JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner Ali Aksar has prayed that Note (5) to Rule 5 of the Rules for admission to B.Ed/Shikash Shastri Courses in the shape of General Guide Lines for Pre-Teacher Education Test (PTET), 1991 (for short 'the Rules') be struck down. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a bonafide resident of Village Sanwa Tehsil Chauhtan District Banner. He passed his B.A. Examinations from University of Ajmer in the year 1988. Thereafter, he appealed in PTET Test in the year 1991 and has secured in all 303 marks. It is alleged that in Banner District, the persons who have secured 293 marks in PTET Test have been granted admission B.Ed. Course. His contention is that as he has passed his Secondary School Examinations from the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, his case for admission to B.Ed. Course has been considered under general seats for candidates outside Rajasthan. He has contended that for deciding the candidature of a person from a District of Rajasthan, the only consideration should not be the district from where the candidate has passed his secondary school examination. According to him, passing of secondary school examination for determining the district cannot be made the sole basis because such a criteria may frustrate the very object of selecting the best talent persons from a particular district. He has therefore, prayed that note (5) to Rule 5 of the Rules which provides that for deciding the candidature of a person from a District of Rajasthan, the only consideration will be the district from where the candidate has passed secondary school examination is arbitrary, discriminatory and unreasonable and hence it deserves to be struck down. 3. No formal reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents. 4. On joint request, the case was heard on merits. I have heard Mr. P.K. Lohra, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D.R. Bhandari, the learned Counsel for the respondents and have carefully zone through the record of the case. 5. Mr. D.R. Bhandari, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that validity of note (5) to Rule 5 of the Rules has been challenged before a Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in Mahavir Pd. Jangid v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. 5. Mr. D.R. Bhandari, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents contended that validity of note (5) to Rule 5 of the Rules has been challenged before a Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in Mahavir Pd. Jangid v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2345 of 1987, decided on 23.11.1987) and a Division Bench of this Court has held that note (5) to Rule 5 of the Rules is valid. Thus, the entire edifice for challenging the validity if note (5) to Rule 5 of the Rules by filing this writ petition goes away in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in Mahavir Pd. Jangid's case (supra). 6. The contention of the petitioner is that though he has passed his Secondary School Examination from the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh but as he is the bonafide resident of Barmer District and has secured 303 marks in PTETTest 1991, he should be granted admission in Barmer District, where less meritorious persons have been admitted to b.Ed. course. He has submitted that for determining the district of a candidate, the classification that has been sought to be made by note (5) to Rule 5 of the Rules is under-inclusive classification. 7. In this respect, Mr. P.K. Lohra, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn my attention to a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in B. Prabhakar Rao v. State of A.P. 1985 (Supp.) S.C.C. 432 . In this case, it has not been disclosed how the classification that has been made by note (5) to Rule 5 of the Rules is under-inclusive classification. The classification that has been sought to be made by note (5) to Rule 5 of the Rules for determining the district of a candidate on the basis of his passing secondary school examination or Higher Secondary School Examination has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in Mahavir Pd. Jangid's case (supra) and, therefore, to this extent, this authority has no application to the facts of the present case. 8. Mr. P.K. Lohra, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has next drawn my attention to a decision of this Court in Purshottamkd Sharma v. State of Rajasthan 1991 WLR (S) Raj. Jangid's case (supra) and, therefore, to this extent, this authority has no application to the facts of the present case. 8. Mr. P.K. Lohra, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has next drawn my attention to a decision of this Court in Purshottamkd Sharma v. State of Rajasthan 1991 WLR (S) Raj. 594 , wherein it has been held that a bonafide resident of Rajasthan is entitled to take part in the training. The students who has passed Secondary Examination from other States are also eligible for admission in the Training Course. There is no denial of the fact that the bonafide residents of Rajasthan get admission in B.Ed. course and one who has passed his secondary school examination from other State also is aligible but the cut off marks for them are 357 and not 303, which have been obtained by the petitioner. As the petitioner has passed his Secondary School Examination from the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, he comes in the category of persons who have passed their secondary school examination from a place outside the State of Rajasthan and the cut off marks for them are 357 and, therefore, he does not come in merit so far as that category of students are concerned. 