Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 10 (RAJ)

M. D. S. University, Ajmer v. Smt. Anju Mittal

2006-01-02

DALIP SINGH, S.N.JHA

body2006
JUDGMENT 1. - The dispute in this appeal arising from a writ petition relates to admission to Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) Course. By the order impugned, the learned Single Judge directed the appellants to allow the respondent to participate in the counselling, subject to eligibility, for grant of admission to B.Ed. Course. Facts of the case are as follows: 2. Admission to the B.Ed. Course is governed by the Norms and Guidelines laid down by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). The Guidelines among other things provide for Pre Teacher Education Test (PTET). For admission to the Course for Session 2005-06 advertisement No. 12 of 2005 was published inviting applications from the eligible candidates, and on 14.5.2005 the test was held. The result of the test was declared on 15.6.2005. As per the result, the respondent secured 380 out of 600 marks and she was placed at serial No. 1671 in order of merit. The counselling for admission was held on 7.7.2005 in terms of the Guidelines for which candidates up to merit serial no. 1300 in the Science (Female) category were called. The second counselling was held on 24.7.2005 for which the respondent was issued call letter. She gave choice of five colleges at Jaipur in order of preference, but as no seat was available in any of them, she did not take admission. It is not the case of the respondent that any candidate placed below her in the merit list was offered admission in any of those five colleges on 24.7.2005. On 26.7.2005, 18 more colleges were recognised by the State Government and the NCTE as a result whereof additional seats were sanctioned. Third counselling in the circumstances was convened on 16.8.2005. The said counselling was meant for candidates from serial No. 1 2001 to 2541 of the merit list. Contending that she too should have been given another chance to participate in the counselling against the additional seats, the respondent approached this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6414/2005 on 10.8.2005. On 11.8.2005, an interim order was passed permitting her to participate in the counselling scheduled to be held on 16.8.2005. The learned Judge, however, observed that this will not create any right in her favour without further order of this Court after hearing the respondents, i.e., the appellants herein. On 11.8.2005, an interim order was passed permitting her to participate in the counselling scheduled to be held on 16.8.2005. The learned Judge, however, observed that this will not create any right in her favour without further order of this Court after hearing the respondents, i.e., the appellants herein. There is dispute about events which took place on 16.8.2005 and we shall refer to them later in this order. The writ petition was finally disposed of on 23.8.2005 with direction to the appellants to allow the respondent to participate in the counselling which was going to be held on 26.8.2005 and subject to her being found eligible, to grant her admission in the B.Ed. Course. By order dated 25.8.2005 the date 26.8.2005 was corrected as "25.8.2005" meaning thereby that the respondent was to be given an opportunity to participate in the counselling to be held on 25.8.2005. ; Maharishi Dayanand University and the Co-ordinator, PTET, 2005 have come in appeal against the said orders. 3. According to the appellants, in terms of Clause-7 of General Guidelines for PTET, 2005, refusal on the part of the candidate to take admission in the college offered to him results in loss of merit position and the chance for admission to the Course and the case of the candidate cannot be considered again. The respondent having declined to take admission in the college/colleges offered to her at the time of counselling on 24.7.2005, her candidature was rejected, and she is not entitled to any further opportunity to participate in another counselling and take admission to the Course. Accordingly to the appellants, admission to Course/College is an academic matter and the court should not interfere in such matters. 4. The case of the respondent inter-alia is that additional seats having been created pursuant to recognition of 18 colleges by the State Government/NCTE, five of which at Jaipur, a fresh opportunity should have been given to her to participate in the counselling so that she could take admission in any of them. Admission to candidate possessing lesser merit by ignoring the claim of the respondent is not proper. 5. Admission to candidate possessing lesser merit by ignoring the claim of the respondent is not proper. 5. We find some force in the case of the respondent that on creation of additional seats pursuant to recognition of new colleges including colleges at Jaipur, the respondent was entitled to an opportunity to participate in the counselling and take admission in any of the colleges on the basis of her merit-cum-choice notwithstanding Clause 7 of the Guidelines. The Guidelines cannot stand in the way of candidates from being considered against additional seats subsequently becoming available. 