Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1230 (MP)

Ruby Tomar v. State of M. P.

2015-12-09

D.K.PALIWAL, S.C.SHARMA

body2015
ORDER 1. The petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the action of respondent No.3 by which after granting admission to the petitioner in D.Ed. Course, the same has been cancelled. The petitioner's contention is that the petitioner who is holding the qualification of 10+2 has applied for admission and has deposited the fees in respect of D.Ed course on 4.6.2014. The petitioner further stated that as per the guidelines issued by State Government dated 12.2.2014, the qualification required for D.Ed. Course is 50% marks in 12th Standard Examination and the petitioner is having more than 50% marks in the 12th Standard Examination. The petitioner further stated that another circular was issued on 10.6.2014 whereby the colleges were directed to admit candidates who are having more than 50% marks in 12th Standard Examination as well as in 10th Standard Examination. The aforesaid circular is also on record as Annexure P-4. 2. Another circular was issued on 23.6.2014 and the State Government by the aforesaid circular has omitted the condition of 50% marks in the 10th Standard Examination. However, it was categorically mentioned that candidates should possess more than 50% marks in the 12th Standard Examination. The petitioner, admittedly, is having more than 50% marks in the 12th Standard Examination. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that insptie of the aforesaid, the respondents have not granted regular admission to the petitioner only on the ground that she is not having 50% marks in the 10th Standard Examination. 4. Return has been filed by the respondents and the respondents have stated that only because the petitioner is not having 50% marks in the 10th Standard Examination, the question of grant of admission to the petitioner does not arise. 5. This Court has carefully gone through the return filed by the respondents/State and the return filed by the Board of Secondary Eduction. 6. The petitioner has submitted the application form along with the requisite fees on 4.6.2014. At the relevant point of time, the condition of having 50% marks in the 10th Standard Examination was not in existence. Not only this, lateron the condition of having 50% marks in the 10th Standard Examination has been waived by circular dated 23.6.2014 and the petitioner is fulfilling the requisite qualifications, i.e. having more than 50% marks in the 12th Standard Examination. 7. Not only this, lateron the condition of having 50% marks in the 10th Standard Examination has been waived by circular dated 23.6.2014 and the petitioner is fulfilling the requisite qualifications, i.e. having more than 50% marks in the 12th Standard Examination. 7. Annexure P-5 issued by the State Government reads as under:- e/; izns'k 'kklu Ldwy f'k{kk foHkkx ea=ky;] oYyHk Hkou] Hkksiky vkns'k Hkksiky] fnukad 23-6-2014 Øekad ,Q 44&10@2013@20&2 v'kkldh; f'k{kd izf'k{k.k laLFkkuksa esa lapkfyr fMIyksek bu ,T;wds'ku ¼Mh-,M-½ ikB~;dze laca/kh izos'k fu;e ds laca/k esa tkjh foHkkxh; lela[;d vkns'k fnukad 10-6-2014 ds fcUnq Ø-1 ,oa 2 esa mYysf[kr izos'k gsrq 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk ße/;izns'k ek/;fed f'k{kk e.My Hkksiky vFkok led{k cksMZ ls gk;j lsds.Mjh ¼$2½ gkbZLdwy lfVZfQdsV ;k led{k ijh{kk mRrh.kZß djus dk ys[k fd;k gSA vr% jkT; 'kklu ,rn~ }kjk mDr vkns'k ds fcUnq Ø-1 ,oa 2 esa =qfVo'k vafdr gkbZLdwy lfVZfQdsV ijh{kk dks rRdky izHkko ls foyksfir djrk gS A 'ks"k 'krsZ ;Fkkor jgsxhA e/;izns'k ds jkT;iky ds uke ls rFkk vkns'kkuqlkj ¼vkj- ds- ruokuh½ voj lfpo e-iz- 'kklu Ldwy f'k{kk foHkkx 8. In the light of aforesaid order, the petitioner does have the qualification for grant of admission to D.Ed. Course. In the considered opinion of this Court, once the petitioner was having qualification for grant of admission and she has deposited the fees, the respondents are under the obligation to give admission to the petitioner in the D.Ed. Course. Consequently, the order cancelling the admission of the petitioner is set aside and the petitioner shall be entitled for consequential benefits in accordance with law.