9. It was next contended by Mr. P.K. Lohra, the learned Counsel for the petitioner that while filling up his form for PTET Test, the petitioner has given his choice for District Barmer and, therefore, he should be considered as a candidate of Barmer District. As stated above, the validity of note (5) to Rule 5 of the Rules, which provides that for deciding the candidature of a person from a District of Rajasthan, the only consideration will be the district from where the candidate has passed secondary school examination, has been challenged before this Court in Dharmendra kumar Bared v. The State of Rajasthan and 7 Ors. similar special appeal D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 100 of 1991, decided on May 23, 1991) and a Division Bench of this Court has held that the note explanation (5) to Rule 5 of the Rules is valid. similar special appeal D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 100 of 1991, decided on May 23, 1991) and a Division Bench of this Court has held that the note explanation (5) to Rule 5 of the Rules is valid. It was further held that the principle of allotting the district to a candidate on the basis of his passing secondary school examination from a particular district cannot be held to be arbitrary or unreasonable and, therefore, no departure from the decision in Mahavfr Pd. Jangid v. State of Raj. and Anr. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2345 of 1987 & 214 other-writ petitions, decided on 23.11.1987) is possible. In a recent decision of this Court in Ramuram Choudhary v. The State of Raj. and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1114 of 1992, decided on July 21, 1992 it has been observed as under: "Thus, the candidature of a person will have to be decided on the basis of the district from where he has passed his secondary school examination and such candidature will be for determination of the eligibility for admission to B.Ed. Course. It has nothing to do with his eligibility to appear in PTET examination and, therefore, his writ will have to be decided on the basis of the district from where he has passed his secondary school examination. If a candidate comes within the merit of the seats a valuable in the college or colleges of the district from where he has passed his secondary school examination then he can be given admission in any of the college situated at the places for which he has given his choice but if the basic qualification is missing i.e. he does not come within the merit of the seats available in his home district than he cannot be given admission in any other college of his choice in any other district. If a person with lessor merit has been admitted in another district, that does not give a right to the petitioner to get his admission, because he does not figure in the merit list of that district." (Emphasis supplied) Thus, it is clear that choice can only be availed by a candidate according to note (7) to Rule 5 of the Rules only if he secures merit. Once a candidate becomes eligible for admission to B.Ed. Course then alone, his choice can be taken into consideration. Once a candidate becomes eligible for admission to B.Ed. Course then alone, his choice can be taken into consideration. The choice will not determine his eligibility but the eligibility can confer a right on him as regards choice Thus, to this extent, the argument of Mr. P.K. Lohra, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner cannot be sustained. 10. Mr. Lohras has next placed reliance on a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Punjab Higher Qualified Teacher Union v. State of Punjab 1988 (2) SSC 407 . That was a case of giving higher pay to the teachers acquiring higher educational qualifications. Thus, this authority has no application to the facts of the present case, 11. Mr. Lohra then placed reliance on a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Pradeep Jain v. Union of India 1984 (3) SSC 654 has submitted that admission to B.Ed. course should be on the basis of merit alone. According to him, as the petitioner has obtained 303 marks and the persons with lessor marks have been admitted to B.Ed. Course in Banner District, he should be granted admission to B.Ed. Course. As stated above, for determining the home district of a candidate, note (5) to Rule 5 of the Rules provides that for deciding the candidature of a person from a District of Rajasthan, the only consideration will be the district from where the candidate has passed his secondary school examination and the validity of note (5) to Rule 5 of the Rules has been upheld by this Court in Dharemendra Kumar Barat's case (supra). As the petitioner has passed his Secondary School Examination from, the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, he comes within the category of persons who have passed their Secondary School Examination from a Board outside the State of Rajasthan and the cut off marks for such candidates are 357. The petitioner has obtained only 303 marks and, therefore, he has not secured merit and he cannot be given admission to B.Ed. Course. In this view of the matter, this authority too has no application to the facts of the present case. 12. In the result, I find no force in this writ petition and it is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.Writ dismissed. *******