- (1.) BY the aforesaid writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the action of the respondent No.1 not to allow the third round of counselling for admission on the remaining vacant seats of B.Ed. Course and further, seek for declaring the order dated 23.12.2010 (Anx.2) arbitrary, discriminatory, unjustified and unconstitutional, with the further direction to the respondent No.1 to hold the third round of counselling for admission on the remaining vacant seats of the B.Ed. for the current academic session i.e. 2010-2011, or in the alternative, the petitioners be allowed to make direct admission on the remaining vacant seats of B.Ed. Course with appropriate terms and conditions. The petitioners have also sought direction to the respondents to set the academic calendar and the counselling schedule strictly in consonance with the Regulations framed by the N.C.T.E. while exercising power provided under section 32 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 (in short 'the Act of 1993'). The aforesaid contempt petitions are also arising out of the alleged non compliance of the orders dated 14.12.2010, therefore, all have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided together.
(2.) IN the aforesaid writ petitions, the impugned order is dated 23.12.2010 and December 24th was the last working day of the year 2010 and after the winter break was over, on the next date of the reopening of the courts i.e. 4.1.2011 the aforesaid two writ petitions have been filed. On 7.1.2011, the notices were ordered to be issued to the respondents and since then, the reply has been filed only by the University of Rajasthan in both the writ petitions but no reply has been filed either by the State or the NCTE or the Coordinator, PTET Cell, J.N. Vyas University, Jodhpur despite grant of further time on 21.1.2011 to file reply/additional affidavit by 24.1.2011 as the writ petitions were likely to be rendered infructuous on account of efflux of time. Application No.3602 dated 22.1.2011 filed by the petitioner for taking additional documents on record, is allowed. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioners are the recognised institutions and that the delay in holding the first and the second counselling is on the part of the State Government without any fault of the petitioner institutions and thereafter, it was decided on 27.10.2010 not to hold the third counselling. It is further stated that the petitioner Institutions filed writ petition against the said decision dated 27.10.2010 and this Court on 14.12.2010 in KMD Memorial College of Education & Others V. State of Rajasthan and others (CWP No.15131/2010 and other connected ten writ petitions) directed to reconsider the matter in regard to third counselling for admission to B.Ed. Course looking to the fact that 12,000 and more seats were vacant in the Institutions and it was expected that the respondent State Government will take sympathetic view keeping in mind that the petitioner institutions are having their infrastructure and staff as per the intake capacity granted by the NCTE and the observations were made that in past the Institutions were permitted to work on Sundays and to take extra classes to complete the requirement of 200 teaching days with 6 hours a day. This Court at the principal seat at Jodhpur, on 22.12.2010 in Jagrati Sansthan Society V. State of Rajasthan and others (CWP No.11056/2010 and other connected eight cases) while placing reliance on the judgment dated 14.12.2010 in KMD Memorial College of Education & others V. State of Rajasthan and others (CWP No.15131/2010 and other connected ten writ pettions) annulled the order of the State Government dated 27.10.2010 and directed the respondents to take decision by tomorrow i.e. 23.12.2010 with the definite expectation to take into consideration the order dated 14.12.2010 and Bright Future Teacher Training and others. The respondent University has filed reply to the writ petition. It is stated in para 3 of the preliminary objections of the reply that the course of B.Ed. has already been started and the examination of B.Ed. is going to commence in the month of September, 2011. Counsel for the University has further drawn attention to para 6 of the preliminary objections wherein reference has been given to the comparative calendar between the existing and newly admitted students which was produced by the counsel for the petitioner and copy of the same was given to the counsel for the respondents.
