Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1589 (HP)

Rimmy Chauhan v. State of H. P.

2011-03-22

KURIAN JOSEPH, SANJAY KAROL

body2011
JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, J. The writ petition is filed with the following prayer:- “I. That the respondents may be directed to give the admission to the petitioner in two years JBT-CET course 2009-2011 in District cadre on the basis of merit of written test with considering the degree of B.Sc.” 2. 1661 seats for admission to the two year Junior Basic Training (JBT) course were advertised by the H.P.Board of School Education (respondent No.3). In response to the same petitioner submitted her application. She also undertook the written test held on 27.6.2010 and respondent No.3 declared the result on 26.7.2010. Petitioner successfully qualified the same. Vide letter dated 2.2.2011 (Annexure P-1) respondent No.3 called upon her to appear before the Counselling Committee for admission to the two year JBT course for the Session 2009-2011 in the District Institutes of Educational Training (DIETs). According to the petitioner, she appeared in the counselling before the Committee but was not admitted to the DIET of her choice i.e. Jukhala for the reason that she did not fulfill the requisite eligibility criteria of educational qualification. She was asked to furnish a certificate of equivalence of the degree of graduation which she had obtained from the University of Mumbai. However, according to respondent No.3, at the time of counselling petitioner herself had agreed to submit the certificate of equivalence from the H.P. University with respect to recognition of the degree (B.Sc.) obtained by her from the University of Mumbai. Though this fact is not disputed by the petitioner, however, it stands explained that at the time of counselling she was pressurised to do so. We feel that it would be a futile exercise to go into this factual matrix. 3. Minimum essential qualification for the course in question, as prescribed in Annexure P-4, is (i) Senior Secondary School Certificate or Intermediate or 10+2 or its equivalent examination with at least 50% marks for 10+2 candidates only; (ii) “45% in 10+2 in 10+2 for Graduate candidates”. Admittedly petitioner did not score 50% marks in her 10+2 examination. However, from the marks-sheet as also the degree [Annexure P-2 (colly.)], it is quite apparent that petitioner has obtained a degree of Bachelor of Science in the subject (Chemistry as major subject) by securing more than 45% marks. 4. Admittedly petitioner did not score 50% marks in her 10+2 examination. However, from the marks-sheet as also the degree [Annexure P-2 (colly.)], it is quite apparent that petitioner has obtained a degree of Bachelor of Science in the subject (Chemistry as major subject) by securing more than 45% marks. 4. In the advertisement (Annexure P-4) or call letter (Annexure P-1), there is no stipulation that the degree or the course undertaken by the applicant should be from the University recognised either by H.P. University or respondent No.3 or for that matter respondent No.1. Consequently insistence on the part of the Counselling Committee to obtain a certificate of equivalence from the H.P. University is uncalled for. To our mind, petitioner had fulfilled the essential eligibility criteria of minimum educational qualification and was thus entitled to be admitted in the Centre of her choice in accordance with her merit. We are told that petitioner had opted for and had appeared for the counselling for the Institute at Jukhala (Bilaspur). 5. For the foregoing reasons, writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to admit the petitioner in the Institute at Jukhala (Bilaspur) for undergoing training of JBT course for the Session 2009-2011. However, if no seat is lying vacant there, then she be admitted to any other nearby Institute of her choice. A copy of this order, duly authenticated by the Court Master, be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties.