DINESH PAREEK Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 2. 9. 2003 against the respondents with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned admission list dtd. 29. 7. 2003 finalised by respondent No. 3 (the Principal, B. R. Mirdha Govt. Post Graduate College, Nagaur) for admission in M. Sc. Previous (Chemistry) for academic session 2003-2004 be quashed and the admission application form submitted to the respondent No. 3 (Principal, B. R. Mirdha Govt. Post Graduate College, Nagaur) which was cancelled on 29. 7. 2003 be restored and the respondents be directed to admit the petitioner in the M. Sc. Previous (Chemistry) for the academic Session 2003-2004 without any delay etc. etc.

(2.) THE facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under: i) THE petitioner is a orthapaedically handicapped student. A copy of the medical certificate is marked as ANNEX. 1. ii) Further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has passed B. Sc. Examination in July, 2002 from B. R. Mirdha Government Post Graduate College, Nagaur (hereinafter referred to as the respondent - College) as a regular student with First division (61. 58% marks ). Copy of the mark-sheet is marked as ANNEX. 2. iii) Further case of the petitioner is that he had submitted his application form for admission in M. Sc. (Chemistry) previous class to the respondent No. 3 (Principal, B. R. Mirdha Government Post Graduate College, Nagaur) on 18. 7. 2003. iv) Further case of the petitioner is that respondents No. 1 (State of Rajasthan through the Education Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur) and 2 (Director, College Education, Rajasthan, Jaipur) have made the admission policy 2003-2004 and as per the Admission Policy 2003-2004, minimum 55% marks in qualifying examinations are prescribed for admission in M. Sc. and since the petitioner has got 61. 58% marks, in B. Sc. Examinations, thus, the petitioner was eligible for admission in M. Sc. Previous (Chemistry) in respondent - college for academic session 2003-2004. v) Further case of the petitioner is that Rule 6 (2) of sixth part of the Admission Policy 2003-2004 dealt with handicapped students and as per Rule 6 (2), there is provision of 3% reservation for handicapped students and since the petitioner is orthapaedically handicapped students, therefore, he was entitled to such reservation and seek admission in M. Sc. Previous (Chemistry) in respondent - College. vi) Further case of the petitioner is that his name was found at the top in the list of handicapped candidates and he had also placed reliance on Section 39 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1995) which provides that all Government educational institutions and other educational institutions receiving aid from the Government shall reserve not less than three percent seats for persons with disabilities. vii) Further case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 3 (Principal of respondent - College) had prepared and posted the merit list of admission seekers in M. Sc. (Chemistry) previous class for academic session 2003-2004 on the notice Board and it was notified that the counseling was fixed for 29. 7. 2003 and in compliance with the notice issued by the respondent No. 3 (Principal of respondent - College), the petitioner's father went to the college with fees and original documents of the petitioner as the petitioner was in Jammu for his B. Ed. Examination on 29. 7. 2003 and submitted an application (Annex. 7) for depositing the fees of the petitioner. viii) Further case of the petitioner is that his father had requested the respondent No. 3 (Principal of respondent - College) for the career of his handicapped son, but the respondent No. 3 (Principal of respondent - College) did not care about the career of the petitioner and cancelled his admission application form and filled in up the seat reserved for handicapped student from general category student. Hence, this writ petition with the abovementioned prayer.

(3.) THERE is also no dispute on the point that the petitioner passed B. Sc. Examinations in 1st division as is evident from the mark-sheet (Annex. 2 ).