INDRAJ MEENA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a member of Scheduled Tribe. He appeared in the Pre Teacher Education Test conducted by Meharshi Dayanand Saraswati University Ajmer in the year 1992. He secured 347 marks out of a total of 600 marks and was assigned district merit No. 403. He was allotted Bhartiya Vidya Mandir Shiksyak Prashiksan Maha Vidyalaya, Banswara. On 25.1.93 the petitioner received a communication from respondent No. 2 regarding his provisional admission. He was directed to submit his fees alongwith original certificates, mark-sheets and admission card of PTET, 1992. Immediately on receipt of the communication from respondent No. 2 the petitioner proceeded for Banswara. He met the Principal Bhartiya Vidya Mandir, Shiksyak Prashiksan Maha Vidyalaya, Banswara on 27.1.93 because, 26th Jan. was a National holiday. He requested the Prinicpal to accept the fees and his documents but the Principal declined to accept the same on the ground that the petitioner had come late. The petitioner submitted representation dated, 27.1.93 to the Principal of the College but no action has been taken by the respondents for accepting his fees and certificates.

(2.) The petitioner's claim is that he is being denied benefit of admission without any reason or rhyme and he is being made to suffer on account of the fault of the respondents. The petitioner has received communication from respondent No. 2 only on 25.1.93 for depositing fees and original documents. It was impossible for him to submit these documents at Banswara on 25.1.93 itself. However, he had submitted the fees and documents on the next working day and notwithstanding that he has been denied admission.

(3.) Respondents No. 2 and 3 have contested the writ petition by arguing that the petitioner had full knowledge of his allotment to Bhartiya Vidya Mandir, Shiksyak Prashiksyan Maha Vidyalaya because, the result of PTET 1992 was notified in all daily newspapers. The result indicated the particular College to which selected candidates had been allotted. A notification dated, 12.1.93 was also got published in daily newspapers and the candidates were called upon to deposit their fees and original documents by 25.1.93, even though they may not have received the provisional selection letter on account of delay in distribution of Dak. On the basis of Annexures R/1 and R/2 the respondents have pleaded that the petitioner ought to have acted upon Annexure R/2. Respondents have pleaded that the petitioner was under an obligation to come to Banswara even without receipt of the provisional letter of selection from respondent No. 2 and since he has not done so, his admission stood cancelled.