6. Case of the appellants, however, is that opportunity was given to the respondent to participate in the counselling held on 16.8.2005 but she again refused to take admission as no seat in any of the college of her choice was available and having come to know about this fact she left the counselling center. Case of the respondent is that pursuant to the order of this Court dated 11.8.2005, she appeared for counselling at the counselling center well on time, but she was denied participation on the ground that copy of the order of this court was not made available by the counsel and by the time she was called in, seats in the five colleges at Jaipur had been filled up. According to the respondent, the action of the appellants was reflective of a pre-determined mind not to admit her and the non-availability of copy of the order was a mere ploy to deny admission. 7. Having heard counsel for the parties, we do not think that the appellants are guilty of any manipulation or deliberately denying admission to the respondent. It is not in dispute that the appellants did allow the respondent to participate in the counselling. The dispute arose from the fact that such opportunity was given at a stage when seat in the colleges at Jaipur had already been filled up. If, on the saving of respondent, the appellant did not permit her to participate in the counselling on the ground that they were awaiting receipt of the copy of the order of this Court, no fault can be found with the appellants. It is not clear if the respondent had produced certified copy of the order of this Court which in the ordinary course she should have done when she appeared for counselling on 16.8.2005. It is not clear if the respondent had produced certified copy of the order of this Court which in the ordinary course she should have done when she appeared for counselling on 16.8.2005. If the authority insists on production of certified copy of the order before acting upon such order, it cannot be said to be guilty of deliberate omission or dereliction or disobedience. Shri R.A. Katta, counsel for the appellants took a firm stand that he had applied for copy of the order dated 23.8.2005, but the same was not made available on the ground that the respondent had filed application for correction of the date in the order and the record was not available in the Section. Finally after the court passed rectification order on 25.8.2005, he faxed copy of the order no sooner than it was made available to him. Having given our anxious consideration to this aspect of the matter, we find nothing wrong on the part of the appellants to draw any adverse inference against them. The bona fide of the appellants becomes further apparent from the fact that appellant No. 2 vide communication dated 25.8.2005 again asked the respondent to appear for final round of counselling on 28.8.2005. 8. We nevertheless tried to explore the possibility of providing admission to the respondent and accordingly called up Shri Katta to find out if seats are available against which the respondent could be admitted. On instructions, Shri Katta informed the court that only four seats - one in Bhartiya Vidhya Mandir T.T. College, Banswara and three in T.T. College, Sikar - are available, but considering the category of the respondent, she cannot be admitted against them. Whereas, the respondent belongs to Science (Biology) Category the aforesaid seats were meant for Commerce or Science (Mathematics) categories. Shri Katta further informed the court that for the Session 2005-06 course commenced on 30.8.2005 and the examinations are scheduled to be held in the last weak of April, 2006. Further, Shri Katta stated, in terms of the norms of the NCTE 180 days attendance is mandatory. Thus, in any case, even if the respondent were to be admitted at this stage, she would not be able to complete the attendance and being not eligible cannot appear in the examination. In the circumstances any such direction for her admission at this stage would be a futile exercise. 9. Thus, in any case, even if the respondent were to be admitted at this stage, she would not be able to complete the attendance and being not eligible cannot appear in the examination. In the circumstances any such direction for her admission at this stage would be a futile exercise. 9. Before expressing our views on the submissions of Shri Katta, it may be appropriate to notice further submissions of counsel for the respondent. Shri S.C. Gupta submitted that admission to less meritorious candidate at the expense of merit should not be countenanced by the court and, therefore, it would be appropriate to direct the appellants to create a seat so that she may be admitted. He placed reliance on Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh v. Sanjay Gulati & Ors., AIR 1983 SC 580 . Alternatively, he submitted that if it is not possible create a new seat, direction may be issued for admission of the respondent in the next session of the Course. In this regard, he placed reliance on State of Punjab v. Bhagwant Singh & Ors., AIR 1985 SC 981 . Counsel also referred to Miss Arti Sapru etc. