MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL,J. - (1.) For the reasons stated in the application No.1/2020 seeking correction in the name of petitioner's father, the same is allowed.
(2.) The amended cause title appended with the application is also taken on record.
(3.) Both the learned counsels for the parties submit that the controversy involved in the present matter stands covered by the Judgment of this Court in case of Lalit Kishore Versus State of Rajasthan and Ors. and other connected matters decided on 23.10.2020 (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8908/2020), wherein this Court has held as under:- 'ISSUE NO.E - The Rajasthan Para Medical Council is refusing the candidates who have obtained Diploma from Universities of Rajasthan, namely, NIMS University, Singhania University, JRN Vidyapeeth (Deemed) University, Jaipur National University, Mahatma Gandhi University of Medical Sciences and Technology, Mahatma Jyoti Rao Phoole University, SMS Medical College, and Madhav University. 9.1 With regard to the registration with the Rajasthan Para Medical Council, it is noticed that there have been a protected litigation before this Court in relation to the Courses being conducted by the various Universities and its recognition by the Rajasthan Para Medical Council. A Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, in Rajasthan Nursing Council Versus Singhania University, DBSAW No.671/2018 decided on 25.5.2018 while dismissing the appeal of the Rajasthan Nursing Council observed as under: 'After hearing learned counsel for the parties, first of all it is required to be observed that in the grounds of the writ petition no other ground has been taken by the appellant except the ground which is incorporated and mentioned above. The only argument and ground taken in the appeal is that registration is required from appellant RNC by the Singhania University, which is established by law. We have considered the rival submissions and come to the conclusion that once the controversy has already been adjudicated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. B.L. Asawa v. State of Rajasthan and Ors reported in AIR 1982 SC 933 and in case of Mrs. Madhu Santosh v. State of Rajasthan (SBCWP NO.2502/1989), decided on 21.2.1991 while relying upon the aforesaid judgment then there is no question to hold that any error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in directing the appellant RNC so as to deny the registration on the pretext that recognition is necessary from the appellant Rajasthan Nursing Council. We are of the firmed opinion that if any University is established by law and imparting the course in the form of diploma and degree or qualification, that cannot be questioned by the appellant RNC for the purpose of registration. We have considered the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant in the case of Gand Mal Dhaker and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (DBSAW No.955/2011), decided on 17.2.2017 in which question of appointment and qualification was involved and hear the controversy is only with regard to registration, therefore, the judgment rendered in aforesaid case not applicable in the present case. In our opinion no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge so as to allow the writ petition filed by the respondents while following the adjudication made by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Dr. B.L. Asawa (Supra) which is subsequently followed by this court in the case of Mrs. Madhu Santosh (supra). Consequently, the instant special appeal is hereby dismissed.' 9.2 In another DBSAW No.629/2018 titled as Rajasthan Para Medical Council Versus Hitesh Kumar Sharma and Ors., the Division Bench of this Court, at Principal Seat, Jodhpur following the aforesaid judgment gave its verdict on 25.05.2018 as under: 'After considering the judgment and the fact that the respondents petitioners acquired qualification from the University established by law, therefore, no further recognition was required. Therefore, in our opinion, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge so as to issue direction to the Rajasthan Para Medical Council to register the respondents-petitioners in the writ petition filed by the respondents while following the adjudication made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of B.L. Asawa v. State of Rajasthan and ors. reported in AIR 1982 SC 933 and in case of Mr. Madhu Santosh v. State of Rajasthan (SBCWP No.2502/1989), decided on 21.2.1992 and decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Ms. Neelam Devi and Anr. v. Haryana Nurses Registration Council and Ors. (Civil Writ petition No.4021/2009), decided on 19.2.2010 reported in 2010 158 PLR 323. Consequently, there is no force in this appeal filed by the Rajasthan Para Medical Council, Jaipur. Hence, this special appeal is hereby dismissed.' 9.3 In this regard, the plea taken by the State Government requires to be noted. It is the submission of the counsel for the State that so far as selection for the posts of Assistant Radiographer and Lab Technician is concerned, the qualifications required are in terms of the amended Schedule issued vide notification dated 30.08.2013. It is his submission that even though the Para Medical Council may register the candidates now, it should not in any manner affect the selection where the document verification date is already over i.e. 14.10.2020 as per the notification dated 21.09.2020. The date of document verification has not been extended thereafter and hence, the petitioners even if they are registered now with the Rajasthan Para Medical Council and their contention is accepted that they are entitled for being registered, then too, they cannot be treated as eligible for the purpose of selection process and they must wait for next selection, which may be conducted by the State Government in future. 9.4 On the other hand, the respective counsels, who have appeared for the petitioners have vehemently submitted that the action of the Rajasthan Para Medical Council in not registering them or rejecting their candidature was wholly unjustified. On account of fault of the Rajasthan Para Medical Council, the petitioners ought not to be deprived of their rightful claim for the post, if they are otherwise found to be meritorious and falling in the merit. 9.5 With regard to NIMS University, it has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of NIMS University Versus Rajasthan Para Medical Council: SBCWP No.364/2017 decided on 03.05.2019 has categorically held as under: '23. As the respondent-council explicitly stated that the petitioner university was accorded recognition for the said subject vide communication dated 24th November, 2015, for onward courses and it has established that the respondent-council came into existence after passing of the Rajasthan Para Medical Council Act, 2008, in the year 2008, although the Rajasthan Para Medical Council and started functioning in the year 2014. Thus, indisputably the petitioner university was already running the course prior to functioning of the respondent-council, with approval of the UGC. Therefore, the respondent- council cannot question and/or reject the recognition on the plea of prior approval for the respondent-council was not even functioning prior to the year 2014. At this juncture it will be profitable to take note of the text of regulation 42 of the Rajasthan Para-Medical Council Regulations, 2014, providing the criteria for registration, which reads thus: ;