AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Anil Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing counsel for the respondents. The argument advanced by Sri Tiwari is contained in the order passed on 6th of February, 2013 which is quoted herein under:- "Heard Sri Anil Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners who has challenged the mode of calculation of award of quality point marks under the amended notification dated 4th of December, 2012 that has been brought on record by way of an amendment application. The office is directed to give a number to this application. The amendment application is allowed. The learned Standing Counsel has been heard as against the aforesaid challenge raised through the amendment. The contention of Sri Anil Tiwari in essence is that the amended mode of award of quality point marks in relation to the training part which was earlier contained in Appendix under Rule 14(3) has now been altered to the disadvantage of the petitioners, inasmuch as, the students having qualification of B.Ed. from different universities are being discriminated because of the different mode of award of theory and practical marks. Sri Anil Tiwari contends that the formula now introduced under the amended rules works injustice and the outcome of such a procedure adopted is sought to be demonstrated by the calculations as projected in paragraph 20 of the writ petition. Sri Tiwari submits that the mathematical calculation which has now been carried out, clearly puts those candidates to a disadvantage where the maximum marks for the practical exams is different and that has resulted in the discriminatory method of calculation by the respondents. The petitioners contend that this discrimination cannot be accepted as all the candidates belong to the same homogeneous class and possess similar degrees as recognized under the relevant statutes and ordinances of the respective universities. Heard Sri Anil Tiwari at length. Judgment reserved."
(2.) I have heard Sri Tiwari at length. The amendment in the rules firstly applies to all candidates equally with no distinction, and is therefore not discriminatory. The choice of the candidate to opt for a course in a different university is the option of the candidate himself and he cannot plead discrimination on the ground of provision of separate marks for practicals. Even otherwise, this does not stand to logic, inasmuch as, the amended rules provide for calculation on the percentage of marks obtained in B.Ed. Course. The percentage has to be calculated by dividing it by 100 or multiples thereof. This being the uniform denominator for calculating any percentage, there would be no difference in calculation as suggested and projected in Paragraph 20 of the writ petition. If the practical marks of the University are of 300, then the percentage will be calculated by dividing it by the multiple of 300. Similarly, if the practical marks of a University are 400 or 600, the percentage would be calculated by the multiple of 400 or 600. Thus the method of calculation of the percentage remains the same, and this does not in any way discriminate between the students of different universities. Apart from this, it is open to the State Government to provide for another mode of calculation which in its wisdom is more appropriate. The Court is no expert to delve on such academic matters unless the rules are otherwise violative of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The rule introduced could not be demonstrated to be unreasonable or patently illogical.
(3.) IN the circumstances, the submission raised by Sri Anil Tiwari does not appeal to reason. The rules do not suffer from any vires as alleged and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.;