JUDGMENT 1. - These bunches of cases were heard finally at the request of counsel for parties looking to the fact that it pertains to admission in B.Ed. Course pursuant to the Pre Teacher Education Test-2008 (for short 'PTET-2008') for the academic year 2008-2009.Brief facts pertaining to PTET-2008 :PTET-2008 was conducted for admission in B.Ed. Course. For the year 2008, Jai Narayan Vyas University, Jodhpur was made nodal agency to conduct the PTET-2008 and for counseling of the successful candidates. After conducting the PTET-2008, result was declared and thereupon circular was issued to call successful and meritorious candidates to participate in the counseling. As per the circular issued, successful and meritorious candidate was to get registered himself on the website for allotment of college and apart from that to deposit fee on or before the last date fixed. In the counseling, a candidate was required to opt for college/institute in which he seeks to undertake B.Ed. Course. For this purposes, candidate was having liberty or to keep his option for all the institutions, the allotment of institutions was to be made keeping in view of the option given by the candidate vis-a-vis his merit with other candidates. The option of institution and counseling for that purposes was required looking to the fact that B.Ed. Course is given by many colleges having affiliation under different Universities in State of Rajasthan. After completion of 1st counseling, circular for 2nd counseling was also issued to fill left out seats or new seats becoming available. In regard to 2nd counseling also a cut off date was given to submit fee and registration. In regard to 3rd and 4th counseling, the State Government issued an order that candidate failing themselves to register and to deposit fee upto last date of 2nd counseling would not be entitled to participate in further counseling and as per the direction of the State Government, 3rd and 4th counseling took place. 2. Apart from the exercise of counseling as narrated above, as per the directions of the National Counseling for Teacher Education (for short 'the NCTE'), a student is required to undertake minimum 180 classes to qualify for B.Ed. Examination. Thus, various universities under which different colleges are having affiliation are required to provide minimum 180 classes to a student for one year B.Ed. Course. Examination. Thus, various universities under which different colleges are having affiliation are required to provide minimum 180 classes to a student for one year B.Ed. Course. The litigation arose on various counts after 2nd counseling took place and the matters listed before this Court pertain to the various issues which have been bifurcated in few bunches. 3. In the first bunch of cases, the facts are similar, thus are narrated in brief as under : 4. All the petitioners in first bunch appeared in the PTET-2008 and having equivalent or higher marks, than the cut of marks fixed by the respondent University, the petitioners deposited the requisite fee after 2nd counseling. The allegation of the petitioners is that even after depositing the requisite fee, when they tried for their registration through website for the admission, the respondent University did not permit them to participate in 3rd and 4th counseling. Thus, the petitioners are left with no option but to prefer the writ petition. 5. In reply to the first bunch of cases, learned counsel for respondent University submits that the petitioners failed to get themselves registered and to deposit fee in 2nd round of counseling. Thus, as per the direction of the State Government for 3rd and 4th round of counseling, only those candidates were to be permitted who get themselves registered pursuant to 1st and 2nd counseling, apart from those candidates who were not having required merit upto 2nd counseling. The petitioners of the first bunch of cases failed to register themselves pursuant to 1st and 2nd counseling and deposit the fee after expiry (sic) of the last date fixed on 2nd counseling. Therefore, those petitioners were not entitled to further participate in the 3rd and 4th round of counseling. 6. In the second bunch of cases, all the petitioners participated in the counseling and thereupon deposited the fee, but despite of that they were not allotted college for undertaking B.Ed. Course though less meritorious candidates were given admission. Thus, second bunch of cases are having somewhat different facts than the first bunch of cases. 7. 6. In the second bunch of cases, all the petitioners participated in the counseling and thereupon deposited the fee, but despite of that they were not allotted college for undertaking B.Ed. Course though less meritorious candidates were given admission. Thus, second bunch of cases are having somewhat different facts than the first bunch of cases. 7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent University submits that he has already given a detailed reply in one of the bunch cases bearing W.P. No. 2147/2009 and submits that in second bunch of cases though the petitioners had participated in counseling,, however, they furnished limited choice for the college and looking to the aforesaid, their candidature was considered strictly as per the merit position so assigned in order of those institutions for which the petitioners submitted their options and as the petitioners were found less meritorious in order of preference to institutions for which option was given, therefore, the petitioners could not be allotted colleges looking to the limited choice. It was further clarified that other candidates who were less meritorious than the petitioners had not given limited choice of colleges and they had furnished their option of "anywhere". Thus, their candidature was considered accordingly. It was submitted that the petitioners cannot compare their case with those who had given option for all the institutions and did not keep it limited to few institutions as was done by the petitioners. Thus, looking to the aforesaid, learned counsel appearing for respondent University ., prayed for rejection of the second bunch of cases. 