REETA SHARMA Vs. UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was provisionally admitted in B. Ed, SSCC course for the session 1984-85. THEreafter, some dispute arose as to whether the petitioner was eligible to be admitted in B. Ed (Correspondence Course ). THEre was exchange of the correspondence between the petitioner and the University and on June 10, 1985 vide Annexure 8, Dr. CM. Sharma, Associate Professor and Incharge B. Ed. University of Rajasthan, Jaipur informed the petitioner that her provisional admission taken has not been confirmed. THE petitioner thereafter represented and under letter dated 17th June, 1985 (Annexure 11) she was informed that her representation is under consideration and in the mean time, the petitioner was provisionally permitted to fill up the examination form for B. Ed. SSCC course. And, she filed a civil suit No. 500/ 1985 in the Court of Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class Jaipur City (East), Jaipur, on July 15, 1985 as the examinations were to commence from July 17, 1985. An application for temporary injunction was also moved in that suit and the learned Additional Munsif Magistrate allowed that application for injunction and permitted the petitioner to appear in the papers of the examinations which were to be held on July 17, 1985. THEreafter the petitioner was permitted to appear in all the examination paper and she appeared in the papers as per the orders of the learned Additional Munsif Magistrate. THE aforesaid civil suit continued but no further progress could be made-though the petitioner had appeared in the examinations under the orders of that Court but, her result was not declared, therefore, after waiting for one year and 6/7 months the petitioner withdrew that civil suit as the proceedings in civil suit were thought to be time consuming and during the pendency of the suit, her result might not be declared. THE petitioner thereafter preferred to file the present writ petition.

(2.) AFTER having heard Shri Rajdeep Rastogi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri G. S. Singhvi, the learned Advocate for the University of Rajasthan and, after having gone through the material on record, we are of the opinion that the various documents produced by the petitioner from time to time before the University of Rajasthan do make the case of petitioner doubtful in as much as the petitioner than furnished more certificates each of them was contradictory so far as her work experience, and her being continues in service are concerned. Even if we do not go into these facts for the present controversy, then also the petitioner cannot deny that there is break from July 25, 1984 to 2nd November, 1984; and even as per the ease of the petitioner, she was relieved from the institution of Adarsh Vidhya Bhawan, Bani Park. Jaipur where she was earlier employed and joined her new post in Dausa.