KULJIT KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these petitions, i.e. CWP No. 1503 of 1995 (Kuljit Kaur vs. State of Punjab and others) and CWP No. 3029 of 1995 (Ms. Rashwinder Kaur vs. State of Punjab and others) involve an almost identical claim made by the petitioners namely, admission to the Elementary Teachers Training Course and, therefore, decision of both these petitions by a common order is just and proper.

(2.) The petitioner Kuljit Kaur (in CWP No. 1503/95) is a member of Scheduled Caste. She had applied for admission to the Elementary Teachers Training Course in response to an advertisement dated 4.8.1994 issued by the respondents. She appeared in the entrance test held by the respondents on 18.9.1994. Result of this examination was declared on 15.1.1995. Name of the petitioner does not figure amongst the successful candidates. The petitioner says that her academic record is brilliant and she was very hopeful of being selected. However, due to an apparent error in the examination of the answer-sheets, she has not been included in the list of successful candidates. In para 8 of the writ petition, the petitioner has alleged that there seems to be a mistake in the key-code as a result of which proper marks have not been given to the candidates and this has resulted in an improper evaluation of her answer-sheets. Another grievance made by the petitioner is that the respondents have not properly declared the result of the candidates inasmuch as neither the names of the successful nor of unsuccessful candidates have been given nor individual marks for the candidates have been indicated. The The unsuccessful candidates have not even been communicated with their marks and in this manner, the candidates have been deprived of an opportunity to know their performance at the test.

(3.) In their reply, the respondents have leaded that minimum qualifying marks for admission to Elementary Teachers Training Course have been fixed at 45% for S.C/S.T. candidates but the petitioner failed to secure these marks and, therefore, she is not entitled to be admitted. Respondents have stated that the last candidate admitted under the S.C. category has secured 111.00 marks as against 89.50 marks secured by the petitioner out of the total of 200 marks. Furdier case of the respondents is that the last candidate who has been placed in the waiting list has also secured 109.5 marks. On the basis of these averments, respondents have pleaded that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.