LAWS(RAJ)-1993-9-60

ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On September 28, 1993
ASHOK KUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 has been directed against the order of learned Single Judge dt. 8.9.93 whereby he has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner Ashok Kumar & 30 others.

(2.) THE facts which are necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this special appeal as alleged by the appellants in brief are that they joined Nursing Course in the Government Chopra Senior Higher Secondary School, Gangasahar, Bikaner in the years 1989 and studied there for some time. After lapse of some time, the Nursing Course was cancelled by the State Government and in lieu of that course students were given admission in the Medical Laboratory Technicians Course. It is alleged that as no proper facilities were available at Chopra Senior Higher Secondary School, 65 students were given admission in the Medical College but after some time this facility was withdrawn by the Director, Medical and Health Department. Those 65 students approached this Court and the operation of the withdrawal and cancellation order was stayed and they were allowed to continue in the course and they completed the course. It is alleged that 16 other students were also allowed to continue in the course provisionally in pursuance of the order of this Court passed in C.W. Pet. No. 6000/92 Prakesh and Ors. v. State on 12.1.93 and it was ordered that the petitioners may be provisionally admitted in the Laboratory Technician Course provided they have studied in the Govt. Chopra Higher Secondary School alongwith 65 students and fulfill all necessary requirements of admission and if they stood above in the merit. The petitioners who are 31 in number, filed a joint writ petition claiming admission in the Medical Laboratory Technicians Course but the same was dismissed, vide order dt. 8.9.93. Hence this special appeal.

(3.) WE have heard learned Counsel for the appellants and perused the material on record and case law.