BHANWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to be issued to the respondents to admit the petitioner to the training course of Lab Technician at Jodhpur Centre. It has been prayed that the respondent may be directed to allow the petitioner to complete the said course and allow him to appear in the examination.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case as alleged by the petitioner are that the petitioner who passed Secondary Examination in the year 1992 from the Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan, Ajmer has applied for Laboratory Technician Course in pursuance of the Advertisement No. 93/87 dated 20-1-1993 (Annx. 2) by which applications were invited for said course for ten training centres. Thereafter a merit list was prepared by the duly constituted Selection Committee wherein the candidates who have passed Secondary Examination in Science subject having Chemisty, Biology and Physics (Medical Group) were selected on the basis of merit, as per the information received by the petitioner on enquiry. It is alleged that on the basis of merit, respondent No. 2 issued an office order dated 15-2-1994 (Anx. 3) selecting 21 candidates from general category 5, in S.C. category and 4 in S.T. category and all those candidates were directed to join the training course latest by 2-3-1994. Being aggrieved by the action of the non-petitioner not giving admission to the petitioner to the said training course, he has approached this Court under Art. 226. In response to the notice reply has been filed but no counter has been filed. The respondents have filed copies of the marksheets of some of the candidates who were given admission.

(3.) Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has passed the Secondary Examination with one Science subject which includes Physics, Chemistry and Biology, fulfilling all the conditions for the purpose of admission to the training course of Lab Technician having 78% in all and in science he has secured 86% but the respondents have illegally denied him admission whereas admission have been given to the candidates who have secured lesser marks than the petitioner. He has also contended that the denial of admission to the petitioner in the said training course amounts to discrimination. He has relied on Pankaj Tanwar v. State (S. B. C. W. Petition No. 510/94) decided on 10-2-1994, Mahesh Chandra v. State (S.B.C.W. Petition No. 1886/94) decided on 3-5-1994, Ambika Devi v. State, 1994 WLR 840 (Raj), Smt. Reeta Sharma v. State 1987 Raj LW 757 and Rajesh Kumar Mehta v. Karnataka Univerisity 1986 Supp SCC 741 : (AIR 1986 SC 1448).