Dismissed

Chetna Rani Daughter of Madan Singh Rawat v. Maharishi Dayanand University Ajmer through Its Registrar

Rajasthan HC13 Aug 2024SAW/895/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two Special Appeal Writs were disposed of under one order. Appellants, B.Tech graduates, challenged rejections of their B.Ed. course admissions, claiming eligibility despite not studying Science and Mathematics continuously for two years. The High Court held that under Ordinance-322 and N.C.T.E. Regulations, specialization is mandatory and the appellants were ineligible, dismissing the appeals but

What did the court decide?

Fee collection from the appellants for the course not pursued was directed to be refunded within six weeks.

Chetna Rani Daughter of Madan Singh Rawat Vs… — Education and Admissions | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:34455-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 4/2019

¶4

Anil Kumar Gurjar S/o Shri Ramhari Gurjar, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Gurja, Post Saingarpura, Tehsil And District Karauli

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

University Of Kota, Kota Through Its Registrar

¶8

Controller Of Examination, University Of Kota, Kota.

¶9

Principal, Saurabh Teacher Training College, Kheda (Karauli)

¶10

National Council For Teachers Education, Through Its Secretary, G-7, Sector-10, Dwarka Near Metro Station, Delhi-110075.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

Connected With

¶13

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 895/2018

¶14

Chetna Rani Daughter Of Madan Singh Rawat, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village And Post Ajaysar, Via CRPF GC-2, Foy Sagar Road, Ajmer.

¶15

----Appellant

¶16

Versus

¶17

Maharishi Dayanand University Ajmer Through Its Registrar, Jaipur Road, Ajmer.

¶18

Controller Of Examination, Maharishi Dayanand University, Jaipur Road, Ajmer.

¶19

Haribhau Upadhyaya Teachears College For Women, Hatundi, Through Its Principal, Ajmer.

¶20

National Council For Teachers Education, Through Its Secretary, G-7, Sector-10, Dwarka, Near Metro Station, Delhi -110075.

¶21

----Respondents

¶22

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Umashanker Pandey, Adv. Mr. Sunil Samdaria, Adv.

¶23

For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.A. Katta, Adv. with Mr. R.N. Paliwal, Adv.

¶24

[2024:RJ-JP:34455-DB]

¶25

[SAW-4/2019]

¶26

(2 of 5)

¶27

Mr. N.K. Dhakad, Adv. Mr. Anubhav Agarwal, Adv. for Ms. Anita Agarwal, Adv.

¶28

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order

¶29

REPORTABLE

¶30

13/08/2024

¶31

Appellants have preferred these appeals aggrieved by the Order dated 25.04.2018 passed by learned Singh Judge, whereby, the writ petitions filed by the appellants were rejected.

¶32

Since the facts of both the appeals are similar, facts of D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 4/2019 is being taken as the lead case for disposal of both the Special Appeal Writs by this common order. 3. It is contended by counsel for the appellant that the appellant has cleared his B.Tech. examination and had applied for admission to the B.Ed. course. His admission was rejected on the ground that he has not studied two subjects i.e. Science and Mathematics continuously for two years. It is also contended that in the engineering course, there is no system of annual examination, rather it has semester system and the ground on which the admission was cancelled, cannot be sustained. It is also contended that under the N.C.T.E. Regulations, the eligibility as provided for admission to the B.Ed. course programme is that the candidate must have at-least 50% marks either in Bachelor’s Degree and/or in the Master’s Degree in Sciences/Social Sciences/ Humanity, Bachelor’s in Engineering or Technology with specialization in Science and Mathematics with 55% marks or any other qualification equivalent thereto.

¶33

[2024:RJ-JP:34455-DB]

¶34

[SAW-4/2019]

¶35

(3 of 5)

¶36

It is contended that the appellant had scored 61% in his B.Tech Examination and the Court has erred in relying on the judgment passed in Mahipal Nitharwal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15063/2015 decided by the Rajasthan High Court on 02.11.2015 and affirmed by the Division Bench. It is also contended that if the regulations are to be applied, the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this High Court should be considered at par.

