB) category. At the time of the third round counselling, no seat against the EWS category was lying vacant in Respondent No. 8 College, as evident from (Annex.A/4) (Sr. No.
34). The petitioner, been fully aware of the non-availability of EWS seats, voluntarily opted for admission against a General URB seat and cannot now be permitted to contend otherwise or claim benefits unavailable to him.
(c) The fee structure applicable for Respondent No. 8 College has been duly fixed by the State Fee Regulatory Committee of Rajasthan, in accordance with the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Islamic Academy of Education (Supra).
(d) The fee for the academic year 2022-23 was fixed at Rs. 18,00,000/-, with a permissible annual increase of 5%, thereby fixing the applicable fee for the 2025-26 session at Rs. 18,90,000/-. There is no separate fee structure for EWS candidates anywhere in the State of Rajasthan, even in (Uploaded on 25/11/2025 at 06:25:27 PM) (Downloaded on 25/11/2025 at 07:29:44 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:50270] (10 of 19) [CW-20343/2025] Government medical colleges, since EWS reservation only operates for admission, not for fee relaxation.
(e) Further the petitioner has been given admission under the General URB category, any claim for EWS-based fee concession is untenable. The petitioner has disputed the seat matrix (Annex.23) on the ground that despite the vacant seat of the EWS candidate available in the third round of counselling, petitioner has been alloted seat against URB category, however no pleadings or prayers has been made in this regard in the writ petition. The seat matrix is determined by the State counselling board and applied uniformly across all Medical colleges in State of Rajasthan. The record (Annex.R8/2) shows that all EWS seats both State Quota and Management Quota were filled by the end of the 2nd round of counselling. As per Clause 5(h) of the Information Booklet (Annex.R8/1), any reserved seats remaining unfilled during/after the third round of counselling shall be treated as unreserved seats, and the petitioner has rightly been allotted unreserved seat. The petitioner cannot challenge the counselling outcome after voluntarily participating and accepting the allotment under the General category.
(f) The petitioner is bound by the specific reliefs sought in the writ petition and cannot expand the scope of the writ petition by raising new disputes. The petitioner is now attempting to introduce issues such as the alleged availability of EWS seats in Government Medical College, Pali and JMC, Jhalawar, despite that petitioner was given admission against general category by the respondent. The petitioner further alleges that the respondent college incorrectly reserved only 12 seats for EWS candidates (Uploaded on 25/11/2025 at 06:25:27 PM) (Downloaded on 25/11/2025 at 07:29:44 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:50270] (11 of 19) [CW-20343/2025] instead of 15, though the total seats were 150 and as per 10% reservation for EWS category the seats reserved should have been
15. The petitioner is also seeking additional reliefs, including a direction to participate in the stray round of counselling and other issues concerning the seat matrix or category change, all of which are being raised through oral arguments without any supporting pleadings and prayers in the writ petition.
(g) The petitioner, despite being lower in merit, having accepted the General URB seat with full knowledge of the fee structure as well as the fact that the participation in the third round of counselling would not permit him to appear in stray round of counselling, is now attempting to secure benefits beyond the guidelines prescribed for holding the counselling. Such conduct reflects a calculated attempt to misuse the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to obtain preferential treatment contrary to merit and statutory provisions.
(h) In view of the above submissions, Respondent No. 8 prays that the writ petition be dismissed. It is further prayed that this Court may be pleased to direct the State Counselling Board to proceed to fill the said seat in accordance with the applicable rules, in the event the petitioner is unwilling to pursue his admission on the approved fee structure fixed by the State Fee Regulatory Committee.
7. Learned counsels for the respondents jointly submit that the Office Memorandum (O.M.) dated 03.02.2022 (Annex.11) issued by the National Medical Commission is merely recommendatory in nature and has neither been adopted nor implemented by the State of Rajasthan. The said O.M. is also stated to be sub judice (Uploaded on 25/11/2025 at 06:25:27 PM) (Downloaded on 25/11/2025 at 07:29:44 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:50270] (12 of 19) [CW-20343/2025] before the Hon'ble Apex Court and therefore cannot be said to be binding in nature. In the absence of any statutory mandate giving effect to these recommendations, no legal right accrues to the petitioner to claim a concessional fee structure.
8. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at Bar by the learned counsel representing the parties and have gone through the material available on record.
9. It is an admitted factual position that the fee structure for private medical colleges in Rajasthan, has already been fixed by the State Fee Regulatory Committee through its order dated 26.10.2022 (Annex.A/3). That order was passed in compliance with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka:
(2003) 6 SCC 697.
"xxxx
233. We now direct that the respective State Government do appoint a permanent Committee which will ensure that the tests conducted by the association of colleges to fair and transparent. For each State a separate Committee shall be formed. The Committee would be headed by a retired Judge of the High Court. The Judge to be nominated by the Chief Justice of that State. The other member, to be nominated by the Judge, would be a doctor or an engineer of eminence (depending on whether the institution is medical or engineering/technical). The Secretary of the State in charge of Medical or Technical Education, as the case may be, shall also be a member and act as Secretary of the Committee. The Committee will be free to nominate/ co-opt an independent person of repute in the field of education as well as one of the Vice Chancellors of University in that State so that the total number of persons on the Committee do not exceed five. The Committee shall have powers to oversee the tests to be conducted by the association. This would include the power to call for the proposed question paper/s, to know the names of the paper setters and examiners and to check the method adopted to ensure papers are not leaked. The Committee shall supervise and ensure that the test is conducted in a fair and transparent manner. The Committee shall have (Uploaded on 25/11/2025 at 06:25:27 PM) (Downloaded on 25/11/2025 at 07:29:44 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:50270] (13 of 19) [CW-20343/2025] power to permit an institution, which has been established and which has been permitted to adopt its own admission procedure for the last, at least, 25 years, to adopt its own admission procedure and if the Committee feels that the needs of such an institute are genuine, to admit, students of their community, in excess of the quota allotted to them by the State Government. Before exempting any institute or varying in percentage of quota fixed by the State, the State Government must be heard before the Committee. It is clarified that different percentage of quota for students to be admitted by the management in each minority or non-minority unaided professional college/s shall be separately fixed on the basis of their need by the respective State Governments and in care of any dispute as regards fixation of percentage of quota, it will be open to the management to approach the Committee. It is also clarified that no institute, which has not been established and which has not followed its own admission procedure for the last, at least, 25 years, shall be permitted to apply for or be granted exemption from admitting students in the manner set out hereinabove.
xxxxx"
10. The determination of fee for the Respondent-college under (Annex.A/3), was undertaken by the State Fee Regulatory Committee after due consideration of the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Islamic Academy (Supra), and that determination remains unchallenged in the present writ proceedings. It is also undisputed that the State Fee Regulatory Committee has been constituted in conformity with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and the petitioner has neither questioned its constitution nor the regulatory exercise carried out by it. Further, the petitioner has not disputed that the fee structure prescribed by the respondent-college for academic session 2025-2026, is not in consonance with order dated 26.10.2022 (Annex.A/3). The said order dated 26.10.2022 (Annex.A/3), on the basis of which the fee for the respondent- college (Annex.12) has been fixed, has not been put to challenge (Uploaded on 25/11/2025 at 06:25:27 PM) (Downloaded on 25/11/2025 at 07:29:44 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:50270] (14 of 19) [CW-20343/2025] by the petitioner. The relevant portion of order dated 26.10.2022 (Annex.A/3), in Hindi, reads as under:-
