KESHOTE, J. - (1.) AS both these matters pertain to the cancellation of the admission of the petitioners in B. Ed. course given to them at Shri Agresen Post Graduate College, Jamdoli, Jaipur, same are taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common order. The fasts of the case are to be taken from the petitions which are as follows:- SB Civil Writ Petition No. 2330/2001
(2.) THE petitioner passed her B. Sc. Examination in the year 1999 with second division. From the marksheet of this examination which is Annexure-1 at page No. 17 of the petition, she has opted for the subjects Chemistry, Botany and Zoology. Pre-Teacher Education Test 2000 (hereinafter referred as the PTET) was conducted by respondent No. 1 for admitting the candidates in various colleges throughout the State in the B. Ed. course. THE petitioner filed her application form to the respondent No. 1. In the application form as per the petitioner's own case it is mentioned that she belongs to Science Faculty. In column No. 9 of the application the petitioner mentioned three teaching subjects as Biology, General Science and Home Science. It is admitted case of the petitioner that in the 9th column of the application at serial No. 3 thereof, the petitioner mentioned Home Science as one of the teaching subjects. As regards the preference for the colleges, the petitioner gave same as under:- (i) Kota Girls College (ii) Rajasthan Womens Teachers Training College, Udaipur. (iii) Lal Bahadur Shastri Mahila Shikshan Prashikshan Mahavidhyalya, Jaipur. The petitioner was permitted to appear in the PTET examination. She was declared successful and allotted college viz. Rajasthan Womens Teachers Training College, Udaipur. She approached Rajasthan Womens Teachers Training College, Udaipur on 22. 12. 2000. During the process of her admission in the college, she has been pointed out that teaching subject Home Science has wrongly been given to her as she belongs to Science Faculty. The Principal directed the petitioner to get the subject correction from PTET office. The petitioner approached to the PTET office, met there with Shri M. L. Vyas who told that the information regarding the admission and correction of subject would be given to the petitioner lateron after making necessary correction. In this process what has been given out to her that allotment of college to her may also be changed. On or before 12. 1. 2001 the petitioner received a call letter from respondent No. 1 informing her that she has been granted admission in Shri Agresen Post Graduate College, Jamdoli, Jaipur and she has to take the admission after depositing fees etc. on or before 23. 1. 2001. The petitioner in pursuance of letter aforesaid received from respondent No. 1 approached to respondent No. 2 and she was given admission to B. Ed. course. The petitioner after her admission to the respondent No. 2 College is regularly attending the classes and she has almost undergone half of the course by now as the duration of B. Ed. course is of one year. It is grievanced that to the utter shock and surprise of the petitioner, a letter dated 2. 5. 2001 has been issued by respondent No. 2 informing that her admission to B. Ed. course has been cancelled by respondent No. 1 under its order/letter dated 28. 4. 2001. It is submitted that the petitioner has not been supplied the copy of the letter/order dated 28. 4. 2001 of respondent No. 1. It is really shocking that the petitioner has not received as per her own case the copy of order/letter dated 28. 4. 2001 of respondent No. 1 but she has given and stated the contents thereof in the petition. That way of the dealing the matter by the petitioner who approaches to this Court for seeking relief under its extraordinary jurisdiction is difficult to appreciate. This conduct of the petitioner goes to show that she is tried to make attempt not to disclose all the material and relevant facts relating to this document to the Court. Be that as it may after the letter dated 2. 5. 2001 the petitioner set with the Principal of the college, respondent No. 2, and requested him not cancel her admission till she approach to respondent No. 1 and clarify the details. She also stated to have demanded copies of certain documents. She has been informed by respondent No. 2 that entire record related to her admission to B. Ed. course has been handed over/sent back to the office of respondent No. 1 in compliance of its order/letter dated 28. 4. 2001. This petition is presented by the petitioner in the Court on 15. 5. 2001. It was placed for preliminary hearing on Board on 18. 5. 2001. It was admitted and notices were issued to respondents. On stay application, the Court has been pleased to issue the notices to respondents and in the meanwhile, the operation of the order dated 2. 5. 2001, Annexure-7 to the writ petition, passed by respondent No. 2 ordered to be kept in abeyance till further orders. The respondents were further restrained to interfere with the prosecution of the studies by the petitioner in B. Ed. course in Shri Agresen Post Graduate College, Keshav Vidhyapith, Jamdoli, Jaipur.
(3.) ON 9. 8. 2001, the ex-parte interim stay order granted earlier by this Court has been made absolute and the matter was placed for final hearing. Respondent No. 1 has filed the reply to the petition on 6. 7. 2001 to which the petitioner has not filed any rejoinder. This position has also not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the reply to the petition, respondent No. 1 has come up with the case that the petitioner has mentioned Home Science as one of the combination of teaching subjects which is available only to the candidates belonging to faculty of Arts as per the instructions mentioned in the admission form. It is submitted that the nomination of the petitioner at Rajasthan Womens Teachers Training College, Udaipur was apparently a mistake committed and rightly she was not admitted by the college and asked her to get correction of her teaching subject. In view of these facts what it is stated that the case of the petitioner was wrongly considered for admission in the faculty of Arts. This mistake has been committed as petitioner has mentioned Home Science as a teaching subject with the faculty of Science (Bio ). Home Science could have been opted by the candidates from Arts faculty. For District Baran from the faculty of Science she could not get admission in B. Ed. course as she does not stand in the merit. In the Baran District in faculty of Science the cut off point was at 428 marks and the petitioner has secured 352 marks only. But due to the mistake of the computer as what is stated by respondent No. 1 on process of finalisation of the admission on account of wrong feeding of the subject Home Science in the faculty of Science, she has been admitted to the respondent No. 2 College. It is urged that on detection of this mistake, the admission of the petitioner has been cancelled. It is not fact a cancellation of the admission of the petitioner but what it is stated a case of the rectification of the mistake which is not only a prerogative and right of respondent No. 1 but a pious duty also. It is reiterated that because of wrong mentioning of subject Home Science with faculty of Science admission has wrongly been given to the petitioner. As per the instructions mentioned on the back of the admission form, it is not permissible for a candidate of Science faculty to have opted for combination subject Home Science. This subject available in Arts faculty. In column No. 8 of the form, subjects Zoology, Botany and Chemistry are mentioned which have been taught to her in the graduation and she was at liberty to opt the teaching subjects Biology (Zoology + Botany), Chemistry or General Science but not the Home Science which she never studied in B. Sc. ;