JUDGMENT 1. - Both the petitions involving identical issue were heard together at joint request of parties and are being decided by common order. 2. CWP-5828/2009 & CWP-6204/2009 have been filed respectively by 7 & 38 petitioners with a common grievance that after having taken admission in Three Years' Polytechnic (Engineering & Non-Engineering) Courses in academic session 2008-09 and pursued their studies in the Institutions (respondent-3), respondent-University failed to enroll them on the premise that they have failed to obtain minimum qualifying 45% marks in subjects of Mathematics & Science in Secondary School Examination. 3. Secondary School Examination from Education of Board, Rajasthan or equivalent examination with subjects of Mathematics & Science is the minimum qualification prescribed for admission in Three Years' Polytechnic (Engineering & Non-Engineering) Courses being held by respondent-2 (Department of Technical Education); for which at one point of time, 45% marks were fixed as minimum qualification for admission to the aforesaid technical courses. 4. As alleged, in the Budget announcement for the year 2007-08, the Government of Rajasthan decided to establish technical institutions under Private Public Participation Mode ("PPP Mode") for women; and accordingly private Technical Education Colleges were established in different districts of Rajasthan including Institutions (respondent-3) at Baran & Dholpur. 5. The Director of Technical Education, laid down guidelines on year to year basis for admission to technical courses being held by Department of Technical Education. For admission in academic session 2007-08, minimum qualification was 45% marks in subjects of mathematics & science but was relaxed to the extent of 40% while for academic session 2008-09 there was no such relaxation being granted; whereas for academic session 2009-10, requirement of minimum qualifying 45% marks in aggregate was relaxed by respondents-1 & 2; and those having possessed qualification of Secondary School Examination from Rajasthan Board of Education or equivalent thereto, alongwith subjects of mathematics & science were considered to be eligible for admission to such technical courses. 6. 6. clause 6 of booklet for admission to course of Diploma in Engineering in academic session 2009-10 being relevant for present purpose, is quoted ad infra: " 6- izos'k ds fy, U;wure ;ksX;rk,a& 2& vH;FkhZ jktLFkku ek/;fed f'k{kk cksMZ dh ek/;fed ijh{kk ;k led{k ijh{kk esa foKku ,oa xf.kr fo"k; ysdj mRrh.kZ gksuk pkfg, vH;FkhZ }kjk vad lq/kkj dh fLFkfr esa ,d gh ckj esa rFkk ,d gh ijh{kk esa izkIr vad ekU; gksaxsaA Apart from instant two writ petitions, no relaxation was granted in academic session 2008-09 as was granted earlier in academic session 2007-08. At that time, admissions were made and applications were submitted through institutions whereas CWP-4917/2009 (Sweta Jain & Ors v. State) alongwith cognate CWP-4612/2009 (Nidhi Saini & Ors v. State) & CWP- 5046/2009 (Reeta Mishra v. State) were filed before principal seat at Jodhpur which came to be decided vide judgment dated 17.11.2009 holding that when relaxation was being granted to the extent of 40% qualifying marks in subjects of Mathematics & Science for admission in technical Course for academic session 2007-08, there appears to be no justification as to why different standards were adopted by respondents for admissions in academic session 2008-09 and taking note whereof, writ petitions (supra) were allowed directing respondents to enroll writ petitioners in the courses in which they were admitted. Relevant observations are ad infra: "7. ...That apart admittedly, the condition of obtaining 45% marks in Science & Maths. was relaxed to the extent of 40% by the respondents for the academic session 2007- 08 and for the academic session 2009-10 the requirement of 45% marks in the qualifying examination as such as been relaxed. In these circumstances, there is no reason as to why the petitioners who have pursued the studies of the course during the entire academic session 2008-09 and have already appeared in the first year examination should be deprived of the benefits thereof at this stage. Obviously, if the petitioners are denied enrollment at this stage, for no fault on their part, their entire year will go waste. Obviously, if the petitioners are denied enrollment at this stage, for no fault on their part, their entire year will go waste. Thus, having regard to totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, in considered opinion of this court, it will be unjust to deny the petitioners the benefits of the studies they are pursuing, particularly when the condition of requirement of 45% marks in the subjects Science & Mathematics again stands relaxed for the academic year 2009-10." "8. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. The respondent no.1 and 2 are directed to enroll the petitioners and permit them to pursue the diploma course in Technical Education to which they were admitted. Needless to say that the result of the petitioners of the first year examination wherein they have appeared in pursuance of the interim order granted by this court shall be declared forthwith. No order as to costs." In instant case, some of petitioners have secured more than 40% qualifying marks in aggregate in subjects of Mathematics & science in the qualifying Secondary school examination and few of them have not been able to secure 40% qualifying marks. 7. However, it appears from the record that indisputably, condition of obtaining 45% qualifying marks in Science & Mathematics in Secondary School examination was relaxed to the extent of 40% by respondents for admission to technical course in academic session 2007- 08; and relaxation was not granted during admission in academic session 2008-09; similarly situated students approached this Court at principal seat Jodhpur, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench took note of the material on record that when minimum qualifying 45% marks or 40% marks in subjects of Mathematics & Science has been completely relaxed by respondent for academic sessions 2009-10, there appears to be no justification in not permitting such students who failed to obtained such prescribed minimum qualifying marks, particularly when their aggregate marks at the qualifying secondary school examination are more than 40%. It is also not the case of respondents that either of the petitioners have obtained admission by committing fraud or misrepresentation and in the opinion of this Court, the respondents cannot be said to be justified in not enrolling the petitioners on the basis of their qualifying marks in Secondary School examination. 8. It is also not the case of respondents that either of the petitioners have obtained admission by committing fraud or misrepresentation and in the opinion of this Court, the respondents cannot be said to be justified in not enrolling the petitioners on the basis of their qualifying marks in Secondary School examination. 8. However, vide interim order dated 20/05/2009 in both the petitions, this Court directed the respondents to provisionally enroll the petitioners and also to allow them to appear in the examination being scheduled to commence on 23/05/2009. However, on a perusal of result of their participation in examination, this Court observed while passing order dated 20/11/2009 in CWP-5829/2009, Preti Kumari (petitioner-7) has failed while at the same time, this Court observed while passing order dated 20/11/2009 that on a perusal of result of their participation in the examination, petitioners-12 (Priyanka Gaur), 19 (Sangeeta), 20(Seema Mathuriya), 27 (Kalpana) & 35 (Sudha) appear to have been failed in the examination in which they appeared under interim order in CWP-6204/2009. 9. Consequently, both the writ petitions are allowed. Respondents-1 & 2 are directed to confirm the enrollment of the writ petitioners and permit them to pursue their respective courses in Technical Education to which they were admitted; and result of 1st year examination in which they appeared under interim orders of this Court shall be declared and conveyed to each of them within two weeks from today and those of petitioners having failed, may be permitted to re-appear in the ensuing examinations in terms of relevant rules. No costs as to costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******