¶37

Mr. R.A. Katta appearing for the Coordinator PTET, M.D.H. University has opposed the appeal. It is contended that Ordinance-322 of the University is applicable and the same cannot be said to be in violation of the eligibility criteria provided under the N.C.T.E., as the N.C.T.E. Regulations itself provides that there has to be specialization in Science and Mathematics. It is also contended that as per the Ordinance and Rules of the University that have been prescribed for admission in B.Ed. Course, the eligibility is the same as provided in the N.C.T.E. Regulations i.e. Bachelor’s in Engineering or Technology with specialization in Science and Mathematics. It is argued that as per Ordinance-322 of the University, the candidate should have studied for at-least two years the subject provided and as per the same Ordinance, it is provided that a candidate for B.Ed. course is eligible to opt Science and Mathematics as teaching subjects.

¶38

It is contended that since in the reply filed to the writ petition it was clearly mentioned that the appellant has not studied Science and Mathematics for continuously two years, hence, he was ineligible to be admitted to the B.Ed. course. It is also contended that the learned Single Judge had constituted a

¶39

(4 of 5)

¶40

[2024:RJ-JP:34455-DB]

¶41

[SAW-4/2019]

¶42

Committee and the same had given a report that the appellant is not entitled to be admitted to the B.Ed. course as he is ineligible in view of Ordinance-322 of the University.

¶43

We have considered the contentions.

¶44

Appellant had applied for admission to the B.Ed. course in the year 2017 and his candidature was canceled as he was not falling within the purview of Ordinance-322 of the University, as he has not studied Science and Mathematics for continuously two years while pursuing the B.Tech. course.

¶45

We are of the considered view that the learned Single Judge has not erred in passing the impugned order relying on the judgment passed in Mahipal Nitharwal (supra) , which involved the same controversy as the case in hand. The court in that case also afforded opportunity to the appellants and had even constituted a Committee to look into grievance of the appellants and to see whether the course that was pursued by the appellants was at par with the minimum requirement for being admitted to the B.Ed. course and the Committee has given a report against the appellants.

¶46

From perusal of the mark-sheet, which has been annexed with the writ petition, it is evident that the appellant has not studied Mathematics and Science subjects for continuous two years and even if the semester system is considered, he has not studied Maths and Science subject for continuously four semesters. Thus, as per Ordinance-322 of the University, appellant was ineligible for being appointed to the B.Ed. Course. The present case thus cannot be distinguished from the case which was there before the High Court in Mahipal Nitharwal

¶47

[2024:RJ-JP:34455-DB]

¶48

[SAW-4/2019]

¶49

(5 of 5)

¶50

(supra) and the N.C.T.E. Regulations also do not favour the appellant as the same also provide that there has to be specialization in Maths and Science for being eligible for admission in B.Ed. course. Since the case of the appellant do not fall within the purview of Ordinance-322 of the University, the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in rejecting the writ petitions filed by the appellants.

¶51

Since the appellants are not allowed to continue the B.Ed. Course, this Court directs respondent No.3 to refund the amount of fees collected from the appellants, within six weeks from submitting of the copy of this judgment before them.

¶52

In view of the above, the Special Appeal Writs are accordingly disposed of.

¶53

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶54

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶55

Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-58-59

Chetna Rani Daughter of Madan Singh Rawat v. Maharishi Dayanand University Ajmer through Its Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chetna Rani Daughter of Madan Singh Rawat v. Maharishi Dayanand University Ajmer through Its Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Rajasthan Vs M/S. Boutique Hotels (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly M/S. Heritage Palaces and Sarais Limited)

Smt. Punam Soni D/O Shri Prabhuram Soni Vs Mahesh Chandra Soni S/O Bhagwati Prasad Soni

M/S Boutique Hotels (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly M/S. Heritage Palaces and Sarais Limited) Vs State of Rajasthan

Sanjay Kumar S/O Shri Brij Mohan Goyal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Rajveer Singh Yadav S/O Sh. Sanwaliya Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Shri Sharma Steeltech India Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan