Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Pinky Singh vs M D S University Ajmer And Ors on 20 April, 2018
Author: Inderjeet Singh
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writs No. 8922/2017
Pinky Singh D/o Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o H-
132, Nandpuri Vistar, Sewaz Farm, Shani Mandir Gali, Shyam
Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Maharshi Dayanand Sarswati University, Ajmer Through Is
Coordinator, Ptet - 2015
2. Nav Bharat Shikshan Prashikshan Mahila Mahavidyalaya,
Mangyawas, Mansarovar, Jaipur Through Its Principal
3. University Of Rajasthan, Jaipur Through Vice Chancellor
4. Vardhman Mahaveer Open University, Kota Through
Registrar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.K. Bhardwaj For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mohit Khandelwal on behalf of Ms. Anita Agarwal Mr. R. A. Katta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order 20/04/2018
1. With the consent of both the parties, the writ petition is heard finally.
2. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has made the following prayers:-
(1) By an appropriate writ, order of direction in the nature thereof the impugned order dated 21.7.2016 passed by the respondent No. 3 University may kindly be quashed and set aside.
(ii) By an appropriate writ, order of direction in the nature thereof the respondents may kindly be directed to declare the result of Ist year B.Ed.
course of the petitioner and also allow her to participate in the B.Ed IInd year exam scheduled (2 of 5) [CW-8922/2017] to be held in the Month of June 2017 by considering the qualification of B.A.P. of the petitioner equivalent to the Sr. secondary Exam.
(iii) Any other relief as this Hon ble Court may deem fit and proper be also passed in favour of the petitioner."
3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this court in the matter of Seema Yadav Vs. University of Rajasthan, S. B. Writ Petition No. 4201/2016 decided on 15.02.2017, wherein it has been held as under:-
"On hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order, this Court finds that there is no denial to the fact that petitioner had passed the BAP examination from VMOU and thereafter he studied as regular student and obtained the degree of B.A. from the same university. Petitioner was permitted to appear in the PTET. Thereafter, he was allotted respondent no.2- college. He studied there as regular student in B.Ed. Course.
As regards the minutes of the meeting of Equivalent Committee (Annexure-R/2), the respondent themselves have deviated from the said rule now when they issued fresh guidelines in 2016 (Annexure-7) in clause (6) of which it is stated that the candidates who have not passed the scheme of 10+2+3 or 10+1+3 would not be eligible to appear in the PTET, even if they passed BAP examination from VMOU, provided they have subsequently qualified/passed graduation course as regular student. With regard to them it is specifically stated that they would be eligible for admission to B.Ed. The decision of the Equivalence Committee, which the respondents rely has thus been deviated by the respondents themselves. It has not been made clear that whether there has been any intervening change in the Statutes or Rules available with the respondent-university. The coordinate bench of this Court in Sunita Meena, supra distinguished the division bench judgement in Lachcha Ram, supra by observing that aforesaid judgement was rendered in special circumstances and factual matrix of the case, but the division bench has dealt with the (3 of 5) [CW-8922/2017] aspect of equivalence of Bachelor of Arts Preparatory Course and held the same equivalent to senior secondary course of Board of Secondary Education. Though facts may be different, but the question before the division bench was exactly the same. It was held that at the relevant time admission to graduation course in VMOU could not have been given to a person without possessing senior secondary examination certificate or its equivalent, thus by all practical purposes, the candidates who got admission after passing BAP course were treated as equivalent to senior secondary or intermediate. This is also reflected in the State Government circular dated 9.5.2002. On that note, the judgement of single bench in that matter was affirmed.
In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned notice dated 12.3.2016 is set aside. The respondents are directed to declare the first year examination of the petitioner of B.Ed. Course and also allow her to study further in the second year examination of the B.Ed. Course. "
4. The order passed by the Coordinate Bench dated 15.02.2017 was further challenged by the respondent University of Rajasthan by filing D. B. Special Appeal Writ No. 568/ 2017 (University of Rajasthan Vs. Seema Yadav & Anr.). The said appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.05.2017, wherein it has been held as under:-
"(1) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. (2) Relevant fact to be noted is that the first respondent passed BAP examination from Vardhman Mahavir open University in the year 2009 and obtained a senior secondary degree.
The BAP examination which a person clears in Class XII is not preceded by an examination taken by the person in class Xth i.e at the Secondary level.
(3) Thereafter, the respondent underwent a three year degree course from the University in question I.e. vardhman Mahavir Open University and was awarded a B.A. degree in the year 2013.
(4) Qualifying the PTET, 2015 examination which entitled to be admitted for a B.Ed. degree the (4 of 5) [CW-8922/2017] respondent was allotted Ujas College of Education, Sanganer, Jaipur in the year 2015 itself. After studying the B Ed. Course for one year, when the time for taking the examination came, her candidature was cancelled on the ground that as per the guideline issued by the Equivalence Committee which was in vogue as of the year 2015 the BAP degree could not be treated as equivalent to a 10+2 degree obtained by a student who had cleared the Board examination of Class Xth followed by Board examination of class Xllth. The first respondent proceeded to this Court by way of a writ petition. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition principally on the ground that the State Government itself had issued fresh guidelines (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) in the year 2016, as per which a student who has cleared BAP examination would be entitled to appear for PTET examination.
(5) Argument of learned Counsel for the appellant is that a fresh guideline would be prospective and not retrospective. (6) The argument overlooks the fact that it is the reason contained in a guideline which would be relevant. We find it strange that for the same reason a person suffers a disability in a particular year and does not suffer a disability in a subsequent year.
(7) In matters pertaining to education it is the reason in a guideline which would guide the Court. For if a statutory authority finds it earlier view to be wrong and takes corrective action by issuing a fresh guideline, the previous guideline could then be held to be arbitrary.
(8) In view of the discussion above, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. We note that under interim order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, respondent was permitted to take the first year examination. The learned Single Judge has directed the results to be declared. The concerning authority shall do so now within a week.
(9) No costs."
5. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the interim order passed by this court the petitioner has already appeared in B.Ed first and second year examination but the respondents have not declared the result of his participation in the above (5 of 5) [CW-8922/2017] examinations despite the controversy having been decided by the Coordinate Bench as well as Division Bench of this court.
6. Counsel for the respondents have admitted the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench as well as Division Bench of this Court.
7. Thus, the present writ petition is allowed in view of the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Seema Yadav (supra) and University of Rajasthan (supra). The impugned order passed by the respondents dated 21.07.2016 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to declare the result of the petitioner for the course of B.Ed. Part-I and II of the year 2016-17 within a period of two weeks from today.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J Jatin/21