Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 187 (RAJ)

Nitesh v. Kota Open University

2004-02-10

SUNIL KUMAR GARG

body2004
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 3.1.2003 with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to treat the petitioner as the one belonging to Woman Backward Class Category Candidate and consequently, grant her admission in the B.Ed. Course (2001-03) in accordance with her merit position. 2. The case of the petitioner as put forward by her in this writ petition is as follows:- The petitioner possesses the qualification of B.A., which she did from Mahrishi Dayanand University, Rohtak. The petitioner submitted application for participating in Pre-B.Ed. Test, 2001-03 conducted by the respondents (Kota Open University, Kota). According to the petitioner, she belonged to OBC category and in her application form, she has not only attached her photograph but she has also disclosed her category as OBC candidate. The further case of the petitioner is that on account of discrepancy in the Category Code, she could not point out that she belonged to woman category as well. But, this fact is quite apparent from her name and her photograph attached in her Admission Card. The copy of OMR response sheet is marked as Annex.1 and the copy of Admission Card for pre-B.Ed. Test is marked as Annex.2.The further case of the petitioner is that she appeared in the Pre-B.Ed. Test conducted by the respondents Kota Open University as a candidate belonging to woman OBC category. But, on account of the fact that in the category code, she has not marked the sign 'tick' against W category under the impression that whether it belonged to widow or woman, therefore, she was not treated as woman OBC category candidate and thus, she was not given admission though she has secured 247 marks whereas the cut point for woman OBC category candidate was 245.The further case of the petitioner is that though she belonged to woman OBC category and her merit was higher than the last admitted candidate in woman OBC category, but still she was not given admission because of the simple reason that she has not marked the sign 'tick' against W category and, therefore, she was not treated as woman OBC category candidate and only she was treated as candidate belonging to OBC category. Therefore, the action of the respondents not treating the petitioner as candidate belonging to woman OBC category and denying admission to the petitioner in B.Ed. Course is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this writ petition with the prayer as stated above. 3. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and their case is that the petitioner is seeking admission in the B.Ed. Course for the Session 2001-2003 and the admission process had been completed on 18.2.2003 and therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed on ground of laches and delay. 4. The further case of the respondents is that since the petitioner has not marked the sign 'tick' against W category, therefore, her case was not considered and for that reason, she was not considered as woman OBC category by the computer and thus, there is no fault on the part of the respondents. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents and gone through the materials available on record. 6. After going through the averments made in the writ petition and the reply, it appears that initially a mistake was committed by the petitioner on the point that she has not ticked against W category to show that she belonged to woman category. However, a bare perusal of Admission Card of the petitioner (Annex.2) clearly reveals that in it OBC category has been specifically mentioned, the name of the petitioner has also been mentioned as Mrs. Nitesh and her photograph was also affixed, which clearly shows that she is a lady. But, since the petitioner has not ticked against W category, therefore, the computer has not identified her as woman OBC category candidate. Had the checking of form would have been not through computer method but through manual method, this mistake would have not been committed by the respondents. 7. Thus, the mistake on the part of the petitioner can at the most be said to be very technical one and similarly, mistake on the part of the respondents, if this mistake is viewed from the point of view of computer science, there is no mistake, but if it is viewed from another angle, that mistake can be said to be a bonafide one. 8. 8. The question for consideration is whether in the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to relief sought for under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or not. 9. Today no doubt we are passing through the era of computer science and the field of computer science has been so widened that everything is being done through computer, but in India still there are some persons, who are not aware of the computer science. 10. In the present case, the petitioner has not ticked against W category and therefore, she was not treated as woman OBC category candidate by the computer and because of that, though she has secured 247 marks whereas the cut point for woman OBC category candidate was 245, she was not given admission in B.Ed. Course 2001-03 by the respondents. 11. In my considered opinion, when the petitioner has secured more marks than the last admitted candidate in woman OBC category, therefore, she should have not been deprived of her admission in B.Ed. 2001-03 merely on the ground that since the petitioner has not ticked against W category, she was not identified as woman candidate by the computer. For this bonafide and technical mistake of not ticking against W category by the petitioner, she should not be penalised on the point that she would not get admission in B.Ed. Course 2001-03. Had the form of the petitioner would have been scrutinised and checked by the respondents through manual process and not through computer, she would have been shown as woman OBC category candidate as in Admission Card Annex.2 her name was shown as Mrs. Nitesh and Photograph also reveals that she is a lady and she would have been given admission in B.Ed. Course 2001-03 as she has secured more marks than the last admitted candidate in woman OBC category. 12. Thus, denial of admission to the petitioner in B.Ed. Course 2001-03 by the respondents merely on the ground that she has not ticked against W category cannot be said to be justified and it amounts to infringement of legal right of the petitioner and therefore, she is entitled to relief sought for under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and this writ petition deserves to be allowed.Accordingly, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the respondents are directed to give admission to the petitioner in B.Ed. Course in accordance with her merit in woman OBC category. No order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******