"आदे श 20/7 माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय द्वारा इस्लामिक एकेडमी ऑफ एज्यूकेशन बनाम कर्नाटक राज्य में दिये गये निर्णय के अनुसरण में जस्टिस श्री एस.एन. भार्गव, सेवानिवृत न्यायाधीश राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय की अध्यक्षता में गठित राज्य स्तरीय शुल्क निर्धारण समिति द्वारा लिए गये निर्णय के अनुसार अनन्ता इन्सटीट्यूट ऑफ मे डिकल साइं स एण्ड रिसर्च सेन्टर, राजसमंद एवं अमेरिकन इं टरनेशनल इन्सटीट्यूट ऑफ मे डिकल सां इसेज एण्ड रिसर्च सेन्टर, उदयपुर की एम.बी.बी.एस. तथा पी.जी. (क्लीनिकल) पाठ्यक्रम हे तु शैक्षणिक सत्र वर्ष 2022-23 में अध्ययन हे तु निम्नानुसार शुल्क निर्धारित किया जाता है :-
1. हॉस्टल चार्जेज में विद्युत, जल, सिक्योरिटी, इन्टरनेट, स्पोर्ट्स तथा भोजन, (1 BHK apartment के अतिरिक्त) आदि सम्मिलित है।
2. उक्त कॉलेज औपचारिक अथवा अनौपचारिक रूप से उपरोक्त शुल्क के अलावा किसी भी अन्य तरह का शुल्क यथा विकास शुल्क, लैबोरे ट्र री शुल्क, अस्पताल शुल्क, डोनेशन आदि नकद या अन्य किसी भी स्वरूप में छात्रों से वसूल नही करें गे।
3. कॉलेज उक्त निर्धारित शुल्क के अतिरिक्त कोई शुल्क अथवा राशि वसूल करते है तो वह केपिटे शन शुल्क की परिभाषा में माना जायेगा एवं तद्नुसार दण्डात्मक कार्यवाही की जायेगी।
4. उक्त फीस शैक्षणिक सत्र 2022-23 के लिए प्रभावी है। आगामी शैक्षणिक सत्र में 5 प्रतिशत की वृद्धि कोई अन्य आदे श न होने की स्थिति में लागू होगी।"
11. It is settled law that unless the foundational statutory order is specifically challenged, no relief contrary to such order can be granted in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Consequently, the prayer for relexation or restructuring of tuition fee in favour of the petitioner (an EWS candidate), in the absence of any challenge to the underlying fee fixation order, is not legally sustainable.
12. The Court further finds no substance in the contention that EWS candidates are entitled to a relaxed or subsidized fee structure in private medical colleges. Reservation under the Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, 2019, is confined to the aspect of admission and does not create any mandate for separate, concessional, or income-based fee slabs for candidates admitted under the EWS category. The record, consistent with the (Uploaded on 25/11/2025 at 06:25:27 PM) (Downloaded on 25/11/2025 at 07:29:44 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:50270] (15 of 19) [CW-20343/2025] stand of the respondents, indicates that no private or government medical college in the State has a distinctly structure for EWS candidates, and the petitioner has not produced any statutory provision, notification or binding directive creating such an entitlement. The Office Memorandum dated 03.02.2022 (Annex.11) issued by the National Medical Commission, relied upon by the petitioner, is merely recommendatory, has not been adopted by the State of Rajasthan, and is stated to be under challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the absence of any enforceable statutory force, such recommendations cannot be construed as conferring any legal right upon the petitioner.
13. This Court also finds that the grievance raised by the petitioner regarding non-allotment of an EWS seat during the third round of counselling is factually and legally untenable. The material placed on record, particularly Annex.A/4 (filed with the impleadment application by respondent-College) and Annex.R8/2 (filed with the reply by respondent No.8), demonstrates that all EWS seats, both under the State quota and Management quota in Respondent No. 8-College, stood exhausted upon conclusion of the second round of counselling, and during the third round of counselling, only seats under the SC and PwD categories remained unfilled in the respondent-college.
14. As per Clause 5(h) of the Information Booklet (Annex.A/3), unfilled reserved seats are treated as unreserved during or after the third round of counselling and are thereafter allotted strictly on the basis of merit. Clause 5(h) at page 200 of Annex.A/3 reads as under:-
(Uploaded on 25/11/2025 at 06:25:27 PM) (Downloaded on 25/11/2025 at 07:29:44 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:50270] (16 of 19) [CW-20343/2025] "NEET UG (MEDICAL/DENTAL) ADMISSION/ COUNSELLING 2025 (MBBS, BDS):-
5. Reservation
(h) During/after the third round of counselling, the unfilled reserved seat(s) of any of the category from sub-clause (c) to (f) shall be treated un-reserved and shall be final accordingly."
