Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2380 (RAJ)

Babu lal Verma v. State

2006-07-31

AJAY RASTOGI, S.N.JHA

body2006
Judgment 1. Special Appeal No. 626/2006 was heard as the leading case. The dispute in other six appeals being common, this order shall govern all the seven appeals. 2. Special Appeal No. 626/2006 is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 03.05.2006 vacating the interim order dated 31.03.2006 with liberty to file second stay application. By order dated 31.03.2006, petitioners were provisionally allowed to appear in the Live Stock Assistant (Ist year Training Course) Examination scheduled to be held on 03.04.2006. The learned Judge clarified that appearing in the examination will not create any equity in their favour and the same shall be subject to decision in the writ petition. The respondents were directed not to declare the result without permission of this Court. When the matter came up for further consideration on 08.05.2006, the learned Single Judge took the view that examination scheduled to be held on 03.04.2006 had been postponed and it was not known when the examinations will be held, and accordingly vacated the interim order. 3. On 19.06.2006 an interim order was passed by the Vacation Bench in Special Appeal No. 626/2006 directing the respondents to allow the appellants to appear in the Live Stock Assistant (Ist year Training Course) Examination commencing from 26.06.2006 or any other date within the prescribed seats allotted to the institutes. We are informed that the examination fixed for 26.06.2006 has again been postponed. 4. At this stage, it may be mentioned that the appellants of these seven appeals claim to be students of Subhash Bal Vidhalaya Samiti, Jaipur, Surendra Bal Bharati Samiti, Jaipur, Bharti Bal Mandir Samiti, Jaipur Maharishi Dadhich Vidhya Niketan Samiti, Kota, Suhit Jan Kalyan Samiti, Vigyan Nagar, Kota, Choudhary Charan Singh Pashudhan Sahayak Vidhyalaya, Alwar, Devnarayan Vikas Sansthan, Tonk, Sahara Shiksha Samiti, Vigyan Nagar, Kota, Adarsh Pilani Education Trust, Rajgarh Road, Pilani, Swami Shiksha Samiti, Hanumangarh, J.R. Tantia Charitable Trust, Sriganganagar, Padam Sri Guru Hanuman Shiksha Samiti, Jaipur, Jyotiba Phoole Social Welfare Society, Chomu, Jaipur, Swami Vivekanand Public School Sansthan, Sadulpura, Churu, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Shikshan Sansthan, Bhadara, Hanumangarh, Manohar Bal Mandir, Sriganganagar, Sheli Samiti, Bikaner, Sati Javade Public Health & Social Development Institute, Neemrana, Alwar, Shekhawati Education and Social Development Institute, Navalgarh, Allinace Shikshan and Anusandhan Sansthan, Jaipur Road, Sikar and Rajveer Gandhi Sarvodaya Shikshan Sansthan, Hindaun City, Karauli. It is said that while granting recognition to the institutions, the student strength was fixed by the Government and out of the sanctioned strength, 15% seats were allowed to the management described as management quota. The appellants claim to have been admitted in the management quota. 5. From the submissions of the Counsel for the parties it appears that there is a dispute about the eligibility of the students admitted in the so-called management quota. In fact it is stated on behalf of the State that these students did not attend even a single class. We do not wish to go into this or other disputed aspects of the case. Liberty having been given to the appellants to file second stay application, there was no justification for them to file these appeals. It is needless to say that as and when fresh examination schedule is announced, it was open to them to seek similar interim relief . It goes without saying that any direction permitting the students to appear in an examination is by necessary implication subject to their eligibility. The order cannot be used as carte blanche to them to appear in the examination as of right without their being eligible for the examination. 6. It was stated on behalf of the respondents that postponement of the examination on account of dispute about eligibility of the appellants is causing avoidable harassment to the regular students of these institutes and, in the circumstances, the respondents may be permitted to hold separate examinations for the regular students and those admitted in the management quota subject to their being found eligible for the same. It is not possible to accept the suggestion but in order to balance the interests of all concerned including the department, we are of the view that the respondent authorities would be well advised to scrutinise the eligibility of the students admitted in the management quota to appear in the examination in question right now. Such an exercise can be completed, say, within three weeks. Fresh examination schedule may thereafter be announced. 7. Shri Bharat Vyas, AAG submitted that in view of the above observations hardly anything remains to be done in the writ petitions and they may be finally disposed of alongwith these appeals. Such an exercise can be completed, say, within three weeks. Fresh examination schedule may thereafter be announced. 7. Shri Bharat Vyas, AAG submitted that in view of the above observations hardly anything remains to be done in the writ petitions and they may be finally disposed of alongwith these appeals. On behalf of the appellants it was submitted that liberty may be given to such of the appellants/students who are found ineligible by the respondent authorities to seek their remedy. We are inclined to think that while students who are found eligible by the respondent authorities as a result of the abovementioned scrutiny may not have any cause to pursue, those who are found ineligible may file fresh writ petitions. 8. In view of the above observations/order, Counsel for the parties agreed that the appeals as well as connected writ petitions may finally be disposed of . We order accordingly. 9. A copy of this order may be kept on record in all connected writ petitions.