JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vivek Verma, learned Counsel for the respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed for commanding the respondents to forthwith grant admission to the petitioner in Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) Course in any of the affiliated colleges of the respondent University and to permit him to pursue and complete the said training course by treating the petitioner as fully eligible candidate for admission to the aforesaid B.Ed. Course.
The grounds on which basis the aforesaid direction has been sought are that there exists no justifiable reason for denying admission to the petitioner as candidates with lower ranking than the petitioner have already been granted admission in the aforesaid B.Ed., course rendering the action of the respondent arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner passed the first 1st and second year of Bachelor of Arts examination with Hindi Literature, Hindi Language, Sociology and Vocal Music as the subjects of study in 1988-89 and 1989-90. The petitioner passed the third year i.e. final year of Bachelor of Arts examination with Hindi Literature and Vocal Music as subjects. Thereafter the petitioner has again appeared in B.A. examination with Sanskrit as an additional subject and passed the same in the year 2006-07.
3.1 In the meantime applications were invited the Bachelor of Education Entrance examination in the year 2006-07 by Mahatma Jyotiba Phoole, Ruhelkhand University, Bareilly for which the petitioner applied.
3.2 The last date for submitting application form for B.Ed., course was 30.4.2006 for which the entrance examination was conducted on 4.6.2006 and first date of counselling was 10.8.2007 in which the petitioner required to participate for admission in the aforesaid Course. The petitioner appeared in counselling on 10.8.2007 but she was denied to participate upon an objection to the effect that she did not have two subject in her graduation mandatory for admission in the B.Ed., course as envisaged under National Council for Teachers Education Regulation.
3.3 Aggrieved the petitioner has come up in this writ petition challenging the action of the respondents. At the admission stage following ad interim order dated 4.12.2007 was passed, which is as under:
As prayed, list this case on 12.12.2007 on that day, Sri Vivek Verma who appears for the respondents may produce all the relevant records relating to the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner. It is also provided that one seat be kept vacant.
3.4 Thereafter the matter was heard by the Court on 12.12.2007 and after hearing the parties the court vacated the ad interim order finding the fact that the petitioner was not eligible for admission in B.Ed. Course. The order dated 12.12.2007.
Counter affidavit filed today, copy of the application is annexed.
Learned Counsel for the University submitted that for the B.Ed., admission, the students should have a graduate degree in two subjects. In the application the petitioner has disclosed having graduate degree in 1991 only in Hindi. The claim of the petitioner that she passed B.A. examination in Sanskrit cannot be taken into account for two reasons. One that in the form no such details have been furnished. Secondly, she has passed the B.A. examination in Sanskrit in 2007 while the examination was held on 4.6.2006 when she was not legible.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner is not able to controvert the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner today and sought time for filing rejoinder affidavit.
As prayed two weeks time is allowed to file rejoinder affidavit.
List in second week of January, 2008.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the condition of keeping one seat vacant is vacated.
4. Sri Ashok Khare appearing for the petitioner has drawn attention of the Court to Clause 2 and 3 in annexure No. 9, which is a brochure issued by the University regarding eligibility of candidates and procedure for admission of B.Ed., course. Clause 2 and 3 of the aforesaid brochure provide that only those candidates are eligible for B.Ed., admission as per NCTE norms, who have studied two school subjects from the list of subjects enumerated therein whereas. Clause 3 provides that candidates, who are appearing in the eligibility examination of this year are allowed to appearing he Entrance Test for B.Ed., examination, but they have to submit the mark-sheet of the required degree at the time of admission. Clause 2 and 3 for ready reference are as under:
Clause 2- as per NCTE norms only those candidates are eligible for B.Ed., admission, who have studied two school subjects i.e. out of Science, Biology, Mathematics, Commerce, Hindi, Engilish, Sanskrit, Home Science, Art, Social Science (History, Geography, Civics & Economics), at Graduation Level.
