BHAWANI SINGH SHEKHAWAT Vs. COORDINATOR, RAJASTHAN TEACHER ELIGIBILITY TEAT-2011, RAJASTHAN, AJMER AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the petitioner is that in pursuance to an advertisement for conducting Rajasthan Teacher Eligibility Test-2011 (hereinafter 'RTET-2011') issued on 22.05.2011, the passing marks for a physically handicapped person was minimum passing marks of 40% out of 100% marks. The petitioner submits that he is a physical handicapped person and in this regard, the Government of Rajasthan has duly issued Physically Handicapped identity card to him on 27.12.2010.

(2.) It has been submitted that being eligible to appear in the RTET-2011 examination, the petitioner submitted fee of Rs.600/- online in favour of ICICI Bank and was issued challan No.2023746 on 06.04.2011. Thereafter the petitioner filled an application form also online for writing the RTET-2011 examination, but inadvertently in para 15 of the application form sub-category of the applicant, the petitioner did not erroneously indicate that he was physically handicapped and submitted the form. On taking of a print out of the application submitted online, the petitioner found that he had erred in not filling up the sub-category in para 15 and applying in the sub-category of physically handicapped general category candidate. Thereupon the petitioner using the same challan number filled up another application form no.2012320 online and on this occasion mentioned himself physically handicapped in para 15 as a Sub-category. Consequently, the obtaining situation was that against the challan No.2023746, the petitioner filled up two forms one bearing No.2023746 and the other No.2012320.

(3.) It appears that on the basis of the application form filled up online by the petitioner, an admission card was issued to the petitioner with roll no.7923634 with reference to form no.2023746 matching with the challan number. Based on the said roll number, the petitioner wrote his RTET-2011 examination from the S.K. Govt. College, (Wing-II), Sikar on 31.07.2011. On the result of the petitioner being declared, the petitioner found himself having obtained 56.67% marks in Level-I and 44.67% marks in Level-II, but the petitioner was considered in general category without benefit of sub-category of physically handicapped and declared not eligible .