JUDGMENT 1. - In both the writ petitions the petitioners have prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus to the non-petitioners to consider their cases for admission to B.Ed. course 1992-93 on the basis of their merit. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing of the criteria adopted by the respondents which has resulted in denial of admission to the petitioners in district of Churu and Sikar respectively on the basis of their merit. 2. Facts of writ petition No. 7740/92 are that the petitioner did her Primary Education from Tehsil Rajgarh, district Churu. She then did her remaining education, upto graduation at Chandigarh. According to the petitioner, her father was in Indian Army for sometime and then he joined service of the Central Government and remained posted in Thermal Ballistic Research Laboratory at Chandigarh. She was married to Shri J.C. Shivran of Village Jaitpura Tehsil Rajgarh, district Churu. Her husband joined Central Intelligence Bureau (MHA) in April 1986 and he remained posted in North Eastern Region upto May 1990. He is posted at Sikar since June, 1990. The petitioner has given out that she passed All India Secondary School Examination conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education (New Delhi), 1984. She passed Pre-University Examination from University of Punjab, 1986 and did her B.Sc. from the same University in the year 1989. Thereafter, she has joined Kota Open University, Kota for diploma in Library science through the correspondence course. She appeared in the Pre Teacher Education Test conducted by the Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur in the year 1990-91 but could not succeed. 1992 Pre Teachers Education Test (PTET) has been conducted by Maharshi Dayanand University, Ajmer. The petitioner applied for appearing in the said examination and the result has been declared on 18.11.92. The petitioner has secured 347 marks out of 600 (57.83%). In the Rajasthan Patrika of 27.11.92 the respondent No. 2 has published district-wise cut off marks separately for Arts/Science/Commerce with due regard to reservation for women candidates etc. The petitioner has not been considered for admission because she is being considered ineligible except against 20% seats. Further case of the petitioner is that for Churu District candidate securing 243 marks has been admitted and the petitioner who has secured 347 marks has been ignored. The petitioner has not been considered for admission because she is being considered ineligible except against 20% seats. Further case of the petitioner is that for Churu District candidate securing 243 marks has been admitted and the petitioner who has secured 347 marks has been ignored. This has been done by awarding zero merit to the petitioner in the district-wise merit list because, she has not passed Secondary School Examination from any district in Rajasthan. The petitioner has pleaded that the criteria prescribed for preparing district merit is unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory. The classification made on the basis of passing of Secondary School Examination is irrational and is having no nexus with the object of selecting the candidates on the basis of merit. Moreover, the petitioner had to pass her Secondary School Examination from Chandigrah because her father was in the service of the Central Government and his posting was beyond the control of the petitioner as well as the petitioner's father. The petitioner who is bonafide resident of Rajasthan and is a domicile of district Churu has been denied admission. The petitioner has placed on record Annexures-5 to 17 to show that she is a bonafide resident of Tehsil Rajgarh, district Churu. These documents have been produced alongwith her affidavit dated, 17.2.93 to show that the petitioner's family has a Ration Card of Village Jaitpura; her name appears in the electoral list of Panchayat Samiti Rajgarh as well as in the Sadulpur Constituency of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly. The Sarpanch and S.D.M. have issued certificates in her favour showing her to be bonafide resident of district Churu. 3. Respondent No. 2 has contested the claim of the petitioner by asserting that the respondent University has conducted the test in accordance with the guidelines framed by the Government. The petitioner has no right to be allotted any district in the State because her case is not covered by Para-4 of the guidelines. She has been considered against 20% seats which are required to be filled on the basis of over all merit. In the over-all merit her name does not figure at such a place on the basis of which she could be given admission. The petitioner had applied for admission with full knowledge about the guidelines issued by the Government. She has been considered against 20% seats which are required to be filled on the basis of over all merit. In the over-all merit her name does not figure at such a place on the basis of which she could be given admission. The petitioner had applied for admission with full knowledge about the guidelines issued by the Government. She was aware of the fact that she is not entitled to offer choice of any district in Rajasthan because, she had not passed her Secondary examination from any district in Rajasthan. Having taken a chance to be selected on the basis of the guidelines issued by the Government, the petitioner cannot now challenge the validity of those guidelines. The respondent No. 2 has also pleaded that a division bench of this Court has in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2345/87, Mahavir Prasad v. State of Rajasthan and.another (decided on 23.11.87) upheld the constitutional validity of the guidelines issued by the Government. 