VANDANA CHOUHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 10. 11. 2003 with with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to condone the deficiency upto the extent of 5 marks in the subject Advance Micro Processor & Application (EL 411) wherein the petitioner has been declared failed and on her being declared successful, the respondents be directed to issue Diploma in Engineering in favour of the petitioner and in the alternative, the respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to appear in special examination to clear the subject Advance Micro Processor and Application (EL 411) and if she gets success in the special examination then the respondents be directed to issue Diploma in Engineering in favour of the petitioner.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner put forward by her in this writ petition is as follows:- THE Board of Technical Education, Rajasthan Jodhpur has framed the Rules for Diploma Programme in Engineering under Multipoint Entry and Credit System from year 1994-95 and onwards (hereinafter referred to as "mecs Scheme") and as per Rule 2 of the Rules of MECS Scheme, a candidate in order to secure the admission in the aforesaid Diploma Programme is required to possess minimum qualification i. e. 10+ or 10+2 Scheme of the Board of Secondary Education,rajasthan or equivalent with a minimum of 60% marks in Science and Mathematics. A copy of the Rules of MECS Scheme is marked as Annex. 1. THE petitioner being eligible for admission in Diploma Programme under MECS Scheme applied for the same and the petitioner was given admission on the basis of merit in Diploma Programme (Electronics Engineering) under the MECS Scheme for the Session commencing from 1997-98 in Government Women Polytechnic College, Ajmer and her SPN Number is EL 97342/19/08 and later on, she was transferred to R. K. Khetan Polytechnic College, Jaipur. THE further case of the petitioner is that as per Rules 3 of the Rules of MECS Scheme, duration of Diploma Programme is 3 years for general and 3-1/2 years for Sandwich Programme. However, a student can complete the Diploma Programme even in a short period depending on his qualification type and pace. THE further case of the petitioner is that as per Rule 7. 1 of the Rules of MECS Scheme, to earn credit of a course, a candidate is required to obtain a minimum of 35% marks in the theory examination, 40% in practical examination and 40% in internal assessment and for award of Diploma in any programme (General), a student has to obtain the minimum of 140 credits as specified below:- Category Minimum Earned Credits i) Foundation Courses 49 ii) Hard Core Courses 60 iii) Soft Core Course 10 iv) Advanced Technology Courses 15 v) In-specified 6 THE further case of the petitioner is that she appeared in various examinations conducted by the respondents No. 2. THE Board of Technical Education since her admission under the MECS Scheme. However, she was not able to secure minimum of 140 credits required for award of Diploma by way of making 12 attempts in maximum 6 academic years from the year of her enrolment and therefore, as per provisions of Rule 8. 3 of the Rules of MECS Scheme, her enrolment was cancelled through mark- sheet Annex. 2. THE further case of the petitioner is that she secured maximum credits in Foundation Courses, Hard Core Courses and Soft Core Courses, but she could not earn minimum credit in Advanced Technology Courses or Unspecified and consequently, she could not also earn minimum 140 credits for the award of Diploma under the MECS Scheme. THE further case of the petitioner is that before introduction of the MECS Scheme (Annex. 1), the admissions in Diploma Courses in Engineering were regulation by the Annual Scheme known as "ordinance and Regulation for Diploma Courses in Engineering", a copy of which is marked as Annex. 3 and under the Annual Scheme, there was a provision that if a candidate failed in theory, sessional and practical, the deficiency to the extent of 5 marks in a subject and upto 10 marks in a session could be condoned by giving grace marks and not only this, in some papers, there was a provision for appearing in supplementary or special examination. THE further case of the petitioner is that since the MECS Scheme (Annex. 1) was brought to an end and in the year 2000, for Diploma Courses in Engineering, Semester Scheme 2000 was introduced and a copy of which is marked as Annex. 4 and as per Clause 7. 4 of the Semester Scheme 9000 (Annex. 4), the deficiency to the extent of 5 marks in a subject and upto 10 marks in a semester can be condoned by the Chairman. THE further case of the petitioner is that similarly, even in MBBS Course, students are entitled to complete their course in any number of years. THE further case of the petitioner is that vide order dated 4. 11. 2003 (Annex. 5), the provisions with regard to deficiency provided in the Semester Scheme 2000 were further relaxed. THE further case of the petitioner is that since in the MECS Scheme, there are no provisions for relaxation, while in the Semester Scheme, 2000, which was introduced later on through Annex. 4, there are such provisions for relaxation, therefore, there is a discrimination between the two Schemes and from this point of view, the treatment given to the petitioner by the respondents is wholly arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Thus, cancellation of enrolment of the petitioner through Annex. 2 by relying on Rule 8. 3 of the Rules of MECS Scheme is bad in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. Hence, this writ petition with the prayers as stated above. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and a preliminary objection has been taken by them in the manner that a similar and identical question was raised before the Division Bench of this Court in Vishnu Dutt Vyas vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (1), (decided on 17. 1. 2001 through Annex. R/1) and the case as put forward by the petitioner in the present writ petition was not accepted by the Division Bench of this Court and the order of the learned Single Judge was upheld and the special appeal was dismissed. THErefore, since this is the law of this Court, therefore, there is no force in this writ petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. Apart from the above, it has been further submitted by the respondents that since in the Rules of MECS Scheme there was no provision for condonation of deficiency marks and special examination, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the relaxation sought for. Furthermore, when the petitioner was not able to earn requisite credits so as to enable her to claim Diploma Certificate, therefore, her enrolment was rightly cancelled as per provisions of Rule 8. 3 of the Rules of MECS Scheme. It has been further submitted by the respondents that the subject in which the petitioner has failed was subject code EL 411 and that subject was attempted by the petitioner thrice and on all the three occasions, she failed and therefore, on completion of six academic years from the date of enrolment, her enrolment was rightly cancelled through Annex. 2 and a complete profile of the petitioner is marked as Annex. R/2. It has been further submitted by the respondents that since the petitioner had taken admission under the MECS Scheme, the rules and regulations of the MECS Scheme were to be followed in her case and since in the MECS Scheme, there were no provisions for condonation of deficiency marks and special examination as are found in the Semester Scheme 2000, therefore, in these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to condonation of deficiency marks and special examination. furthermore, there is a passing standard for MECS Scheme as well as Semester Scheme, 2000 as mentioned in para 9 of the reply. THErefore, the case of the petitioner cannot be equated with the Semester Scheme 2000 as all the Schemes have some special features and they cannot be compared with each other. Hence,. no interference is called for and this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. A rejoinder was also filed by the petitioners.

(3.) THERE is also no dispute on the point that so far as MECS Scheme is concerned, in that Scheme, there are no provisions for relaxation or condonation of deficiency marks and special examination as are found in the semester Scheme 2000, which was introduced in the year 2000 through Annex. 4.