8. In S.B.C.W.P. No. 293/2009, petitioner made an allegation that less meritorious candidates were given admission in B.Ed. Course leaving the petitioner. However, the aforesaid contention was contested by learned counsel for respondent University by stating that no candidate with less merit was given admission and it is for that reason only the petitioner could not furnish name of any candidate who was less meritorious than the petitioner and was given admission in the category of general women (arts). Referring to order-sheet dated 29.12.2008 of the aforesaid case, it was prayed that even in compliance of the court order, the petitioner could not furnish details of any candidate, who was less meritorious than the petitioner and given admission. 9. Referring to order-sheet dated 29.12.2008 of the aforesaid case, it was prayed that even in compliance of the court order, the petitioner could not furnish details of any candidate, who was less meritorious than the petitioner and given admission. 9. In S.B.C.W.P. No. 773/2009, the allegation of the petitioner is that he was originally allotted roll number 192702 and accordingly appeared in the examination with the aforesaid roll number. The result of PTET-2008 was declared on 22.8.2008 wherein candidate having roll number 192702 was declared successful, but against the said roll number name of the candidate was changed. It is stated that when the mark-sheet was issued to the petitioner, his roll number was shown as "192701", thus allegation of the petitioner is that he has not been given correct mark-sheet and merit position due to the mistake of the respondent University and as per the original roll number allotted, the petitioner should be treated as successful and entitled for admission in B.Ed. Course. 10. In reply to the writ petition, learned counsel for respondent University submits that the petitioner was originally allotted roll number 192702, but realising the mistake, the said roll number was corrected and the petitioner was given roll number 192701 and accordingly he had signed the attendance-sheet against new roll number given to him. To substantiate this fact, the copy of the attendance-sheet containing the signatures of the petitioner was submitted wherein roll number 192701 has been shown against the petitioner's name. Thus, according to the respondent University, the petitioner's result was rightly declared on the roll number 192701 and there exists no illegality in declaring the result accordingly. 11. In S.B.C.W.P. No. 683/2009, the petitioner contended that due to his poor condition, he could not deposit fee on or before the last date fixed. However, after arranging the fee from various sources, he deposited the fee. Hence, the petitioner was entitled to get allotment of the college to pursue his B.Ed. Course study. 12. Learned counsel appearing for respondent University submits that the petitioner having failed to deposit fee on or before last date so fixed, was not entitled to seek admission pursuant to subsequent counseling and otherwise petitioner cannot take benefit of his own default in not depositing the fee in time. 13. Course study. 12. Learned counsel appearing for respondent University submits that the petitioner having failed to deposit fee on or before last date so fixed, was not entitled to seek admission pursuant to subsequent counseling and otherwise petitioner cannot take benefit of his own default in not depositing the fee in time. 13. In S.B.C.W.P. No. 995/2009, the petitioner submits that despite of higher marks, admission was not given to him more so when the petitioner even deposited the requisite fee on 3.1.2009. The oral contention of learned counsel appearing for the respondent University is that on verification of the facts, it is found that the petitioner was not in possession of the requisite qualification on or before cut off date fixed for that purpose. The petitioner was declared passed in the qualifying examination on 22.11.2008 whereas the cut off date fixed to possess the requisite qualification was dated 4.11.2008. Thus, in view of the above, the petitioner was not entitled for consideration of his candidature. 14. In S.B.C.W.R No 1302/2009, the petitioner submits that she had appeared in the PTET-2008 and acquired merit position to get admission. The petitioner was not permitted to deposit fee pursuant to 1st counseling as she had not qualified B.A. Examination. It is contended that the petitioner qualified B.A. Examination after passing supplementary test and result of the same was declared on 5.10.2008, yet the petitioner was not allowed to deposit the fee. 15. Learned counsel appearing for respondent University submits that on verification of the facts available on record, it is found that the petitioner failed to deposit fee on or before the cut off date fixed with 1st and 2nd counseling. Thus, she was not entitled to seek deposition of fee subsequently because in 3rd and 4h counseling, only those candidates were called, who had deposited their fee but could not get admission. This was apart from others who are permitted to participate in subsequent counseling as they were not having merit position upto 2nd counseling. Referring to Annexure-6 of the writ petition, it was submitted that even the letter was sent after the last date fixed for deposition of the fee. