PARMESHWARI SHIVRAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both the writ petitions the petitioners have prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus to the non-petitioners to consider their cases for admission to B.Ed. course 1992-93 on the basis of their merit. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing of the criteria adopted by the respondents which has resulted in denial of admission to the petitioners in district of Churu and Sikar respectively on the basis of their merit.

(2.) Facts of writ petition No. 7740/92 are that the petitioner did her Primary Education from Tehsil Rajgarh, district Churu. She then did her remaining education, upto graduation at Chandigarh. According to the petitioner, her father was in Indian Army for sometime and then he joined service of the Central Government and remained posted in Thermal Ballistic Research Laboratory at Chandigarh. She was married to Shri J.C. Shivran of Village Jaitpura Tehsil Rajgarh, district Churu. Her husband joined Central Intelligence Bureau (MHA) in April 1986 and he remained posted in North Eastern Region upto May 1990. He is posted at Sikar since June, 1990. The petitioner has given out that she passed All India Secondary School Examination conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education (New Delhi), 1984. She passed Pre-University Examination from University of Punjab, 1986 and did her B.Sc. from the same University in the year 1989. Thereafter, she has joined Kota Open University, Kota for diploma in Library science through the correspondence course. She appeared in the Pre Teacher Education Test conducted by the Mohan Lal Sukhadia University, Udaipur in the year 1990-91 but could not succeed. 1992 Pre Teachers Education Test (PTET) has been conducted by Maharshi Dayanand University, Ajmer. The petitioner applied for appearing in the said examination and the result has been declared on 18.11.92. The petitioner has secured 347 marks out of 600 (57.83%). In the Rajasthan Patrika of 27.11.92 the respondent No. 2 has published district-wise cut off marks separately for Arts/Science/Commerce with due regard to reservation for women candidates etc. The petitioner has not been considered for admission because she is being considered ineligible except against 20% seats. Further case of the petitioner is that for Churu District candidate securing 243 marks has been admitted and the petitioner who has secured 347 marks has been ignored. This has been done by awarding zero merit to the petitioner in the district-wise merit list because, she has not passed Secondary School Examination from any district in Rajasthan. The petitioner has pleaded that the criteria prescribed for preparing district merit is unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory. The classification made on the basis of passing of Secondary School Examination is irrational and is having no nexus with the object of selecting the candidates on the basis of merit. Moreover, the petitioner had to pass her Secondary School Examination from Chandigrah because her father was in the service of the Central Government and his posting was beyond the control of the petitioner as well as the petitioner's father. The petitioner who is bonafide resident of Rajasthan and is a domicile of district Churu has been denied admission. The petitioner has placed on record Annexures-5 to 17 to show that she is a bonafide resident of Tehsil Rajgarh, district Churu. These documents have been produced alongwith her affidavit dated, 17.2.93 to show that the petitioner's family has a Ration Card of Village Jaitpura; her name appears in the electoral list of Panchayat Samiti Rajgarh as well as in the Sadulpur Constituency of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly. The Sarpanch and S.D.M. have issued certificates in her favour showing her to be bonafide resident of district Churu.

(3.) Respondent No. 2 has contested the claim of the petitioner by asserting that the respondent University has conducted the test in accordance with the guidelines framed by the Government. The petitioner has no right to be allotted any district in the State because her case is not covered by Para-4 of the guidelines. She has been considered against 20% seats which are required to be filled on the basis of over all merit. In the over-all merit her name does not figure at such a place on the basis of which she could be given admission. The petitioner had applied for admission with full knowledge about the guidelines issued by the Government. She was aware of the fact that she is not entitled to offer choice of any district in Rajasthan because, she had not passed her Secondary examination from any district in Rajasthan. Having taken a chance to be selected on the basis of the guidelines issued by the Government, the petitioner cannot now challenge the validity of those guidelines. The respondent No. 2 has also pleaded that a division bench of this Court has in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2345/87, Mahavir Prasad Vs. State of Rajasthan and.another (decided on 23.11.87) upheld the constitutional validity of the guidelines issued by the Government.