AKANKSHA PANWAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all the above writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed for direction to the respondents to give them admission in the colleges of respondents No. 4 and 5. In all the above writ petitions common question with regard to the claim of the petitioners for admission in B.Ed. course against vacant seats is involved. Hence, for the sake of convenience while taking into consideration facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8421/2011, all these writ petitions are decided by this common judgment/order. The main contention of the petitioner is that the competitive examination for admission in the B.Ed. course i.e. PTET 2010 was conducted by the Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur, in which, the petitioner was one of the candidates who appeared with Roll No. 126346 and she was declared successful on securing 277 marks out of maximum 400 marks which is evident from the marks-sheet Annex. 1. After passing the said test, the petitioner was called for counseling by the Convener, PTET 2010, Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur and, for the purpose of allotment of college, after depositing registration fee the petitioner was given option in respect of 19 colleges, however, no admission was given to the petitioner despite the fact that large number of seats are lying vacant and persons having lesser marks than the petitioner in PTET 2010 were allotted colleges according to their choice.

(2.) The petitioner's claim is that refusal of admission to the petitioner after first counseling is totally unjust and arbitrary because in various colleges vacant seats are available but allotment of candidates have not been made because decision has been taken not to conduct second counseling for filling in the vacant seats, therefore, a prayer is made by the petitioners to accord admission in the college of their choice against vacant seats, in the order of preference, option submitted by the petitioners.

(3.) As per the petitioner, action of the respondents in riot providing admission against the vacant seat even though she cleared the PTET 2010 and found in merit is in violation of Article 14 as well as right of the petitioner to education guaranteed under the Constitution of India. Main contention of the petitioner is that only one counseling is conducted by the respondents for filing up the seats for admission in B.Ed. course and, even if large number of seats are still vacant and large number of meritorious candidates including the petitioner are available for admission but the respondents refused to conduct second counseling in respect of vacant seats available for admission in the B.Ed. course in various colleges in Rajasthan.