4. In the Writ Petition No. 7969/92, the petitioner has pleaded that before her marriage she was living with her father who was in the service of the Central Government. She passed Secondary School Examination from the Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi (1980). She then passed All India Senior School Certificate Examination in the year 1982. Her husband is serving Indian Navy since January, 1982. She is domicile of Sikar district in Rajasthan. She has passed graduation from Rajasthan University. In the PTET examination conducted by the respondent No. 2, the petitioner secured 352 marks out of the total of 600. She has however, been awarded zero merit in the district-wise merit list prepared and published by the University. The contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ-petition are more or less similar to those raised in the writ petition or Mrs. Parmeshwari Shivran and therefore, detailed reference of these contentions is not necessary. Similarly, reply of the respondent No. 2 is similar to the reply filed in the writ petition of Mrs. Parmeshwari Shivran. 5. Dr. S.K Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners, has streneously argued that the district-wise reservation of seats for admission to B.Ed. course is wholly irrational, arbitrary and unconstitutional. Dr. Tiwari argued that passing of Secondary School Examination from a particular district has no relation with the object of selecting the candidates on the basis of merit. Parmeshwari Shivran. 5. Dr. S.K Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners, has streneously argued that the district-wise reservation of seats for admission to B.Ed. course is wholly irrational, arbitrary and unconstitutional. Dr. Tiwari argued that passing of Secondary School Examination from a particular district has no relation with the object of selecting the candidates on the basis of merit. He argued that by this type of reservation more meritorious candidates are denied consideration of admission to B.Ed. course. Dr. Tiwari submitted that even those candidates who are bonafide residents of Rajasthan and who are domicile of Rajasthan are excluded from the zone of consideration only on the ground that they have not passed Secondary School Examination from a particular district. He further submitted that the requirement of passing of Secondary Examination from a district cannot be enforced against the wards of those persons who are in the service of Government of India or under such employer who has All India Service and the employees are liable to be transferred according to the choice of the employer. Dr. Tiwari submitted that if an employee is transferred out side Rajasthan his ward and particularly the girl child has to study out of Rajasthan out of sheer compulsion and such candidates cannot be denied admission on the ground that he/she has not passed Secondary School Examination from a district in Rajasthan. Dr. Tiwari placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Meenakshi Malik v. University of Delhi ( AIR 1989 S.C. 1568 ). Shri A.K Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submitted that challenge to the district-wise reservation has already been rejected by the division bench of this Court in Mahavir Prasad's case (supra) and there is no justification for consideration of the same plea once again. Shri Sharma argued that the University has to conduct examination in accordance with the guidelines framed by the Government and the respondent No. 2 has simply enforced the guidelines framed by the Government. By making detailed reference to, the decision of Mahavir Prasad's case Shri Sharma submitted that the Court has accepted the justification offered by the respondent State of Rajasthan for making reservation on the basis of district and making the factor of passing Secondary School Examination from a particular district as the basis for determination of the district. By making detailed reference to, the decision of Mahavir Prasad's case Shri Sharma submitted that the Court has accepted the justification offered by the respondent State of Rajasthan for making reservation on the basis of district and making the factor of passing Secondary School Examination from a particular district as the basis for determination of the district. Shri Sharma argued that the decision of the Supreme Court in Meenakshi Malik's case is not relevant for the purpose of determining the controversy involved in these writ petitions. He further argued that till the Government makes a provision for giving some seats to the wards of employees who are liable to serve out of Rajasthan, no relief can be given to the petitioners. He further submitted that the petitioners have taken a chance to appear in the test with full knowledge about the provisions contained in the guidelines and therefore, they are estopped from questioning the validity of the guidelines. He further submitted that a direction by this Court at this belated stage would create serious complications because, a large number of similar candidates would claim admission even though they do not fulfil the conditions contained in the guidelines. 