Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 482 (RAJ)

Devendra Singh Rathore v. State of Rajasthan

2004-04-01

SUNIL KUMAR GARG

body2004
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 8.1.2001 against the respondents with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the petitioner be declared eligible for admission in B.Ed. Course 2000-2001 and now since he was given provisional admission for the year 2000-2001 by the order of this Court dated 19.1.2001, therefore, his result be declared. 2. The facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under : i) That the petitioner belongs to OBC category as is evident from the OBC Certificate dated 22.5.1995 (Annex. 1). ii) Further case of the petitioner is that after qualifying the Sr. Secondary School Examinations, the petitioner passed B.Com. Part I (new Course) (Three Years' Degree Course) Examination, 1992 from Jai Narayan Vyas University, Jodhpur, a copy of the mark-sheet of B.Com. 1st year is marked as Annex. 2. Thereafter the petitioner passed B.Com. Part II Examinations in the year 1994 and B.Com. Part III Examinations in the year 1996 from Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University, Ajmer and the mark-sheets of B.Com. 2nd year and 3rd year are marked as Annex. 3 and 4 respectively. iii) Further case of the petitioner is that guidelines (Annex. 5) were issued by the respondents for Pre-Teacher Education Test-2000. A bare perusal of guidelines (Annex. 5) at page 3 reveals that a person belonging to OBC category would be eligible if he had 40% of marks at his graduation level and since the petitioner had more than 40% marks, he was eligible for appearing in Pre Teacher Education Test-2000. iv) Further case of the petitioner is that he applied for appearing in Pre Teacher Education Test-2000 and he was given provisional permission to appear in the examinations through permission letter (Annex. 6) issued by respondent No. 2 (Co-ordinator, Pre-Teachers Education Test-2000, Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur). v) Further case of the petitioner is that thereafter the petitioner took the above examinations and secured 451 marks out of 600 marks as is clear from the provisional mark-sheet (Annex. 7), but he was not allowed to deposit the requisite fee and he was refused admission in B.Ed. Course 2000-2001 on the ground that since he has passed examination of B.Com. 7), but he was not allowed to deposit the requisite fee and he was refused admission in B.Ed. Course 2000-2001 on the ground that since he has passed examination of B.Com. 1st year from Jai Narayan Vyas University and second year and third year examinations from Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University and since he did not secure 42% marks in B.Com. examinations (2nd and 3rd year) as his percentage of these two years was 41.67%, therefore, he was not given admission. vi) Further case of the petitioner is that since at page 33 of the guidelines (Annex. 5), there was specific provision for OBC candidates that the OBC candidates should be allowed to appear in the examination if they had secured 40% marks and therefore, since the petitioner had secured more than 40% marks in B.Com. 2nd and 3rd year examinations, he should have been given admission in B.Ed. Course 2000-2001. Hence, this writ petition with the abovementioned prayer. 3. It may be stated here that this Court vide order dated 19.1.2001 directed the respondent No. 3 (Shah Goverdhan Lal Kabra Teachers' College) to permit the petitioner to join the B.Ed. Course. 4. Reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and their case is that no doubt in the guidelines (Annex. 5) are page 33, the word 'OBC' was there and for the OBC candidates minimum 40% marks were prescribed, however, a corrigendum dated 24.8.2000 (Annex. R/1), was issued by the respondent No. 2 (Coordinator, PTET-2000, Mohan Lal Sukhadia University) whereby minimum 42% marks were prescribed for OBC candidate and word "OBC" occurring at page 33 of the guidelines (Annex. 5) was deleted and since the petitioner was not having 42% marks in B.Com. 2nd year and 3rd year, but was having only 41.67% marks, therefore, he was not eligible for admission in B.Ed. Course - 2000-2001 and he was rightly refused admission and hence the writ petition be dismissed. 5. Heard and perused the record. 6. There is no dispute on the point that the petitioner passed B.Com. Part I Examination from Jai Narayan Vyas University n the year 1992 and passed B.Com. 2nd year and 3rd year examinations in the year 1994 and 1996 respectively from Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University, Ajmer. 7. There is no dispute on the point that if aggregate marks of the petitioner is taken of all the three years B.Com. Part I Examination from Jai Narayan Vyas University n the year 1992 and passed B.Com. 2nd year and 3rd year examinations in the year 1994 and 1996 respectively from Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University, Ajmer. 