Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Manoj Kumar Mundotia S/O Narayan Lal vs University Of Rajasthan on 12 July, 2019
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq, Narendra Singh Dhaddha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1481/2018
In
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12310/2018
1. Manoj Kumar Mundotia S/o Narayan Lal, Aged About 23
Years, By Caste Raigar, R/o Ward No.22, Kishangarh
Renwal, District Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Rahul Kumar Mundotiya S/o Santosh Kumar Mundotiya,
Aged About 24 Years, By Caste Raigar, R/o Renwal,
District Jaipur
3. Madan Lal Bochalya S/o Mohan Lal Bochalya, By Caste
Jat, R/o Kanwarpura, Post Itawa, Tehsil Kishangarh
Renwal, District Jaipur
----Appellants
Versus
1. University Of Rajasthan, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur
Through Vice Chancellor Of Examination B.ed. Part-Ii
Examination-2018
2. Controller Of Examination, University Of Rajasthan,
Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur
3. Dr. Radha Krishan Tp College, Near Railway Station,
Kishangarh Renwal, Jaipur
4. Shri Mahaveer Shikshak Prashikshan Mhavidhyalaya, Near
Railway Station, Kishangarh Renwal, Jaipur
5. District Education Officer, Primary Education, Jaipur
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ashindra Gautam.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ajit Maloo.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
12/07/2019
(Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq)
(Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 10:46:24 PM)
(2 of 6) [SAW-1481/2018]
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
appellants do no pray for any relief against Respondent No. 3 and
4, therefore, service of Respondent No. 3 and 4 may be dispensed
with at the risk and consequence of the appellants.
As prayed, service of Respondent No. 3 and 4 is
dispensed with at the risk of the appellants.
Heard learned counsel for the parties on the appeal
itself.
The appellants have approached this Court against
judgment dated 03.10.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of
this Court whereby writ petition filed by them has been dismissed.
The appellants in the writ petition challenged order
dated 21.05.2018 passed by the Controller of Examination,
University of Rajasthan, Jaipur with the prayer that the
respondents may be directed to declare the appellants as eligible
to appear in B.Ed. Part-II Examinations, 2018 and permit them to
appear in such examination as ex students. The learned Single
Judge has dismissed the writ petition in view of Ordinance 323 of
the University Ordinances which inter alia provides that no
candidate shall be allowed to appear in the B.Ed. Examination
Part-I and II unless he/she has attended 80% of all course work
and practicum and 90% for school internship. Learned Single
Judge relied upon judgment of this Court in University of
Rajasthan Vs. Shiv Charan Lal Bairwa & Another, D.B. Civil Special
Appeal (Writ) No. 310/2010 decided on 09.11.2010.
Mr. Ashindra Guatam, learned counsel for the
appellants submitted that the judgment of this Court in University
of Rajasthan Vs. Shiv Charan Lal Bairwa & Another (supra) relied
by the learned Single Judge is not applicable in the facts of the
(Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 10:46:24 PM)
(3 of 6) [SAW-1481/2018]
present case. Facts of that case were that the writ petitioners
therein were studying in B.Ed. Course for Session 2008-09. They
failed to complete their attendance and after that they filed writ
petition before Single Judge of this Court. Writ petition was
allowed by the learned Single Judge, against which appeal was
filed before Division Bench by the University of Rajasthan. At that
time, duration of B.Ed. Course was one year but now it is two
years. In the present case, the appellants-petitioners took
admission in B.Ed. course for session 2015-16 and 2016-17. The
appellants-petitioners successfully completed B.Ed. Part I
Examinations in 2016 but they failed to complete their internship
in the schools which were allotted to them. Hence, they were not
permitted to appear in B.Ed. Part II Examinations 2017. The
District Education Officer Primary Education, Jaipur allotted
schools to the appellants to complete their internship and the
same was completed by the appellants in the month of March and
April, 2018. District Education Officer issued certificate to the
appellants in this regard. The respondent-University itself
permitted the appellants to submit examination forms in the
category of ex-students for B.Ed. Part-II Examination, 2018 after
delay of one year as per the provisions of the University
Ordinance.
