LALITA SANKHALA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the refusal of admission to the petitioner in S.T.C. Course by respondent No.2 on the ground that admissions have been closed by 3.9.1991 and, therefore, she cannot be granted admission to the S.T.C. Course.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that she passed her Senior Higher Secondary Examination in the year 1991 and thereafter, she applied for admission to Two years School -Teachers Training Course (for short the STC Course). She was called for interview by respondent No .2 and was informed that her name stands at serial No. 18/2 in the Waiting List relating to Female Candidates. It is alleged that one Miss Manju Yadav, who was standing at serial No. 18/1 in the Waiting list relating to Female Candidates was admitted in the course on 3.9.1991 itself and as a result thereof, the petitioner remained at serial No. 1 in the Waiting List relating to Female Candidates. Thereafter, it appears that one Smt. Chandrakala who was at serial No. 5 in the merit list and was admitted in the STC Course on 21.9.1991, has decided not to continue her studies in the Course and, therefore, she moved an application alongwith an affidavit stating therein that for some family reasons, she is unable to continue her studies in STC course and, therefore, her admission may kindly be cancelled. When the petitioner came to know about this fact, she on the very day moved an application that against the vacancy of Smt. Chandrakala, she may be adjusted but her application was refused on the ground that admissions have already been closed. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(3.) THE contention of Mr. Sahgeet Lodha, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that a vacancy did exist on account of leaving of the course by Smt. Chandrakala on 20.9.1991. Even in her rejoinder to the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner has claimed that as many as 18 persons have been admitted from 24.10.1991 to 4.11.1991 and, therefore, the claim of the respondents that admission have already closed on 3.9.1991 appears to be wrong. Mr. Lodha has submitted that moreover, the instruction contained in AnnexureR. 1 are only directory in nature and no useful purpose will be served to keep any such vacancy unfilled by denying admission to a person who is on the top of the Waiting list, specially when somebody has already left the course. Mr. Lodha has submitted that admission should not be denied to the petitioner on mere technical grounds. According to Mr. Lodha, when admission has been granted to other 18 persons by relaxing the condition contained in the Instructions Annexure R. 1, the same relaxation should have also been granted to thus petitioner and the petitioner should have been granted admission in STC course.