POOJA ARYA Vs. MUKESH TAMTA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present Special Appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the judgment and order dated 04.08.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.611 of 2015 (M/S), whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner (respondent no.1 in the present appeal) has been allowed and admission of the appellant (respondent no.4 in the writ petition) in two years D.L.Ed. diploma course has been quashed. The learned Single Judge directed the respondents to grant admission to the petitioner in D.L.Ed. course within a period of two weeks from the date of judgment.

(2.) Facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are that 50 seats were advertised for grant of admission in two years D.L.Ed. course. The petitioner as well as the appellant applied for the said course. The petitioner applied under Scheduled Caste quota whereas appellant applied under Scheduled Caste (Women) category. In the prospectus, it is clearly mentioned that out of 50 seats, 31 seats would be for general category candidates, 10 for Scheduled Caste candidates, 02 for Scheduled Tribe candidates and 07 for O.B.C. candidates. It is further mentioned that horizontal reservation would be as per the Government Order issued by the State Government. It is not in dispute that the relevant Government Order provides 30% horizontal reservation for women candidates. Out of 50 seats so advertised, 25 seats were for Science group and 25 seats were for other than Science group. The petitioner secured 125 marks, whereas the appellant secured 122 marks. The appellant was declared selected under the Scheduled Caste (Women) category and the petitioner was not selected. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.333 of 2015 (S/S) before this Court. The said writ petition was decided on 02.02.2015. The learned Single Judge issued direction to the Principal, District Institute of Education and Training Gochar, District Chamoli to decide the representation of the petitioner. In compliance of the said order, the representation of the petitioner was considered and was rejected. Aggrieved by the rejection order, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.611 of 2015 (M/S), which was allowed on 04.08.2015. Now, the appellant is before us challenging the order of the learned Single Judge.

(3.) We heard Mr. Pankaj Negi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1, Mr. N.S. Negi and Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.3 and also Mr. H.M. Bhatia, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.