It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has
considered order dated 21.05.2018 passed by the respondents in
absolutely illegal and malafide manner. The appellants were
restrained to appear in B.Ed. Part-II Examination, 2017 on
account of non-completion of their internships. But that
disqualification has now ceased to exist because they have already
completed 16 weeks internships and certificates have been issued
(Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 10:46:24 PM)
(4 of 6) [SAW-1481/2018]
by the Principals of respective schools, which have also been
countersigned by the District Education Officer concerned.
Learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the respondents are
not allowing the appellants to appear in B.Ed. Part-II Examination,
2018 on account of deficiency in attendance which pertains to the
year 2017 and the same stood supplied with the appellants
completing 16 weeks internships. Ordinance 323 of the University
Ordinance could not have been analysed by the learned Single in
isolation. Ordinances 325, 326, 326A and 326B which permit the
students to appear in the examination as ex-students cannot be
brushed aside as the students can complete B.Ed. Course in
maximum three years from the date of admission. Learned
counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants were
allowed to appear in B.Ed. Part-II Examination, 2018 pursuant to
interim order dated 18.06.2018 passed by learned Vacation Judge
of this Court, therefore, the respondents may be directed to
declare result of the appellants.
Mr. Ajit Maloo, learned counsel for the respondents
opposed the appeal and submitted that there is no provision for allowing the ex-students to B.Ed. Course without requirement of completing minimum attendance. Learned counsel cited Ordinance 323, 325, 326, 326A and 326B to bring home the point.
We have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions and carefully perused the material on record.
Division Bench of this Court in University of Rajasthan Vs. Shiv Charan Lal Bairwa & Another (supra) took note of the fact that the University has issued guidelines of minimum attendance of 75% under the directions of the University Grants Commission and in compliance of judgment of this Court, it was necessary for (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 10:46:24 PM) (5 of 6) [SAW-1481/2018] the respondents in that case to attend classes regularly in order to be eligible for appearing in the examination. The respondent- petitioner in that case was provisionally permitted to appear in the examination under the order of the Court and result was declared as contempt petition was filed by the respondent. The appeal was allowed and writ petition was dismissed. The respondent therein was directed to surrender original mark-sheet so issued to him.
We have examined Ordinance 325 of the University Ordinance which inter alia provides that candidates who fail in B.Ed. Examination in part I or/ Part 2 the theory of education may present themselves for re-examination there in at a subsequent examination without attending a further course at an affiliated training college. Ordinance 326 of the University Ordinance provides that the candidates who fail in the B.Ed. examination Part I and II only in the practice of teaching and internship may appear in the practical examination in the subsequent year provided that they keep regular terms for four calendar months per year and give at least 20 lessons (10 in part 1 and 10 in part 2) supervised lessons. Ordinance 326A provides that a candidate who complete a regular course of study in accordance with the provision laid down in the ordinance, at an affiliated teacher's training college for two academic year but for good reasons fails to appear at the B.Ed. examination may be admitted to a subsequent examination as an Ex-student as defined in Ordinance 325 or 326. Ordinance 326B provides that no candidate shall be permitted to appear as an ex-student at more than one subsequent examination. The B.Ed. programme shall be of duration of two academic years, which can be completed in a maximum of three years from the date of admission to the B.Ed. (Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 10:46:24 PM)
(6 of 6) [SAW-1481/2018] A cumulative reading of the aforesaid clauses of the University Ordinance would make it clear that a candidate, who has completed required minimum attendance in Part I and II, may be permitted to appear in examination of III year as ex-student. That is why maximum duration of B.Ed. has been indicated to be three years but there is no escapement from attendance. If the attendance falls short from minimum requirement, then such candidate/student cannot be granted degree.
As regards appearance of the appellants in B.Ed. Part-II Examination 2018 vide order of this Court dated 18.06.2018, it may be noted that the aforesaid order was provisional and it was clearly mentioned therein that the same would be subject to final outcome of the writ petition. Such interim arrangements are being made due to the exigency of the situation but the same does not finally determine the issue in question. Mere appearance of the appellants in the examination does in any manner improve case of the appellants so far as fulfillment of requirement of the minimum attendance is concerned.
In view of above, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Stay Application No. 21437/2018 also stands
dismissed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J
MANOJ NARWANI
(Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 10:46:24 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)