Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 313 (RAJ)

Amita Vyas v. JNVU, Jodhpur

2003-02-26

PRAKASH TATIA

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, after finding her name in the list of successful candidates in the examinations conducted by the Jai Narayan Vyas University for PTET, 2002, was called for counselling. The petitioner was successful in counselling and allotted respondent No. 3- College by the Jai Narayan Vyas University for the said course of B.Ed by order dated 11.10.2002 of the Coordinator PTET, 2002. The petitioner was directed to appear before the said College-respondent No. 3 on 15th Nov., 2002. The petitioner appeared on 15th Nov., 2002, but she was denied admission on the ground that she produced his medical certificate containing fact of his disability due to defect in left leg, but in said certificate there is no mention of any disability in her speech. This defect was found during interview of the petitioner and when it was found that she is not in position to speak properly and since the B.Ed course is of teaching the students where the speech of the candidate is relevant, therefore, the respondent No. 3 found that petitioner is not found to be eligible for admission in the B.Ed course. The petitioner has challenged the action of the respondent No. 3 by filing the present writ petition. 3. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, when the examinations were conducted and petitioner was found eligible by the competent expert body and that too, through the University like Jai Narayan Vyas University of Jodhpur, the respondent No. 3 had no jurisdiction to again decide the eligibility of the petitioner for the purpose of grant of admission to the course. It is also submitted that the ground given for denial is contrary to the provisions of binding guidelines issued for PTET Test, 2002. In sub-clause (5) of condition No. 5 it is provided that even blind, deaf and dumb candidates shall also have quota of 3% reserved for them, therefore, even a blind, deaf and dumb candidate can also be given admission in the course of B.Ed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submitted that at the time of interview of the petitioner by the respondent No. 3, the defect was found in the speech as well as in the ability to write of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submitted that at the time of interview of the petitioner by the respondent No. 3, the defect was found in the speech as well as in the ability to write of the petitioner. The Co- ordinator of the PTET, by letter dated 16th Nov., 2002, informed the respondent No. 3-College that the candidates were allotted by the Coordinator of the PTET, 2002, but final eligibility is to be determined by the concerned college. The respondent No. 3-College is affiliated to the MDS University of Ajmer. Therefore, the respondent No. 3 is competent to decide whether the candidate sent by the PTET is eligible or not as per the eligibility criteria laid down by the University. It is also submitted that the Co-ordinator PTET of the Jai Narayan Vyas University, Jodhpur only gave provisional admission by order dated 11.10.2002 to the petitioner and final admission is required to be given only by the concerned college, which, here in this case, is the respondent No. 3. 5. It is clear from the facts mentioned in the writ petition as well as from the reply that the expert body was constituted to conduct the test for admission for the course B.Ed. The expert is none else than the Jai Narayan Vyas University, Jodhpur. The expert body found the petitioner eligible for admission and allotted the college. The petitioner was directed to approach the concerned college on 15th Nov. 2002. On 15th Nov. 2002 itself the impugned order Annex. 6 was passed by the Principal of the respondent No. 3-college. In view of the submission of learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 itself it is clear that it was the assessment made by the respondent No. 3-college only and no medical expert opined that petitioner is having defect in her speech to the extent on the basis of which she can be denied admission. It is also clear that before giving this letter of denial dated 15th Nov., 2002, the petitioner was not asked to explain whether she is in a position to speak properly or not or whether she can write properly or not. 6. It is also clear that before giving this letter of denial dated 15th Nov., 2002, the petitioner was not asked to explain whether she is in a position to speak properly or not or whether she can write properly or not. 6. Be that at it may, the fact remains is that the petitioner was selected by expert body, who was assigned to select candidates for the course not only for any particular college or university, but was assigned the task to select the candidate for all the colleges and universities situated in Rajasthan, found petitioner eligible and granted permission to have the course of B.Ed. The word "provisionally" used in this letter dated 11.10.92 is in the context of allotment of college and not in the context to the eligibility of the petitioner in any manner. Therefore, it cannot be said that petitioner can be denied admission by the respondent No. 3 treating the letter dated 1.10.2002 as a provisional eligibility certificate of the petitioner. 7. It is relevant to mention here that the Co-ordinator of the PTET examination informed the respondent No. 3 by letters dated 12th Nov. 2002 and the 16th Nov., 2002 that the final eligibility is required to be assessed and final decision is required to be taken by the concerned college. When it is not disputed that as per the guidelines issued by the PTET examinations, an admission can be given to those candidates who are having disability of blindness, deafness and dumbness then it can be presumed that the Co-ordinator of the PTET who conducted the examinations for the course of B.Ed. for grant of admission of entire State of Rajasthan then there can be separate standards for grant of admission to a particular category of candidates. It is not a case where the co-ordinators of the course were not made known that there may be candidates having disability of blindness, deafness and dumbness, still they can consider the cases of their eligibility. Therefore, when all the colleges and the universities have accepted for conducting the test through the PTET by assigning work to experts from a particular University then, after selection of the candidates by such experts, no right is left with any body to rejudge the eligibility of that candidate. Therefore, when all the colleges and the universities have accepted for conducting the test through the PTET by assigning work to experts from a particular University then, after selection of the candidates by such experts, no right is left with any body to rejudge the eligibility of that candidate. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submitted that this is not only the ego of the respondent No. 3, but the matter is required to be considered on equitable grounds. It is to be seen whether a candidate who is not having capacity to write properly and is not having ability to speak, can she be given admission to the B.Ed. course where she herself is required to teach the students. It is true, but here in this case when the PTET examinations conductor themselves issued instructions and made reservation of 3% for the candidates who were falling in the category of blind, deaf and dumb, it cannot be said that such disqualification of a candidate can be a ground to deny the admission to the course of B.Ed by the respondent No. 3. 8. Therefore, the writ petition of the petitioner is allowed. The order dated 15th Nov., 2002 (Annex. 6) is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is entitled to have admission in the B.Ed. course in the college Hari Bhauoo Upadhayay Mahila Shishak Mahavidhalaya, Shishak Santhan, Hatundi, Ajmer.Petition allowed. *******