6. After having given my thoughful consideration to the whole matter, I am of the opinion that a re-examination of the question relating to constitutional validity of Para-4 of the guidelines framed by the Government is not warranted. In Mahavir Prasad's case (supra), a challenge was made to district-wise distribution of seats as well as the criteria laid down for determination of the district and a division bench of this Court after a detailed consideration held that neither the district-wise distribution of seats nor the criteria laid down for determination of the district of the candidates suffers from vice of arbitrariness or unreasonableness. In its decision running into over 84 pages, the division bench has, in unequivocal terms, rejected challenge to the constitutional validity of Para-4 of the guidelines and in my opinion, Mahavir Prasad's case is a complete answer to the challenge made by the petitioners to para-4 of the guidelines. 7. The decision of the Supreme Court in Meenakshi Malik's case (supra) turned on its own facts. Father of the petitioner, Meenakshi Malik had to serve outside India because he was employed in the National Council for Educational Research and Training. 7. The decision of the Supreme Court in Meenakshi Malik's case (supra) turned on its own facts. Father of the petitioner, Meenakshi Malik had to serve outside India because he was employed in the National Council for Educational Research and Training. The petitioner's father was placed on deputation with the Government of Nigeria. Being a minor the petitioner had to go with her parents and she studied in Nigeria. She sought admission in MBBS Course. She appeared in the entrance examination and obtained marks which enabled her to be admitted to MBBS Course. However, she was denied admission because she had not undertaken last two years of education in a school in Delhi. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that such a condition is unreasonable when applied in the case of those candidates who were compelled to leave India for foreign country by reason of posting of the parents by the Government to such a foreign country. Their Lordships observed that the condition of last two years education in Delhi should be relaxed in such cases and that such condition should be construed as inapplicable to the students who have to leave India with their parents on posting in foreign country. That decision turned on its own facts and the facts of the present two writ petitions have no parallel with the case of Meenakshi Malik. Therefore, on the basis of that decision this Court cannot give a direction to the respondents to relax the conditions of eligibility prescribed in the guidelines framed by the Government. 8. However, I find justification in the submission of Dr. Tiwari that the Government should make a provision for conferring eligilbility. on the wards of those persons who are bonafide residents of Rajasthan and who are compelled to serve outside Rajasthan as per the requirement of their service conditions. It does appear to be quite harsh for the wards of those bonafide residents of Rajasthan that their children are denied admission in the courses in Rajasthan merely because at the time of passing of Secondary Examination or at a particular point of time the candidate-is not studying in Rajasthan because, he/she has to go out of Rajasthan as his/her parents are posted outside Rajasthan during the course of employment. The reservation made in favour of the defence personnel shows that the Government was conscious of the fact that the wards of defence personnel have to go outside Rajasthan because of the requirement of the service of their parents and on this ground they should not be deprived of their right for consideration for admission to the course in Rajasthan. In my opinion, same rationale should apply to the wards of persons who are posted out of Rajasthan during the course of their service even though they are bonafide residents of Rajasthan. Leaving out the wards of such person does operate unreasonably and causes immense hardship to the children of bonafide residents of Rajasthan. I, therefore, consider it appropriate to give a direction to the Government of Rajasthan to consider this aspect of the matter to make some reservation in favour of the children of those bonafide residents of Rajasthan who are required to serve outside, Rajasthan in accordance with their service conditions under the employment of the Government of India or agencies or instrumentalities or the Government of Rajasthan, its instrumentalities and agencies. Once the Government makes reservation the petitioners should be given the benefit of admission in B.Ed. course in 1993-94 without being required to appear in the test again. 9. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed subject to the direction that the State Government should before next PTET examination make provision for reservation of some seats for the wards,of those bonafide residents of Rajasthan-who are required to serve outside Rajasthan in accordance with their service conditions under the employment of the Government of India, its agencies and instrumentalities or the Government of Rajasthan, its instrumentalities and agencies. After the Government makes reservation the petitioners should be given the benefit of admission in B.Ed. course in 1993-94 without being required to appear in the test again.Petition Dismissed But With Directions. *******