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to seek any relief. 16. This was apart from others who are permitted to participate in subsequent counseling as they were not having merit position upto 2nd counseling. Referring to Annexure-6 of the writ petition, it was submitted that even the letter was sent after the last date fixed for deposition of the fee. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to seek any relief. 16. In S.B.C.W.P. No. 2803/2009, the petitioner had come with the plea that in view of the decision of this Court in S.B.C.W.P. No. 450/2009 dated 22.1.2009, the petitioner is entitled for same relief as less meritorious candidates were given admission. 17. Notices of the writ petition have not been issued and the matter was heard along with other writ petitions in bunch. Learned counsel appearing for respondent University submits that this writ petition has been filed on 5.3.2009 at the stage when different Universities to which respective colleges have affiliation called the candidates to submit their examination forms and examinations are likely to take place soon by those respective colleges as otherwise respondent University is the nodal University authorised to conduct the Pre Teacher Education Test. It is also contended that as per the instruction of NCTE, a candidate is required to take minimum 180 classes in one year B.Ed. Course to qualify for the examinations. It is contended that the petitioner would not be in position to undertake required 180 classes. Thus,-looking to filing of the writ petition at a belated stage, petitioner is not entitled for any relief.General submission of counsel for respondent University :Learned counsel appearing for respondent University submits that the similar type of writ petitions came up for consideration before the High Court seat at Jodhpur and all those writ petitions were dismissed on the ground of delay. Copies.of those judgments were submitted for perusal of this Court. It is also contended that all the seats for which the petitioners are claiming admission, have already been filled. Thus, in the absence of availability of any seat, the petitioners cannot be given admission. The last contention of learned counsel for respondent University is that as per the instruction of NCTE, every candidate is required to undertake minimum 180 classes to qualify for B.Ed. Examinations. Thus, in the absence of availability of any seat, the petitioners cannot be given admission. The last contention of learned counsel for respondent University is that as per the instruction of NCTE, every candidate is required to undertake minimum 180 classes to qualify for B.Ed. Examinations. It is stated that there exists no possibility of any candidate to undertake such requisite number of classes as respective Universities have already started process of examinations by calling candidates to submit their examination forms, thus there exists no possibility to conduct 180 classes by any university now at this stage. It is also contended that a new advertisement for PTET-2009 has also been issued. Thus, looking to the aforesaid, the petitioners are not entitled for any kind of relief. 18. No arguments other than referred to above have been raised in these writ petitions. 19. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and scanned the matter carefully on the issues argued before me. 20. In first bunch of cases, it has come that the petitioners are meritorious in comparison to others who have been given admission. However, in view of the reply submitted by the respondent University, it is found that the petitioners failed to register themselves pursuant to 1st and 2nd counseling and even the fee was deposited after the cut off date and that too by the petitioners at their own as name of schedule bank was known to them. It is otherwise a fact that in view of instructions of the Government, the candidates who have not registered themselves pursuant to 1st and 2nd counseling and failed to deposit fee in time, were not to be considered for 3rd counseling. Thus, looking to the aforesaid, I find that the petitioners could not make out a case on merit. Petitioners after committing default in not getting themselves registered pursuant to 1st and 2nd counseling, cannot claim any right contrary to the instructions of the Government. 21. A reference of judgment in the case of M.D.S. University, Ajmer & Anr. v. Smt. Anju Mittal reported in 2006 WLC (Raj.) UC 207 of Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court on the subject above is required to be given. 21. A reference of judgment in the case of M.D.S. University, Ajmer & Anr. v. Smt. Anju Mittal reported in 2006 WLC (Raj.) UC 207 of Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court on the subject above is required to be given. In the aforesaid case, this court observed thus:- "According to the appellants, in terms of Clause-7 of - General Guidelines for PTET, 005, 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 counseling on 24.7.2005, her candidature was rejected, and she is not entitled to any further opportunity to participate in another counseling and take admission to the Course. According to the appellants, admission to Course/College is an academic matter and the court should not interfere in such matters." 