SHARDA CHAUDHARY Vs. MAHARAJA GANGASINGH UNIVERSITY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the communication dated 22.04.2014 (Annex. -8) and resolution No. 3 dated 24.07.2010 (Annex. 11) and has sought a direction to admit the petitioner to Ph.D. on the basis of her qualification of M.A. (Education).

(2.) THE facts in brief may be noticed thus: the petitioner obtained qualification of M.A. (Education) from Jain Vishva Bharti University, Ladnun and is presently working on the post of Senior Teacher (Science). It is claimed that as the petitioner had obtained more than 55% marks in the subject 'Education', the petitioner was eligible for appearing in M.Phil/Ph.D. Combined Entrance Test ('MPCET') in terms of Ordinance 124 of the respondent -University. The petitioner appeared and was successful in the written examination and was called for interview; the petitioner was also declared successful in the interview and was asked to submit the required fees and documents; the petitioner accordingly deposited the requisite fee on 23.01.2014 and was granted No Objection Certificate by the Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner for pursuing her Ph.D. It is submitted that vide communication dated 22.04.2014 (Annex. -8), the Demand -Draft and Application Form of the petitioner was returned back, inter alia, indicating that the Equivalence Committee has taken a decision that the M.A. (Education) is not equivalent to M.Ed. and since the petitioner does not possess the required qualification of M.Ed., the Demand -Draft and Application Form were being returned back to the petitioner.

(3.) IT is alleged that the representation made by the petitioner was not decided and the respondent -University has issued another Notification, inviting applications for the MPCET -2014 and in the said Advertisement, the eligibility for admission to M.Phil./Ph.D. has been indicated as M.Ed. It is, inter alia, claimed by the petitioner that she has already clear MPCET -2013, was eligible for admission to Ph.D. as she possesses requisite qualification as per Ordinance 124, which was/is in force at the relevant point of time, she possesses the postgraduate Degree in M.A. (Education) and has secured more than 55% marks, was permitted to appear in the examination, granted admission and she deposited her fees also and, therefore, the action of the respondents in this regard is wholly incorrect.