Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ms Atiqa Bano &Ors vs Jai Narayan Vyas University&Anr on 31 March, 2010
Author: Ajay Rastogi
Bench: Ajay Rastogi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH SB Civil Writ Petition No.69/2010 Ms. Atiqa Bano and ors Vs. Jai Narain Vyas University and ors. DATE OF ORDER : 31/03/2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. HV Nandwana, for petitioners.
Mr. Sunil Kr. Jain, for respondent No.1 Mr. Rajnesh Gupta, for respondent No.3 It is a joint petition by four petitioners with the grievance that despite being finally selected in PTET-2009 and after allotted the respondent No.3-Motherland Girls TT College, as evident from Anx. 1-A to 1-D and deposited their fees in November, 2009, they joined but because of some mistake being committed by the respondent No.3-institution in not sending information to the Coordinator, PTET-2009, they were not permitted to continue their studies without any order on the premise that four additional names were sent by the Coordinator, PTET-2009 to the respondent No.3-institution.
It has not been disputed by either of the parties that all the four petitioners were allotted the respondent No.3-institution on being selected in PTET-2009 as per their order of merit cum preference and after depositing the fees they joined the B.Ed. Course.
What has been urged by counsel for the respondent No.3-institution Mr.Rajneesh Gupta is that since the admissions are made through on-line counselling but because of human error they could not sent the intimation of reporting and admitting the petitioners to the Coordinator, PTET-2009 through on-line, in absence whereof, the Coordinator, PTET-2009 further sent four additional names to the respondent No.3-Institution who were allowed to join although the respondent No.3-institution had intimated the Coordinator, PTET-2009 vide letter dt. 07/12/2009 (Anx.3) by which it realized its mistake about not sending the information of admission of petitioners through on-line and in such circumstances, their intake capacity increased by four additional candidates and on the said premise they could not have permitted the present petitioners to continue.
Counsel appearing for the Coordinator, PTET-2009 submits that since the process of admission is complete, nothing is available at their hand and beyond the intake capacity, the petitioners cannot be permitted to continue.
From the material, which has come on record, at least no fault lies with the petitioners and it is not disputed that all the four petitioners were admitted on the basis of their selection in PTET-2009 through on-line counselling and allotted the respondent No.3-institution and after depositing fees they joined B.Ed. Course. If at all there was any fault being committed by the respondent NO.3-institution, the same can be called to be human error but in absence of any violation of statutory provisions which has not been brought to the notice of this Court, at least the petitioners should be not made to suffer on account of default being committed by the respondent No.3-institution.
Consequently, the present writ petition stands allowed. All the four petitioners are allowed to continue their B.Ed. Course in the respondent No.3-institution which was allotted to them through on line-counselling by the Coordinator, PTET-2009 and the respondents are directed to permit the petitioners to pursue their B.Ed. Course in terms of the relevant regulations.
[AJAY RASTOGI], J.
Raghu/p.3/69-CW-2010-final.doc