Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 636 (RAJ)

Madhuri v. State of Rajasthan

2005-02-24

PRAKASH TATIA

body2005
Judgment Prakash Tatia, J.-The facts in brief are that the petitioner obtained her bachelor degree in Arts from the Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur. She applied for B.P.Ed. Course, 2004-05 in pursuance of the advertisement dated 33.2004 and submitted her application. According to the petitioner, total 120 seats were allotted to Government Physical Education College, Jodhpur, out of which 90 seats were reserved for fresh candidates and 30 seats were reserved for in service candidates. According to the petitioners, the petitioner has not been given credit of 5 marks despite the fact that the petitioner obtained N.I.S Diploma in sports coaching from Netaji Subhash National Institute of School, Patiala after one year course 2003-04. The grievance of the petitioner is that the candidates who had no basic qualification at the time of submitting the application for admission, were given opportunity to submit their certificate of passing the graduation till the time of interview but such indulgence has not been granted to the candidates like the petitioners who though completed her N.I.S. Diploma course in sports coaching before the date of interview but after the date fixed for submitting the application form. The last date for submitting the application form was 15.2004 and the petitioner could obtain the certificate of the N.I.S. Diploma in sports coaching only on 35.2004,therefore, she could not submit her certificate along with the application form and, therefore, the petitioner has been treated discriminatory by the respondents and has wrongly been denied admission to B.P.Ed. Course. 2. The respondents submitted reply and took a plea that the petitioners alleged certificate of N.I.S. Diploma in sports coaching could not have been considered as the petitioner did not complete her Diploma Course in sports coaching before 15.2004 and she did not submit any certificate along with the application form. It is submitted that the petitioner submitted the certificate of N.I.S. Diploma Course in sports coaching on 19.6.2004 whereas the interviews were complete by 16.2004. Therefore, also the petitioner was not eligible candidate even on the date of interview. It is also submitted that the case of the petitioner cannot be equated with the candidates who appeared in the final year graduation course examination and they have been given chance to produce their proof of passing the graduation course by the time of interview. Therefore, also the petitioner was not eligible candidate even on the date of interview. It is also submitted that the case of the petitioner cannot be equated with the candidates who appeared in the final year graduation course examination and they have been given chance to produce their proof of passing the graduation course by the time of interview. It is also submitted that it was done to give benefit to all those candidates of the final year course of graduation so that they may get the admission in the immediate next session of the course of B.P.Ed. and that benefit was available to a class as a whole, and, therefore, there cannot be any comparison between the case of the petitioner and the candidates who were given permission to submit certificates later on. It is also submitted that by now, substantial period of education has already over, therefore, also there is no reason for giving permission to the petitioner to take the course now and to appear in the examination without attending the classes. 3. I considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. The petitioner knowing it well that her application will be considered on the basis of the documents which she will furnish along with her application form, submitted her application form. She completed her N.I.S. Diploma Course in sports coaching only on 35.2004 whereas as per requirement she should have passed the said course before 15.2004. Though the petitioner submitted that she had certificate with her readily available by 7.6.2004 and her certificate was not accepted at the time of interview despite the fact that her interview was fixed on 16.2004 but such contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the said allegation was denied by the respondents and the respondents has submitted copy of the said certificate as Annexure R/1 which shows that certificate was submitted on 19.6.2004 after the closer of the interview. Therefore, the petitioner was not a qualified candidate for admission in the course of B.P.Ed. Course, 2004-05. Therefore, on this ground alone, the writ petition of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. 5. So far as permission to candidates who were students of the final year examination of the graduation course to apply for the course of B.P.Ed. Therefore, the petitioner was not a qualified candidate for admission in the course of B.P.Ed. Course, 2004-05. Therefore, on this ground alone, the writ petition of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. 5. So far as permission to candidates who were students of the final year examination of the graduation course to apply for the course of B.P.Ed. with condition that at the time of interview they will have to submit copy of the original marks-sheet, is a benefit given in larger interest of the students and has been given to a specific class of persons and the petitioner cannot claim that she should have been given the same concession by the authorities. 6. Apart from it, since the time has passed by now and the petitioner cannot complete her course by attending the classes, therefore, she is not entitled for any relief even if any seat remained vacant. 7. In view of the above, the writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed.