S. S. BYAS, J. - (1.) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner prays for directions to the University of Rajasthan to grant admission to her in B. Ed. Course, Session 1988-89 in any of the Teachers Training Colleges in District Bharatpur.
(2.) AS per averments of the petitioner, she is a resident of Bharatpur District and appeared in the Pre-teachers Education Test (P. T. E. T.) 1988 for admission to B. Ed, Shiksha Shastri for the year 1988-89. The respondent, University of Rajasthan published "cut Out Point Statement for B. Ed. Common Colleges" Annexure-4 in the daily news-papers Rajasthan Patrika in its publication of October 21,1988. The Cut out point for women candidates (general candidates) of Arts in District Bharatpur was 292 vide Annexure-4. The petitioner had secured 345 marks in P. T. E. T. She, therefore, applied to the respondent University for admission in P. T. E. T. by a telegram and an application in writing. No admission was given to her by the respondent University and when she approached the University officials, she was informed that the matter for admission was closed. She, therefore, came to this court for seeking directions set out above. The matter came before the Division Bench along with the stay application. Learned Judges granted stay on 4. 11. 1988 that if there is any vacancy in Bharatpur District in any of the B. Ed. Colleges, the petitioner shall be provisionally admitted. The petitioner was thereafter admitted and continued her studies in B. Ed. The petition was opposed by the University of Rajasthan. It was stated that the Cut Out Point for women students of Arts in District Bharatpur was 371 for common Colleges, 347 for Women Colleges and 327 for Shiksha Shastri. The petitioner secured 345 marks in her P. T. ET. and as such she did not stand in the merit list for admission. Two women students were erroneously given admission in Bharatpur District who had secured 29 and 293 marks in P. T. E. T. When the mistake was noticed the error was rectified and their admissions were cancelled vide Annexure R/l dated 14. 11. 88. No candidate lesser in merit than the petitioner was ever admitted as alleged by her. It was admitted that the "cut Out Point Statement for B. Ed, Common Colleges" P. T. E. T. 1988 was published in Rajasthan Patrika, in which the cut out point for the women students of Arts was shown as 292 for the District of Bharatpur, but it was by sheer mistake. The cut out point for women students of Arts was 371, 347 for women colleges and 327 was for Shiksha Shastri in Bharatpur District. I have heard Mr. K. N. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S. B. Mathur for the respondent University along with the learned Dy. Government Advocate.
(3.) THE cut out point of 292 marks was wrongly published in Ann. exure-4. THE cut out point for women students of Arts was 371 for common colleges and 347 for women Colleges in District Bharatpur. Admittedly, the petitioner secured 345 marks and, therefore, was not eligible for admission in B. Ed. course in any of the colleges of District Bharatpur. THE scene has however undergone a major change. THE petitioner was admittedly, of course, provisionally by the orders passed on 4. 11. 88 by a Division Bench of this Court. I am told that the petitioner was admitted and completed the full course of the relevant academic year. She thereafter appeared in the annual examinations in 1989. THE reply of the writ petition by the respondent University was filed on 22. 8. 89. No reply of the stay application was filed and no efforts were made by the respondent University to get the stay Order vacated. By the time the reply to the writ petition was filed, the petitioner had completed the full academic course of B. Ed. and also appeared in the annual examination. Of course, her result has not been declared so far. THE question now arises is whether the petition should be dismissed because the petitioner was not there in the merit list, after when she had completed B. Ed. course and appeared in the annual examination. A very like situation arose in Smt. Rita Sharma V. University of Rajasthan (1) decided by a Division Bench of this Court and Rajendra Prasad Mathur Vs. Karnataka University (2 ). In Rita Sharma's case, the admission was given under the orders of the court. The petitioner completed the course for B. Ed. and also appeared in the annual examination. Learned Judges were of the opinion that the equities were in favour of the candidate. In Rajendra Prasad Mathur's case, the students. were not found eligible for admission to B. E. degree course and still by some mistake they were admitted. They continued their studies nearly for 3 years and when the mistake was detected, the interim order was made allowing the students to continue their studies in the college of Engineering. The students had appeared in the examinations also as a result of the interim order. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court took the view that the fait lies with the management of the Engineering College, where the students were admitted. The students had not concealed anything in their application forms for admission. Here in the instant case, the court granted stay on the news item "cut out point statement for B. Ed. Colleges published in the Rajasthan Patrika by the respondent University. The reply was not filed by the respondent University as stated above till the petitioner completed the course and appeared in the annual examination. In these circumstances, the equity speaks in favour of the petitioner. It may be pointed out that no student has been given admission in B. Ed. for the relevant academic year in place of the petitioner. Taking all these facts and circumstances into consideration, the view taken in Rita Sharma's case should be followed because what remains now is only the declaration of result of the petitioner. It is the respondent University, which is primarily responsible for allowing the petitioner to continue her studies in B. Ed. and to appear in the final examination. ;