15. Having regard to the submissions of learned counsel for the respondents and the material on record, this Court finds that, in the third round of counselling, the respondent-college had vacant seats only under reserved category. It appears that once such reserved-category seats remained unfilled, they were correctly converted into unreserved seats, against which the petitioner was granted admission in the respondent-college.
16. This Court finds considerable merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner is bound by the specific reliefs claimed in the writ petition and cannot be permitted to expand its scope by introducing fresh disputes at the stage of final arguments. The petitioner now seeks to raise entirely new issues such as the alleged availability of EWS seats in Government Medical College, Pali and JMC, Jhalawar, and the contention that the respondent-college ought to have allotted 15 EWS seats instead of 12 on the basis of 10% of the 150-seat intake-none of which are founded in the pleadings. It is a settled principle that reliefs not sought cannot be granted, and the scope of a petition cannot be enlarged through submissions unsupported by factual averments. Acceptance of such belated contentions would seriously prejudice the respondents and jeopardise the integrity of the counselling process.
(Uploaded on 25/11/2025 at 06:25:27 PM) (Downloaded on 25/11/2025 at 07:29:44 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:50270] (17 of 19) [CW-20343/2025]
17. This Court is also unable to accept the argument that the prescribed fee results in a constructive denial of EWS reservation. The reservation has been duly implemented at the admission stage. The inability of a candidate to afford the fee of a private institution cannot, by itself, be equated with violation of constitutional or statutory rights, particularly when the State has not prescribed any differential fee structure for EWS candidates.
18. In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court cannot rewrite the fee notification, legislate concessions not provided in law, or direct colleges to admit candidates at subsidised fee contrary to the prevailing regulatory regime. The petitioner, whose All India Rank is 3,42,851 (Annex.9), has been allotted a seat strictly in accordance with merit and applicable counselling guidelines. The counselling process cannot be unsettled at the behest of a candidate who has failed to point out any relevant guidelines or provision issued by statutory body (such as NMC) mandating fee relexation for candidates belonging to the EWS category.
19. In view of the forgoing discussion, the petitioner cannot be accorded admission under the EWS category in the absence of available EWS seats in the respondent-college. Likewise, the petitioner cannot be granted the benefit of fee relexation in the respondent-college in the absence of any enforceable provision, recommendation or guidelines issued by a competent statutory body (such as NMC). In the cumulative facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition is wholly misconceived, devoid of merit, and liable to be dismissed.
(Uploaded on 25/11/2025 at 06:25:27 PM) (Downloaded on 25/11/2025 at 07:29:44 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:50270] (18 of 19) [CW-20343/2025]
20. At the outset, when this Court queried learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner intended to continue with the admission in the respondent-college, he fairly stated that the petitioner did not wish to continue with the such admission. Earlier, by interim order dated 17.10.2025, this Court has directed that in the event, the petitioner was provisionally allotted admission in the private medical college of his choice, the respondents should not compel him to deposit any amount in excess of the fee prescribed for Government Medical Colleges, and it was clarified that such provisional admission would not create any equity in favour of the petitioner. The Court had also observed in the interim order that, if the petitioner did not succeed in the writ petition and chose to continue with the admission in the said private medical college, he would be liable to pay the fee structure as prescribed by that college.
21. In the present case, it is undisputed that the petitioner deposited the security amount and participated in the third round of counselling pursuant to the interim order dated 17.10.2025. In these circumstances, and since the deposit was made solely in obedience to the interim order, this Court considers it just and proper, in the interest of justice, to direct the respondents to refund the security amount to the petitioner. At the same time, it is clarified that the respondents shall be fully entitled to treat the seat earlier allotted to the petitioner as vacant and to fill the same in the forthcoming stray vacancy round strictly in accordance with law and the applicable counselling guidelines.
(Uploaded on 25/11/2025 at 06:25:27 PM) (Downloaded on 25/11/2025 at 07:29:44 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:50270] (19 of 19) [CW-20343/2025]
22. Stay petition, if any, also stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
(DR.NUPUR BHATI),J surabhii/214- (Uploaded on 25/11/2025 at 06:25:27 PM) (Downloaded on 25/11/2025 at 07:29:44 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)