Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 600 (MP)

Megha Dikhit v. State of M. P.

2013-05-06

S.C.Sharma, Shantanu Kemkar

body2013
ORDER 1. This order shall also govern disposal of Writ Petition No.4955/2013 (Rakhi w/o Dhruvnarayan and others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others) and Writ Petition No.4956/2013 (Reena Nandecha w/o Ajit Jain and others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others). For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from Writ Petition No.4804/2013 (Megha Dikhit d/o Roopsingh Dikhit & another v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others). 2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking direction to the respondents No.1 to 3 to allot the petitioners' seats in the 4th respondent – College for studying B.Ed. Course, with a further direction to the 4th respondent – College to grant admission to the petitioners. It has also been prayed by the petitioners to issue directions to the respondents to conduct a College Level Counseling for grant of admission in the 4th respondent – College. 3. According to the petitioners, the respondents have acted arbitrarily and unreasonably in not allotting the petitioners the 4th respondent – College, which was of their choice and by denying admission to them to any of the colleges, as per their preference. It is also the case of the petitioners that the respondents have denied them their right to pursue the education. It is stated that the seats in the 4th respondent – College are still lying vacant, which will go waste, and as such, the seats be ordered to be allotted to them. 4. Respondents No.1 to 3 have filed reply of the petition and have stated that the admissions in B.Ed. Course are being governed by instructions and guidelines issued for such admission known as “Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) Pravesh Chayan, 2012-2013”. As per the instructions (Annexure P/1 and P/2), the whole process of admission for the academic session 2012-13 was performed by a Centralized Online Counseling, in which a candidate has to fill his/her choice for colleges and on the basis of his/her merit and choice, the colleges were to be allotted. The admission process, which has now been completed was made strictly on the basis of merit. The respondents have demonstrated the process of counseling and averred in the return paragraphs 4 to 11, as under: - “4. The admission process, which has now been completed was made strictly on the basis of merit. The respondents have demonstrated the process of counseling and averred in the return paragraphs 4 to 11, as under: - “4. The admission will be made strictly on the basis of merit, and the candidate can opt 50 Colleges during registration and on the basis of merit and choice the college and allotted. For example of a student chooses one particular college but his merit such that he is placed way down the other students who have also chosen the same college, and the best available seat of one particular college closes at a merit higher than the student then he shall not be allotted the college but if for other college of the merit of the student chooses to the level that a seat is available for him and he shall be allotted the college. Suffice is to say that the allotment of seat in a particular college depends on one merit maintained for that particular college, further one position in merit changes after every round of counseling. 5. It is submitted that the respondents No.1 and 2 has organized four rounds for the admission in B.Ed. Course and the last round that is additional round was also organized between 22 March to 25 March 2013. Letter regarding organizing additional round of counseling is annexed herewith as marked Annexure R/1. 6. It is submitted that the admission in the B.Ed. Course has been done on the basis of the merit and the petitioner has failed to show that any candidate having low percentage than him/her has been given admission by passing her merit in a particular college. 7. It is submitted that total 48,620 candidates had been registered themselves for the admission and total 38,265 seats are there in all B.Ed. Colleges. 8. It is submitted that after the additional round of counseling total 37,991 candidates have been admitted in the course, and at present 774 seats are still lying vacant in the college. Due to the fact that students have not joined the course inspite of the fact that the college was allotted during counseling. 9. Colleges. 8. It is submitted that after the additional round of counseling total 37,991 candidates have been admitted in the course, and at present 774 seats are still lying vacant in the college. Due to the fact that students have not joined the course inspite of the fact that the college was allotted during counseling. 9. It is respectfully submitted that at present 19 seats and 02 seats are lying vacant in Saibaba College for Teachers Training, Indore and the Matushree Ahilya Devi Teachers Education Institute, Indore respectively, whereas the Saibaba College for Teachers Training, Indore has intake capacity of 100 seats and were allotted 250 students and Matushree Ahilya Devi Teachers Education Institute, Indore has intake capacity of 100 seats and were allotted 231 students. 10. It is respectfully submitted that the counseling for the session 2012-13 was over on 11.3.2013, but due to availability of the seats in colleges an additional round was conducted. 11. It is respectfully submitted that after conducting the additional round of counseling the answering respondents No.1 and 2 has directed to the respondent No.3 to return the registration charges to the candidates who have not got admission in the anyB.Ed. College.” 5. Respondents No.1 to 3 have further stated that the petitioners' of Writ Petition No.4804/2013 rank is 3303 and 3790 respectively. Similarly the ranks of the petitioners of connected writ petitions have also been shown, in order to demonstrate that no student lower in rank of all the petitioners has been given admission in the 4th respondent – college. It is stated that there are students awaiting admissions who are placed above the petitioners in the order of merit, and as such, the petitioners cannot be granted admission bypassing those students, who are placed above the petitioners in the order of merit. A detailed list showing merit position has been filed as Annexure R/3. It has been stated that the opening rank for Saibaba College for Teachers Training, Indore in the additional round was 27 and closing rank was 1408, whereas in the case of Matushree Ahilya Devi Teachers Education Institute, Indore the opening rank of additional round was 1941 and the closing rank was 2642, which clearly indicates that no student below the rank of the petitioners has been admitted. 6. 6. As regard the College Level Counseling, the respondents have stated that the same is not permissible, as per the guidelines and as it would be an unending process. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 8. Having considered the respective submissions and the fact that no candidate below the petitioners has been given admission, the petitioners' grievance about arbitrariness and non-grant of admission to them in the colleges of their choice cannot be accepted. We find that in the process of counseling, the petitioners could not get admission as their merit position was below the candidates who could secure admission in the colleges in question. There is no violation of the guidelines made for grant of admissions in B.Ed. Course, 2012-13. 9. Thus, we find no ground to interfere into the admission process and grant the relief claimed by the petitioners. 10. As a result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.