ISRANI, J.— This writ petition has been filed with a prayer that the provisions of the Pre-Teachers Education Test (PTET), 1990 may be struck down, which provide that a candidate should have studied the subsidiary/additional subjects for at least two years, are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is resident of District Jhunjhunu. He passed B.Com. from the University of Rajasthan, in the year, 1987. The mark-sheet issued by the University is Anx.2. In the year, 1988, he passed his B.A in additional subject, History (Anx. 3) and in the year, 1990, he passed B.A. in additional subject, Sanskrit (Anx. 4). Respondent No. 1, Mohanlal Sukhadia University, Udaipur issued a provisional permission letter to the petitioner, for appearing in PTET, 1990. He was successful and came in the merit. The provisional admission letter for the Session 1990-91 dated November 9, 1990 (Anx. 7) was issued to the petitioner by respondent No. 1 and his centre was respondent No.2, Rajasthan Shikshak Prashikshan Vidhyapeeth, Shahpur Bag, Jaipur. Thereafter, when the petitioner went to respondent No. 2 and offered to deposit requisite fees, he was refused admission on the ground that he has not studied his "teaching subjects for two years in the University and has also not taken University examination each year." (2). It is submitted by Mr. D.V. Tholia, learned counsel, that the petitioner had already passed B.Com. and, thereafter, took the above mentioned two additional subjects in History & Sanskrit, which were his teaching subjects. He studied each subject for one year and appeared in the examination as mentioned above. It is further submitted that in the General Guidelines for PTET, 1990, under the heading of eligibility for appearing in B.Ed. Examination, in Note (i), it has been provided that a candidate should have teaching subject, means a subject offered by the candidate which he has studied for at least two years and also took University Examination each year. It is also submitted that this provision is arbitrary, as in the University of Rajasthan, there is a provision of one year study for passing additional/subsidiary subject. The petitioner had, therefore, studied additional subjects of History & Sanskrit for one year and he could not have studied for two years. It is pointed out that this provision is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and may be struck down. (3). It is submitted by Mr. The petitioner had, therefore, studied additional subjects of History & Sanskrit for one year and he could not have studied for two years. It is pointed out that this provision is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and may be struck down. (3). It is submitted by Mr. L.L. Jain, learned counsel for respondent No.l, MohanLal Sukhadia University, that the Educational Experts have provided norms & conditions for admission in B.Ed. as per provisions, which are provided in Ordinance 329-L-68 of the University of Rajasthan. Study of "teaching subjects" for at least two years, which may be taken as Compulsory/Optional/Subsidiary, have to be studied for at least two years and the examination has to be taken every year to entitle him to become teacher, after passing B.Ed. training course. (4). I have heard both the parties and gone through the documents. It is desirable to reproduce the relevant portion of the Ordinance mentioned above, before considering the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. The relevant portion of 0.329 L-68 is as under:— "A candidate....may be admitted to the examination for the Degree of the Shiksha Shastri. Note: (i) Teaching subject means a subject offered by the candidate at his Bachelors Shastri or Masters/Acharya Degree Examination either as a compulsory subject or as an optional subject or as a subsidiary subject provided that the candidate studied it for atleast two years and also took University examination each year but shall not include such subjects as were studied by him only for a part of the Bachelors Acharya Degree Course. Thus the qualifying subjects like General English, General Hindi, General Education, History of Indian Civilization and Culture, Elementary Mathematics etc. prescribed for the First Year T.D.C. course of the University or a subject dropped by the candidate at the part 1 stage of the Degree course shall not be treated as teaching subject."A bare reading of the relevant portion of the Ordinance, extracted above, shows that it is necessary that the candidate should have offered at his Bachelores Shastri/Masters Acharya Degree Examination "teaching subject" as a compulsory/optional/subsidiary, provided he has studied it for atleast two years and also took University Examination each year. It is important to note that it further provides that such subjects, which were studied by him only for a part of the Bachelors Acharya Degree Course, shall not be included as teaching subjects. It is important to note that it further provides that such subjects, which were studied by him only for a part of the Bachelors Acharya Degree Course, shall not be included as teaching subjects. Applying the provisions of the above Ordinance, it is evident that the petitioner cannot be held to be qualified to get admission for training of B.Ed. Course, since none of the subjects taken by him, while obtaining Degree of B.Com. was his "teaching subject". He has cleared two additional subjects of History & Sanskrit, after studying one year each of the subjects. Thus, he has not studied any of the "teaching subjects" for two years. Further, such subjects cannot be termed to be "teaching subjects", since he has studied these subjects only for a part of the Bachelores Acharya Degree Course. In the field of education, this Court shall be reluctant to interfere since the policy/conditions are laid down by the educational experts, who are well qualified to lay down the criteria for various educational courses. The University of Rajasthan has provided for passing additional subjects, after studying one year, for the benefit of such students, who want to improve their qualifications, but it does not mean that such qualification will also entitle the petitioner to appear for B.Ed. training course. It may also be pointed out that in the General Guidelines for PTET, .1990 itself, it was clearly mentioned that it will be necessary for a candidate to have studied "teaching subjects" for atleast two years and that the candidate should have also taken University examination each year. It was for the petitioner to understand that he is not qualified and should not have ventured to appear in the PTET test, since he did not possess the basic qualifications. It may also be pointed out that in the petition only eligibility criteria as published in the General Guidelines has been challenged, but Ordinance 329-L-68 has not been challenged, under which, the eligibility criteria has been published for information of the students. It was submitted that two candidates, whose names have been mentioned in para 6 to the petition, had similar qualifications, were allowed admission in the Institution. It was pointed out on behalf of the respondents that this allegation could not be verified, since even the fathers names of the candidates and their addresses have not been mentioned. It was submitted that two candidates, whose names have been mentioned in para 6 to the petition, had similar qualifications, were allowed admission in the Institution. It was pointed out on behalf of the respondents that this allegation could not be verified, since even the fathers names of the candidates and their addresses have not been mentioned. Thus, in absence of necessary details, I do not find any force in this allegation. (5). Therefore, considered from any angle, this petition has no force and is dismissed, with no order as to costs.