Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sada Ram vs The Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Utpadan ... on 16 September, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:41380-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 52/2025
Sada Ram S/o Sh. Swarupa Ram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
Village Chen Nagar, Seshva, Chitalwala, Tehsil Sanchore, District
Jalore.
----Appellant
Versus
1. The Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd., Vidhyut
Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar Jaipur Through Its
Secredtary (Admn.).
2. The Chief Controller Of Accounts (Hq) Rajasthan Rajya
Vidhyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd., Vidhyut Bhawan, Janpath,
Jyoti Nagar Jaipur.
3. The Senior Accounts Officer (Glpl), Giral, Barmer.
4. The Registrar, Eastern Institute For Integrated Learning In
Management, 8Th Mile, Budang, Malabassey, West
Sikkim.
5. University Grants Commission, (UGC) Through Its
Chairman, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Divik Mathur
For Respondents No. : Mr. Ravi Bhansali, Sr. Adv. assisted by
1 to 3 Mr. Vipul Dharnia
For Respondent No.5 : Mr. Akshay Nagori
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Order 16/09/2025
1. The special appeal writ has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:-
"It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this special appeal of the appellants may kindly be allowed and the impugned judgment dated 02.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge may kindly be quashed (Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 02:34:28 PM) (Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 09:38:33 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41380-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-52/2025] and set aside, and the writ petition filed by the appellants may kindly be allowed."
2. The briefs facts of the case are that the appellant was offered appointment on 10.03.2015 for the post of Junior Accountant on the basis of his degree in commerce/Master of Business Administration ('MBA') obtained from Eastern Institute for Integrated Learning in Management University, Sikkim ('EIILM University'). However, his degree from EIILM University could not be verified and was found to be from an unrecognized university. Consequently, the appellant's services were terminated. Thereafter, he filed a writ petition, in which an interim order was passed in his favour on 25.04.2018. Subsequently, after hearing learned counsel for both the parties, the impugned judgment was passed.
3. Mr. Divik Mathur, learned counsel for the appellant tried to impress upon the Court that the appellant was a bona fide student of MBA from EIILM University, Sikkim and that the course was bonafidely pursued by him as a valid educational course. He has referred to the judgment passed in Vinod Kumar Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5850/1993), where benefit of subsequent acquisition of qualification was granted to the concerned candidate.
4. Mr. Ravi Bhansali, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Vipul Dharnia, learned counsel, however, submits that this is not a case of bona fide mistake. Rather, it is a case where the university committed the fraud and the appellant actively participated in the same. It was pointed out that appellant submitted a Demand Draft of Rs.62,280/- issued on 22.06.2012, (Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 02:34:28 PM) (Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 09:38:33 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:41380-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-52/2025] even though the appellant got admission in the MBA course in the year 2010.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has no explanation as to how a Demand Draft/fee deposited on 22.06.2012, could have enabled the appellant to get admission in MBA course in the year 2010. Learned counsel submits that the student acted bonafidely.
6. Learned Senior Advocate submits that not only the university was fraudulent and unrecognized, but the manner in which the transaction occurred also indicates that the candidate himself was a party to the fraud.
7. Mr. Akshay Nagori, learned counsel appearing for University Grants Commission (UGC) also submits that the MBA degree from EIILM University, Sikkim held by the appellant is invalid.
8. Considering the above submissions and the indications that the appellant was not having a valid degree, this Court is not inclined to extend any sympathetic or equitable consideration to him. There is no reason to interfere with the judgment of learned Single Bench.
9. Accordingly, the special appeal writ is dismissed. (BIPIN GUPTA),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 44-nirmala/-
(Uploaded on 20/09/2025 at 02:34:28 PM) (Downloaded on 22/09/2025 at 09:38:33 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)