7. There is no dispute on the point that if aggregate marks of the petitioner is taken of all the three years B.Com. Course, then he had secured more than 42% marks. 8. There is no dispute on the point that by order of this Court, the petitioner pursued his studies of B.Ed. Course 2000-2001 for full term. 9. There is no dispute on the point that in the guidelines (Annex. 5), the word "OBC" is there and minimum marks for admission in B.Ed. Course 2000-2001 were 40%. 10. There is also no dispute on the point that corrigendum dated 24.8.2000 (Annex. R/1) was issued by the respondent No. 2 (Coordinator, PTET-2000, Mohan Lal Sukhadia University) and by the corrigendum dated 24.8.2000 (Annex. R/1) minimum 42% marks were prescribed for OBC candidates in place of 40%. There is also no dispute on the point that if the marks of B.Com. 2nd year and 3rd year are counted, the petitioner secured 41.67% marks. 11. Since the petitioner has now studied full course of B.Ed.-2000-2001, though no doubt under the order of this Court, the question which arises for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, he is entitled for declaration of his result or not. 12. It may be stated here that through order dated 1.5.2002, this Court declined the prayer of the petitioner for declaration of the result and it was ordered that this point would be considered when the writ petition would be finally decided. 13. Technically if a student passes B.Com. 1st year from one University and B.Com. 2nd year and 3rd year from another University, the aggregate marks would be taken out of the marks obtained by him in B.Com. 2nd year and 3rd year examinations and in support of this contention, there are guidelines of the University also. 14. If the marks of B.Com. 2nd year and 3rd year are counted, the petitioner secured 41.67% marks and not 42% marks as was prescribed for admission to B.Ed. Course for OBC candidate, but looking to the peculiar facts of the present case and looking to the fact that in the guidelines (Annex. 14. If the marks of B.Com. 2nd year and 3rd year are counted, the petitioner secured 41.67% marks and not 42% marks as was prescribed for admission to B.Ed. Course for OBC candidate, but looking to the peculiar facts of the present case and looking to the fact that in the guidelines (Annex. 5) at page 33, it has been mentioned that minimum marks of admission to B.Ed. Course for OBC candidates is 40% and from this point of view, the petitioner was eligible for admission in B.Ed. Course 2000-2001, but from another angle, if the case of the petitioner is examined and if the corrigendum dated 24.8.2000 (Annex. R/1) is taken into consideration, the petitioner being OBC candidate, must have secured 42% marks for admission in B.Ed. Course - 2000-2001 and since the petitioner secured only 41.67% marks only, therefore, he was not eligible to be given admission in B.Ed. Course 2000-2001. 15. This Court is aware of the law that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court should not uphold the admission wrongly granted or admissions which are made against the Rules embodied by the Educational Institution concerned. The Court is also aware that wrong admission should not be allowed to continue and Court should not become a party to maintain wrongful admission. 16. In the case of Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University, AIR 1986 SC 1448 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that if wrongful admissions were given and if the students have studied for near about 4 years, they should be allowed to continue their studies. 17. In the case of Central Board of Secondary Education v. Nikhil Gulati, AIR 1998 SC 1205 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the court should not in its discretion grant permission to ineligible students unless there are justifiable reasons. 18. If the case of the petitioner is examined in broad perspective technically he was not eligible to be given admission in B.Ed. Course 2000-2001, because of simple reason that he secured 41.67% marks, though he should have secured minimum 42% marks, but looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case where the petitioner had not only studied the B.Ed. Course, but he has completed full term of B.Ed. Course 2000-2001, because of simple reason that he secured 41.67% marks, though he should have secured minimum 42% marks, but looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case where the petitioner had not only studied the B.Ed. Course, but he has completed full term of B.Ed. Course 2000-2001 and therefore, a legal right though it might be on equitable ground has accrued in favour of the petitioner to get his result declared. 19. For the reasons mentioned above, the present writ petition deserves to be allowed and it is held that the petitioner is entitled to declaration of result on equitable grounds.Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to declare the result of the petitioner of B.Ed. Course 2000-2001.Cost made easy.Petition allowed. *******