Arun Tandon, J. - (1.) THE controversy with regard to admission to BTC Course-2004 has been repeatedly agitated by the petitioners before this Court. THE first writ petition No. 35056 of 2004 was disposed of with liberty to approach the Director of Education (Basic), U.P., Lucknow. Since the order was not complied with within time, the petitioners filed Contempt Petition No. 3901 of 2006. THE contempt petition was rejected vide order dated 10th July, 2006 after recording that the order of the writ Court has been now complied with.
(2.) IN order to keep the record straight, it may be noticed that on 10th January, 2005 the Director passed an order rejecting the claim of the petitioners. The petitioners, therefore, filed second Writ Petition No. 67418 of 2006 wherein it was contended that the practical marks obtained by the petitioners of both the examinations held by the University had to be added in their entirety for calculating their merit and the order of the Director was bad for the same having not been done. The writ Court allowed the petition. The order of the Director rejecting the representation was set aside and the matter was remanded for reconsideration after including the practical marks of both the practical examinations in their entirety, for the purposes of calculating over all merit of the petitioners. The Director under the impugned order has reconsidered the claim of the petitioners and has found that after adding of the marks received by the petitioners in respect of two practical examinations held in respect of their B.P.Ed. Degree, (first with maximum marks of 200 and the other under the heading Nirnayak with maximum 600 marks), the petitioners were not within the cut of merit. The Director has calculated the percentage of marks of the petitioners received in respect of the theory papers. Then he added the marks obtained by the petitioners in respect of two practical examinations as aforesaid and has thereafter worked out its percentage having regard to the maximum provided for the two practical examinations together. The Director has found after such calculation the total percentage marks obtained by the petitioners number 1 to 5 are 287.95, 278.24, 296.64, 306.85 and 288.08 respectively while the last selected candidate in their category had 286.60 marks. Similarly in respect of petitioners No. 6 and 7, it has been recorded that their total quality point marks work out to 295.89 and 288.78 respectively while the last candidate selected within their category had 296.38 quality point marks. It has, therefore, been held that the petitioners are much below in the merit. Their claim has been rejected. Challenging the order so passed, Counsel for the petitioners submits that the calculation done under the impugned order is illegal inasmuch as two separate practical examinations were held and for each, different maximum marks were prescribed, therefore, the percentage in respect of two separate practical examinations should have been calculated separately and should not have been clubbed together for working out the percentage.
(3.) THE contention raised on behalf of the petitioners does not appeal to the Court. Quality point marks of all the applicants in respect of their B.P.Ed. examinations have been calculated under two heads : (a) Theory and (b) Practical.;