Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Seema Chaudhary vs The Coordinator Ptet Exami And on 22 July, 2009
Author: Ajay Rastogi
Bench: Ajay Rastogi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH [1] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1929/08 Seema Chaudhary Versus The Co-ordinator, PTET Examination 2007 & Ors. [2] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1945/08 Sharmila Bano Versus The Co-ordinator, PTET Examination 2007 & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 22/07/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Manoj Bhardwaj, for petitioners Mr. P.S. Tomar for Mr. R.A. Katta, for respondents
Since common question is involved in both the writ petitions, hence, are being decided by the present order.
Petitioners are aggrieved by the decision of the respondents whereby they were informed that the University has cancelled their admission on the premise that they were not eligible to fill the application form for appearing in PTET Examination, 2007 which was held by the respondents.
Petitioner in CWP-1929/08 belongs to OBC category & in CWP-1945/08 belongs to general category both appeared in PTET Examination,2007 held by respondents for academic session 2007-08 and on qualifying written competitive test-PTET, 2007, they were allotted their respective College by Co-ordinator-respondent No.1 and undertook full academic course in Session 2007-08 and while they were going to appear in final written examination to be held by respondents, intimation was sent that since they have not secured minimum 50% & 47% marks in their respective category; as such were not eligible to appear in PTET-2007 held by respondents -on the basis whereof, admissions were made in B.Ed. Course.
Counsel for petitioner submits that petitioners never concealed any material fact from the respondents and after appearing in open competitive examination [PTET, 2007], they were placed in order of merit and according to their merit-cum-preference, colleges were allotted to them and they have completed their full academic course in Session 2007-08; and at the fag-end, when they are going to appear in final written examination, were informed about cancellation of their admission itself and before taking decision for cancellation, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to them and they are estopped by the principle of promissory estoppel.
However, under the interim order of this Court, both the petitioners appeared in the B.Ed. Main Examination and result was also placed before this Court for perusal which is evident from order sheet dt.12th November, 2008 and this Court considered appropriate that matter requires hearing and to be disposed of finally at this stage.
Counsel further informs this court that minimum eligibility for admission for appearing in competitive examination i.e. PTET is not being regulated by Ordinance or by any statute, but University issued its guidelines laying down minimum cut off percentage of marks for appearing in competitive test. However minimum qualification is graduation for seeking admission to B.Ed. Course. He further informs this court that for academic session 2008-09, minimum cut off percentage of marks for appearing in the competitive examination has been reduced to 45% in graduation and this fact is not being controverted by Counsel for respondents also.
On the said premise, Counsel submits that University goes on changing their minimum cut-off percentage with regard to permitting applicants for appearing in competitive examination (PTET-07) and if no concealment was made by them, atleast they could not be deprived of their legitimate right which accrued on qualifying their full academic session. Denial whereof will certainly cause prejudice and at the same time, action of the respondents is in violation of Art.14 of the Constitution of India.
Counsel for respondents submits that booklet published by the respondents was available to the applicants and it was well known that only such applicants can appear in competitive examination who secured 50% & 47% marks in their graduation in General & OBC Category and indisputably, petitioners failed to secure minimum percentage, as such were not eligible to appear in the competitive examination and even if they have undergone their full academic session, no right can be said to be conferred and their admissions have rightly been cancelled by the respondents under order impugned.
I have considered contentions made by Counsel for the parties and with their assistance, examined material on record. The guidelines laid down by respondents cut off percentage of marks at Under-graduate level as eligibility for appearing in written test-PTET, 2007 held for purposes of admission to B.Ed. Course. However, no statute or Ordinance has been brought to the notice of this Court laying down percentage of marks at under-graduate level which makes an applicnt eligible for admission to B.Ed. Course, and minimum eligibility for admission is graduation for admissions to B.Ed. Course made on the basis of merit prepared out of performance of applicant in written examination (PTET).
It is not the case of respondents that petitioners concealed material facts or there is a misrepresentation on their part while they filled up their application form for appearing in written test (PTET, 2007) or at the stage when they were declared successful and got admission in B.Ed. Course on their merit cume preference in absence whereof, petitioners atleast cannot be said to be at fault. It is also not the case of respondents that petitioners were not holding minimum academic qualification required for admission to B.Ed. Course.
Only objection raised by respondents is that petitioners were lacking cut-off percentage of marks fixed by respondents while permitting applicants to appear in written test (PTET) for the purposes of admission to B.Ed. Course.
It has been brought to the notice of this Court that for academic session to B.Ed. Course 2008-09, cut off percentage of marks for appearing in written test (PTET, 2008) which was earlier 50% (Gen.) & 47% (OBC) has been reduced to 45% marks at under-graduate level for all kinds of applicants irrespective of their class/category.
Thus, what emerges from the record is that petitioners might not have been able to get minimum cut-off percentage of marks as fixed at Under-graduate level for eligibility to appear in written test (PTET, 2007) held for admission to B.Ed. Course, which are merely guidelines and it varies from year to year and once petitioners being permitted and admitted to B.Ed. Course based on merit and prosecuted their full academic session, raising objection at the fag end of academic session while they are going to appear in final examination of B.Ed. Course, that too without affording opportunity of hearing, in no manner can be said to be legally sustainable, specially when their admissions are not found contrary to any statute or ordinance laying down minimum percentage of marks for admission to B.Ed. Course; inasmuch as once they are permitted to appear in final examination may be under interim order of this Court, objection raised by respondents at such belated stage cannot be legally sustainable.
Consequently, both the writ petition stand allowed. Orders dt.09/02/2008 (Ann.9-CWP-1929/08) & dt.09/02/08 (Ann.9-CWP-1945/08) are hereby quashed & set aside. Respondents are directed to declare formal result of petitioners' participation in final examination of B.Ed. Course and award their degree within two weeks from the receipt of certified copy of this order. No order as to costs.
[AJAY RASTOGI], J.
FRBOHRA/p.7/1929CW08 22-7.doc