(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, after finding her name in the list of successful candidates in the examinations conducted by the Jai Narayan Vyas University for PTET, 2002, was called for counselling. The petitioner was successful in counselling and allotted respondent No. 3- College by the Jai Narayan Vyas University for the said course of B.Ed by order dated 11.10.2002 of the Coordinator PTET, 2002. The petitioner was directed to appear before the said College-respondent No. 3 on 15th Nov., 2002. The petitioner appeared on 15th Nov., 2002, but she was denied admission on the ground that she produced his medical certificate containing fact of his disability due to defect in left leg, but in said certificate there is no mention of any disability in her speech. This defect was found during interview of the petitioner and when it was found that she is not in position to speak properly and since the B.Ed course is of teaching the students where the speech of the candidate is relevant, therefore, the respondent No. 3 found that petitioner is not found to be eligible for admission in the B.Ed course. The petitioner has challenged the action of the respondent No. 3 by filing the present writ petition.
(3.) According to learned counsel for the petitioner, when the examinations were conducted and petitioner was found eligible by the competent expert body and that too, through the University like Jai Narayan Vyas University of Jodhpur, the respondent No. 3 had no jurisdiction to again decide the eligibility of the petitioner for the purpose of grant of admission to the course. It is also submitted that the ground given for denial is contrary to the provisions of binding guidelines issued for PTET Test, 2002. In sub-clause (5) of condition No. 5 it is provided that even blind, deaf and dumb candidates shall also have quota of 3% reserved for them, therefore, even a blind, deaf and dumb candidate can also be given admission in the course of B.Ed.