22. So far as second bunch of cases are concerned, petitioners therein not only registered themselves pursuant to 1st and 2nd counseling but further deposited their fee in time. However, they had submitted their option for admission limited to few institutions/colleges only though the candidates were free to give maximum option but the petitioners keeping their option limited to certain institutions/colleges, their merit was adjusted alongwith other candidates and as the petitioners were found less meritorious in regard to the institutions for which options were given, they could not be allotted colleges/institutions of their choice. The cases of the petitioners cannot be compared with those candidates who had given option for all the colleges/institutions and accordingly considering their option, admission was given. Thus, in view of the above, it cannot be said that the petitioners can now claim admission in regard to other institutions here less meritorious candidates were given admission. It is the petitioners who themselves chose to give limited option cannot now make out it unlimited more so when all the seats have already been filled. 23. So far as other independent cases are concerned, in S.B.C.W.P. No. 293/2009, the petitioner has failed to give detail of any less meritorious candidate. Thus, in the absence of the said detail, the petitioner cannot be given relief. 24. 23. So far as other independent cases are concerned, in S.B.C.W.P. No. 293/2009, the petitioner has failed to give detail of any less meritorious candidate. Thus, in the absence of the said detail, the petitioner cannot be given relief. 24. So far as S.B.C.W.P. No. 773/2009 is concerned, it has already been shown by a document that the petitioner was initially allotted roll number 192702 but that was changed and corrected as roll number 192701 and it remained in the knowledge of the petitioner also, who had signed the attendance-sheet with roll number 192701 and as per the result declared, the petitioner cannot seek marks of other candidate, who was allotted roll number 192702. 25. In S.B.C.W.P. No. 683/2009, the petitioner had admitted that he could not deposit fee in time though due to his poor condition but that being the factual aspect cannot be considered at this stage and if relief is given to a candidate, who had defaulted in depositing the fee before the last date, then it is going to open gate for all who for one or the other reason defaulted in depositing the fee on or before the last date fixed. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled for any kind of relief. 26. So far as S.B.C.W.P. No. 995/2009 is concerned, the petitioner did not posses the required qualification on or before the last date fixed. Thus, it cannot be said that the respondents are at fault in denying benefit of admission to the petitioner. 27. So far as S.B.C.W.P. No. 2803/2009 is concerned, the petitioner has mainly claimed benefit in view of the judgment dated 22.1.2009 and the petition in that regard has been filed on 5.3.2005 (sic) i.e. at a belated stage. The facts of this case would be considered while considering the common aspect of all the matters in the subsequent part of this judgment. 28. So far as S.B.C.W.P. No. 1303/2009 is concerned, from the facts available on record specifically Annexure-6 shows that the petitioner failed to deposit fee on or before the last date fixed on completion of 2nd counseling. Thus, in view of the above, the petitioner cannot claim her right for admission in B.Ed. Course.Common issue for all the cases : 29. Apart from the individual facts, a few other facts relevant to these cases have been submitted by learned counsel for respondent University. Thus, in view of the above, the petitioner cannot claim her right for admission in B.Ed. Course.Common issue for all the cases : 29. Apart from the individual facts, a few other facts relevant to these cases have been submitted by learned counsel for respondent University. It is given out that certain writ petitions have been dismissed by the Rajasthan High Court, Seat at Jodhpur on the ground that the writ petitions were filed at a belated stage. Thus, no relief can be granted. This is apart from the fact that in view of the statement of learned counsel for respondent University that the seats have already been filled by giving admissions pursuant to the counseling. Thus, in view of the above when no seat is available, relief cannot be granted to the petitioners. 30. It was lastly urged that as per instruction of NCTE, a candidate undergoing B.Ed. Course of one year is required to undertake minimum 180 classes. In view of the statement of learned counsel for respondent University that after allotment of the candidates to respective institutions under different colleges, the colleges/universities concerned, have started process of examinations by first calling examination forms. Thus, looking to the aforesaid and the previous schedule of those colleges/universities, it is not possible for any college/university to provide 180 classes now which otherwise requires more than a period of 6 months. It is otherwise submitted that Pre Teacher Education Test for the year 2009 has also been announced, thus at this stage, the petitioners cannot be given any benefit. 31. Considering the overall circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that at this belated stage as well as due to facts of each case, the petitioners are not entitled for relief. Thus, all the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. *******