(3.) THE case was heard on 21.1.2011 and a detailed order was passed and considering urgency, an opportunity was granted to the State of Rajasthan and the NCTE to file reply and additional affidavit by 24.1.2011 but neither reply nor additional affidavit has been filed by the State of Rajasthan or the NCTE. Counsel for the petitioner reiterates his arguments recorded in the order sheet dated 21.1.2011 which is as follows: "Heard learned counsel for the parties. Counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the order of the State Government dated 23.12.2010 is contrary to the observations/directions issued by this Court in its judgment dated 14.12.2010 in KMD Memorial College of Education and others V. The State of Rajasthan and others (CWP No.15131/2010 and other connected writ petitions), and the judgment dated 22.12.2010 passed at the Principal Seat of this Court in Jagrati Sansthan Society V. State of Rajasthan and others (CWP No.11056/2010 and other connected eight cases). This Court, while passing the order dated 14.12.2010 in CWP No.15131/2010 KMD Memorial College of Education & others V. The State of Rajasthan and others (and other connected ten writ petitions) observed that in the past, the Institutions were permitted to work on Sundays and to take extra classes to complete requirement of minimum 200 working days and six hours of study in a day and that the respondent State would be free to look into all aspects for taking a proper view to reconsider the matter in regard to the third round of counselling for admission to B.Ed. Course looking to 12,000 and more vacant seats in the Institutions. At page 6 of the judgment in KMD Memorial College of Education & others V. The State of Rajasthan and others (supra), this Court observed as under: "It is, made clear that observations of minimum 200 classes in academic session and six hours per day classes would not be ignored by the State Government and, accordingly, take a proper view in consonance to the provision of law. In the past institutions were permitted to work on Sundays and to take extra classes to complete requirement of minimum 200 working days and six hours of study in a day. Respondent State would be free to look into all aspects for taking a proper view." (emphasis supplied) This Court, while deciding similar controversy in Jagrati Sansthan Society V. State of Rajasthan and others (CWP No.11056/2010 and other connected eight cases) at the Principal Seat at Jodhpur, on 22.12.2010 anulled the decision of the State Government dated 27.10.2010 and it was expected to take decision as assured to the Court latest by tomorrow keeping in view the observations made therein and the decisions referred. The relevant observations of the Court are as under: "The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that while taking such decisions, the Government is required to take note of the decision of this Court in the case of Bright Future Teacher Training Vs.State 2009(2) RLW 1197. It is definitely expected of the State Government to reconsider the mater with reference to the observations already made by this Court in the aforesaid order dated 14.12.2010 and so also the above referred decision in Bright Future Teacher Training's case. In view of the aforesaid the impugned order as issued by the State Government on 27.10.2010 is required to be and is hereby annulled. The State Government is expected to take decision as assured before this Court latest by tomorrow keeping in view the observations made herein and the decisions referred hereinabove. These writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs." (emphasis supplied) Further submission of counsel for the petitioner is that the State has not considered the past practice of the Institutions to take extra classes on Sundays to complete the present requirement of minimum 200 working days and 6 hours of study in a day and further submitted that this Court in Bright Future Training V. State, reported in 2009(2) RLW 1197 = 2009(2) WLC (Raj.) 365 has considered this aspect of the matter of taking extra classes on Sundays and other holidays which may be counted as working days with respect to the then requirement of 180 teaching days. Relevant sub para (v) of para 30 of the aforesaid judgment is as under: "(v) In the present cases, 180 teaching days can be completed for the academic session 2008-2009 by holding extra classes on holidays, over time classes on working days by counting one teaching day as two teaching days or by shortening the summer vacations in order to ensure the examinations to be held immediately thereafter, which is the past practice of the University also to meet ut such contingency." Counsel also submits that it appears that the State while passing the impugned order dated 23.12.2010 has neither consulted the N.C.T.E. nor the University nor considered the calendar of the University for holding the examination of B.Ed. according to which the examination is to be held in the month of September, 2011 as well as earlier judgment of this Court in Bright Future Teacher Training & Ors. V. State of Rajasthan and others 2009(2) RLW 1197 = 2009(2) WLC (Raj.) 365, subsequently referred in the judgment dated 22.12.2010 in Jagrati Sansthan Society V. State of Rajasthan and others (CWP No.11056/2010 and other connected eight cases). Although the State of Rajasthan and the National Council for Teacher Education has been served but no reply has been filed by the State and the N.C.T.E. However, respondent No.3 University of Rajasthan has filed reply and in para 3 it has been mentioned that the course of B.Ed. has already been started and the examination of B.Ed. is going to commence in the month of September, 2011. Counsel for the University in para 6 of the preliminary objections has given reference to the comparative calendar between the existing and newly admitted students which was produced by the counsel for the petitioner and copy of the same was given to the counsel for the respondents. Considering the urgency of the matter, the respondents State of Rajasthan and the N.C.T.E. are at liberty to file reply/additional affidavit by 24.1.2011. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the case is fixed for final disposal on 25.1.2011 with CWP No.87/2011, CCP No.50/2011 and CCP No.51/2011. Counsel for the petitioner summed up his submissions that the third counselling earlier denied vide order dated 27.10.2010 was annulled by the Principal Seat of this Court at Jodhpur in Jagrati Sansthan Society V. State of Rajasthan and others (CWP No.11056/2010 and other connected eight cases) vide its judgment dated 22.12.2010 and the time was granted to reconsider the matter and take decision by tomorrow i.e. 23.12.2010 and it was definitely expected of the State Government to reconsider the matter with reference to the observations already made by the Court in the aforesaid order dated 14.12.2010 in KMD Memorial College of Education & Others V. The State of Rajasthan and others ( CWP No.15131/2010 and other connected ten writ petitions) and also referred in the judgment in Bright Future Teacher Training & Ors. V. State of Rajasthan and others 2009(2) RLW 1197 = 2009(2) WLC (Raj.) 365. But the order of the State Government dated 23.12.2010 wherein reasons have been recorded from Point No.1 to 5 is not in accordance with the aforesaid judgments of this Court as well as the scheme of the examination and record. ;