Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 987 (GUJ)

Kaushal Prabhudas Patel v. State Of Gujarat

2024-04-23

BIREN VAISHNAV, PRANAV TRIVEDI

body2024
JUDGMENT : (Biren Vaishnav, J.) 1. This appeal arises out of an oral order dated 20.10.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in the captioned writ petition by which the appellant’s petition has been dismissed. The appellant had prayed for a writ of mandamus, order or direction to the respondents to give him admission in the Bachelor of Education Programme. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the appellant was a student of the Sardar Patel University who had passed his Bachelor of Science (Biotechnology) with 45.87% and Master of Science in Medical Technology (Clinical Laboratory Technology) with First Class i.e. 59.71%. It is the case of the petitioner that he applied for admission to the B.Ed course under the Sardar Patel University and his candidature was rejected on the ground that he did not have requisite 50% of marks in the subject of Biosciences. 3. The learned Single Judge on the basis of arguments made by the party-in-person and on perusal of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the University dismissed the petition holding as under: “5. Heard the petitioner in person and learned counsel Mr. Sudhanshu Jha for the petitioner as also perused the documents on record. 6. The relevant norm & standard No.3.2(a) in B.Ed. programme issued by NCTE is reproduced as under :- “3.2 Eligibility (a) Candidates with at least fifty percent marks either in Bachelor’s Degree and/or in the Master’s Degree in Science/Social Science/Humanity, Bachelor’s in Engineering or Technology with specialization in Science and Mathematics with 55% marks or any other qualification equivalent thereto, are eligible for admission to the programme.” 7. A perusal of the above norm and standard shows that the eligibility for admission to B.Ed. course is at least 50% marks either in Bachelor degree or in the Master Degree in Science/Social Science/Humanity. In the present case, the petitioner has applied for admission in the course of B.Ed. (Biosciences). Therefore, as per the University’s rules and regulations and the NCTE’s norms and standards, the percentage obtained in the subject for which the petitioner has applied for in the B.Ed. programme will have to be taken into consideration. The master degree of the petitioner is in specialized course in the Clinical Lab Technology for which subject, there is no B.Ed. programme available with the respondent University. Further, the subject of Clinical Lab Technology is not available at the undergraduate level. programme will have to be taken into consideration. The master degree of the petitioner is in specialized course in the Clinical Lab Technology for which subject, there is no B.Ed. programme available with the respondent University. Further, the subject of Clinical Lab Technology is not available at the undergraduate level. Therefore, as per its guidelines, the University has rightly considered the marks scored by the petitioner in B.Sc. (Biotechnology) which is the course available in the field of Biosciences. 8. Accordingly, the prayer, as sought for, cannot be granted. The submission of the petitioner that his marks in the master degree be considered for eligibility in the B.Ed. (Biosciences) course cannot be accepted. The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.” 4. Mr. Kaushal Patel, party-in-person has taken us through the admission form and the advertisement and submitted that the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition, Norms and Procedure) Amendment Regulations, 2021 provide the eligibility criteria in paragraph no. 3 thereof indicating that a candidate is eligible for B.Ed admission when he or she possesses atleast 50% marks either in Bachelor’s degree and/or in Master’s degree in Science or a Bachelor in Engineering & Technology with specialization in Science and Mathematics with 55% marks. Taking us through the degree certificate annexed to the petition, he would submit that the appellant had done his B.Sc in Biotechnology and had obtained his Masters in Science in Clinical Laboratory Technology and therefore effectively having graduated and post graduated in Science, the rejection of his candidature for enrollment in B.Ed on the ground that he did not have 50% marks in Biosciences is misconceived. The application for admission was not for a B.Ed course in a particular subject but it was B.Ed in general and therefore having possessed the degree of Science in both stages of graduation and post graduation and having obtained more than 50% marks in the Bachelor degree of Science, denial of admission by the University was misconceived. 5. Mr. Meet Shah, learned advocate appearing for the respondent University would take us through the affidavit-in-reply and the regulations and submit that a candidate in order to be eligible for admission has to possess 50% marks either in Bachelor’s degree and/or in Master’s degree in Science. The admission that the appellant had sought for was in the subject of Biosciences as is set out in the prospectus. The admission that the appellant had sought for was in the subject of Biosciences as is set out in the prospectus. Reliance was also placed on the conditions in the prospectus which indicated that of the only subjects available for pursuing a B.Ed degree for the subjects enlisted in the prospectus, Clinical Laboratory Technology was not a subject available and it was only a branch of Biosciences mentioned in the prospectus. As far as “the other” category is concerned, those dealt with the degrees of B.A, BBA, BCA, MBBS etc. Having obtained less than 50% of marks in B.Sc Biotechnology and having specifically applied for the B.Ed degree in Biosciences, the appellant was not eligible. 6. Having perused the order of the learned Single Judge and after having independently assessed the affidavit-in-reply, in light of the petition filed from the reproduction of the paragraphs of the order of the learned Single Judge, it is apparent that the appellant had applied for pursuing his B.Ed in Biosciences. That is even evident from the admission form which is placed on record which indicates that he had applied for the admission in the branch of Biosciences. It is in light of this application that the regulation which is reproduced by the learned Single Judge in paragraph no. 6 of his order that has to be read. Having applied specifically for the category of Biosciences, the threshold of obtaining 50% marks in the case of the appellant would be applicable only to a Bachelor’s degree particularly when he did not hold a Master’s degree in Biosciences but had only a Master’s degree in Clinical Laboratory Technology. That being the position, it is apparent from the degree certificate that is annexed to the petition that the petitioner possessed only pass class in the graduation in Science (Biotechnology). That is not even a disputed fact as is even pointed out in the petition. 6.1 Having said that what is therefore apparent is that having secured less than 50% marks in a Bachelor’s degree in Biotechnology, his pursuit to seek admission for B.Ed in Biosciences was clearly within the ambit of the rules and the conditions that the prospectus set out. 6.1 Having said that what is therefore apparent is that having secured less than 50% marks in a Bachelor’s degree in Biotechnology, his pursuit to seek admission for B.Ed in Biosciences was clearly within the ambit of the rules and the conditions that the prospectus set out. 6.2 To the contention that the NCTE Rules would prevail over the prospectus, what is evident is that the advertisement for the admission in B.Ed course was for the years 2018-19 and what is pressed into service are the NCTE Amendment Rules, 2021. Obviously therefore in absence of any material to suggest that such rules post the advertisement will prevail, we find no fault with the order of the learned Single Judge. 7. Even otherwise, with the passage of time, since the course of B.Ed was for two years and time has already lapsed since the admission sought for by the appellant was for the academic year 2018-19, no useful purpose will be served in entertaining the appeal. 8. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Notice of admission is discharged. Interim relief, if any, shall stand vacated. No costs.