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & ors., AIR 1981 SC 1009 . 10. We have considered the submissions of the counsel for the respondent and we do not think it a case fit in which any direction should be issued for creation of additional seat to facilitate admission of the respondent. In Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh v. Sanjay Gulati (supra), the Court found that "spot admissions" had been made to the Engineering Course on extraneous considerations and in violation of rules. In peculiar facts of the case, the Court was of the view that time consumed in disposal of cases in the High Court and the Supreme Court during the intervening period could not be a ground for denying relief to the meritorious candidates. The Court in the circumstances took the view that the best solution was to ensure that the strength of seats is increased in proportion to the wrong admissions made. It should be kept in mind that the dispute in that case related to admission to the engineering course which is a four years course beginning from Academic Session 1982-83 and the appeal was disposed of by the Supreme Court on 20.4.1983 when the second semester of the Course was underway. It should be kept in mind that the dispute in that case related to admission to the engineering course which is a four years course beginning from Academic Session 1982-83 and the appeal was disposed of by the Supreme Court on 20.4.1983 when the second semester of the Course was underway. In the instant case, B.Ed. Course is of only one year and the final examinations are to be held, as mentioned above, in the last week of April 2006, and, therefore, it would not be possible for the respondent during the intervening period to complete the minimum attendance so as to become eligible for the examination. We, therefore, do not think that the direction regarding creation of an additional seat would serve any purpose. Needless to say that even if direction is now issued, it will take considerable time to do the needful. It may be mentioned here that the State of Rajasthan has not been made party respondent and it is doubtful if any increase could be made without consent of NCTE. 11. As regards second limb of submission for issuing the direction for admission of the respondent in the next Session, i.e., 2006-07, it may simply be observed that as admissions are made on the basis of competitive test, no direction can be issued for her admission to the Course for any other Session on the basis of result of the respondent for 2006-07 course. The ratio of the decision in State of Punjab v. Bhagwant Singh & Ors. (supra) cannot be applied in the instant case. That was a case of admission to the medical Course and the court found on materials on record that denial of admission to the respondent in the sports quota was illegal. 12. The decision in Miss Arti Sapru v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (supra) is also of no avail to the respondent. That was a case of admission in medical college on the basis of classification of 95% villages as socially and economically backward. The Court held that there was no intelligible date justifying such classification and, therefore, reservation on the ground that the candidates hailed from rural areas was unconstitutional. The Court also found that admissions were made on the basis viva-voce test for which 30% marks were allocated, and time spent on each candidate was not more than four minutes. The Court held that there was no intelligible date justifying such classification and, therefore, reservation on the ground that the candidates hailed from rural areas was unconstitutional. The Court also found that admissions were made on the basis viva-voce test for which 30% marks were allocated, and time spent on each candidate was not more than four minutes. Disapproving the manner in which admissions were made, the State Government was directed to revise marks ratio. We fail to understand as to how the decision can be of any assistance to the respondent. 13. We find force in the stand of the appellants that all said and done, at this stage no order can be passed in favour of the respondent. Firstly, she is not interested in admission in any of the colleges in which seats are vacant as indicated above. The colleges are situated at far away places whereas the respondent is interested in admission only in college at Jaipur. Secondly, even if seats were available in any college at Jaipur, it would be virtually impossible for the respondent to complete the attendance as per the standards/norms fixed by the NCTE. In the circumstances, the respondent has no option but to wait for admission in the next session. 14. In the result, while we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that the direction contained in the order was substantially complied with and further direction/relief can be granted in favour of the respondent. The order of the learned Single Judge stands modified to the above effect and the appeal is accordingly disposed of.Appeal disposed of as above - Directions of single judge being substantially complied with, no further direction necessary. *******