Clause-3 those candidates, who are appearing in the eligibility examination this year are allowed to appear in the Entrance Test, but they have to submit the mark-sheet of the required degree (qualification) at the time of admission. In case the candidate fails to fulfil the minimum required eligibility, his/her claim for the seat on the basis of Entrance Test, will not be considered.
Attention of the court has also been drawn by the learned senior Counsel for the petitioner to Clause 16 of the important instructions issued to the student in this regard which provides that after being selected for admission, the candidate shall be given admission only on production of graduation degree and mark-sheet and any declaration subsequent thereto will not be taken into account thereafter. Clause 16 is as under:
16- izos'k gsrq vH;FkhZ dk p;u gks tkus ij izos'k ysrs le; Lukrd mikf/k @ vadrkfydk izLrqr djus ij gh vH;FkhZ dks izos'k fn;k tk;sxk A izos'k frfFk ds mijkUr ?kksf"kr @ loaf/kZr ijh{kk ifj.kke ¼,e-ts-ih- Lgsy[k.M fo'ofo|ky; vFkok vU; fdlh fo'ofo|ky; }kjk½ fopkj.kh; ugh gksxsa A
5. On the basis of aforesaid provision learned Counsel fort he petitioner submits that since the petitioner appeared and has passed in Sanskrit subject in the year 2006, therefore, as per Clause 2 stated above the petitioner became eligible when her result of additional subject (snskrit) for session 2006-07 was declared on 27th June 2007 having two subjects i.e. Hindi and Sanskrit in graduation degree, which were essential for admission in B.Ed., course.
5.1 It is urged that the result of the final year examination with additional subject Sanskrit in which the petitioner had appeared having been declared on 17th August, 2007 i.e. before the date of first counselling for B.Ed., entrance examination i.e. 10th August, 2007 as such the petitioner held the eligibility for admission and could not have been denied admission in B.Ed., course in the counselling. That even though, the entrance test was held on 4.6.2006, and the result thereof was declared only in the month of August, 2007 and the first counselling for admission to such colleges was fixed for 10.8.2007. Based upon the success of the petitioner in the said entrance test, the petitioner was also issued a communication by the respondent University intimating the fact that a counselling was scheduled to be held on 10.8.2007 at 11.00A.M. in the respondent University Campus.
5.2 It is further urged that the petitioner appeared in the Counselling as scheduled. However, it was given out by the respondent university that the subject combination of the petitioner in her graduation course was not inconformity with what was required under the provisions of National Council for Teachers Education Act 1993 and the regulations framed thereunder and on such basis the application of the petitioner was cancelled. Upon the aforesaid objection the petitioner was wrongly not permitted participation in the counselling. According to the objection taken at the time of counselling, the petitioner did not have Hindi and Sanskrit both as her subject of study in her graduation degree and in the absence of having passed graduation with both the aforesaid subject according to the respondent university, the petitioner failed to fulfil the requirement of subjects in graduation course in accordance with directives of National Council for Teachers Education.
6. The objection of the petitioner while assailing the action of The University is that the objection so taken against the candidature of the petitioner is an incorrect and non-existence objection. The correct factual position is that the petitioner had taken admission to Bachelor of Arts 1st year course during the academic session 1988-89, in the second year of her graduation course during the academic session 1989-90 and in the third year of the graduation course during the academic session 1990-91. The petitioner had passed first year, IInd year and III year of her graduation examination in the year 1989, 1990 and 1991. Subsequently, during the academic session 2005-06 the petitioner choose Sanskrit subject as a subject of study of Bachelor of Arts 1st year during the academic session 2006-07. In the aforesaid examination the petitioner was declared as having passed B.A. Part-I and B.A. Part-II in Sanskrit subject. The mark-sheet of the aforesaid two examinations issued to the petitioner are dated 4.7.2006 and 7.8.2007. That as a consequence of the above, it is apparent that the petitioner has passed her Bachelor of Arts with both Hindi as also Sanskrit subjects and the objection taken against her candidature was wholly unfounded.
Sri Vivek Verma appearing for the respondent-University submits that petitioner graduated in the year 1991. Since the B.Ed., as well as graduation in Sanskrit both final examination would be of session 2006-07 and she could not have two degrees of same final year examination as such she cannot be permitted to appear in the B.Ed., examination in the session 2006-07.
7. He further submitted that Clause 3 relates to relaxation "provided to those candidates only who were appearing in the eligibility examination (this year) i.e. the year 2006-07 and is in respect of only those candidates who were to submit mark-sheet and required degree at the time of admission. He has vehemently denied that aforesaid Clause 3 is in respect of those candidates, who had appeared in the examination prior to 2006-07. It is stated that since the petitioner had already appeared in the graduation examination in 1991, he cannot get the benefit of this clause which applied to candidates, who were appearing in the graduation examination "this year" i.e. in the year 2006-07. He has also placed reliance upon annexure No. 1 to the counter affidavit, which is a application form of the petitioner, which shows that in the column of educational qualification the petitioner has shown that she has passed graduation in the year 1991 with Hindi Literature and Vocal Music. He has then referred to item No. 11 in the copy of aforesaid form annexed with the counter affidavit, which is declaration to be made by the candidate appearing in the graduation examination i.e. session 2006-07 that year i.e. session 2006-07. It is as under:
11- vH;FkhZ }kjk ?kks"k.kk dsoy mu vH;FkhZ;ksa ds fy, tks o"kZ 2006 dh Lukrd @ ijkLukrd ijh{kk esa cSBs gS rFkk ijh{kkQy vHkh ?kksf"kr ugh gqvk gS A eSus bl o"kZ --- fo'ofo|ky; dh Lukrd @ ijkLukrd vfUre o"kZ dh ijh{kk nh gS ftldk ifj.kke vHkh ?kksf"kr ugh gqvk gS A vr% fuosnu gS fd eq>s ch0,M0 izos'k ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gksus dh vuqefr iznku djus dh d`ik djsa A Lukrd @ ijkLukrd ijh{kk esa vuqRrh.kZ gksus vFkok ifj.kke ?kksf"kr u gksus dh n'kk eas eq>s izos'k u fn;s tkus ij dksbZ vkifRr ugh gksxh A fnukad% [email protected]@6 [email protected] uhye LFkku% cjsyh ¼vH;FkhZ dk iwjk uke ,oa gLrk{kj½ It is submitted that perusal of the aforesaid declaration made by the petitioner would show that at item No. 11 the petitioner had deliberately left the column blank in which she had appeared in the graduation examination.
No other point has been argued by the parties.
8. After hearing the counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, I am of the considered opinion that a graduation degree in the essential subjects is required for admission in B.Ed., course. The petitioner had filled up the application form disclosing that she had graduated in 1991 but only i.e. Hindi Literature was the school subject as such she could not have appeared in the entrance test for B.Ed.
The reasons given by his Lordship while vacating the interim order also are good for final orders and are adopted as such. As regards Clause 16, which has been relied upon by the petitioner it only provides that candidate will have to furnish the graduation degree as well as the mark-sheet at the time of admission but the petitioner having not admitted to B.Ed., course cannot get any benefit.
9. In the instance case though the petitioner had cleared her B.Ed., examination by concealment of fact though she was not eligible for applying in the B.Ed., course in 2006-07 for having left item No. 11 as blank concealing that she had graduated in 1991 and did not have the eligibility at that time. Though she managed to appear in the examination but was not permitted admission in counselling when it was found that she was not an eligible candidate for having graduated in 1991 and had appeared with an additional subject to qualify for B.Ed., examination in 2006-07.
10. In the admitted facts and circumstances the petitioner was a graduate of 1991 with subject which were not essential qualification for B.Ed., course and had appeared in the session 2006-07 with Sanskrit as an additional subject for acquiring the eligibility. Therefore Clauses 2, 3 readwith Clause 16 aforesaid do not apply in the facts and circumstances on the case. Normally a candidate cannot appear in the same session in two final examination, therefore for this reason also the petitioner could not have appeared in B.Ed. course for the session 2006-07.
For these reason the petitioner was not eligibility for admission in B.Ed., course at the relevant time, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
No orders as to costs.