- (1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 17.12.2003 against the respondents with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction respondents be directed to consider the application of the petitioner for admission in BSTC Entrance, 2003 treating the Sr. Secondary (Vocational) equivalent to Sr. Secondary (Academic) and it may be declared that the restrictions in respect of giving admission in BSTC Entrance 2003 to the persons who had passed Sr. Secondary (Vocational) Examination is illegal and void and the respondents may further be directed to include the name of the petitioner in the list of Other Backward Class (Women) candidate giving preference to her than the person who had obtained lesser mark than the petitioner and she may be given admission in BSTC Entrance, 2003.
(2.) The facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under : (i) That the Director of Primary Education, Bikaner (Respondent No. 2) issued an advertisement dated 7.10.2003 (Annexure 1) by which applications were invited from the candidates who were willing to get the admission in the course of Primary Teacher Training in various training schools and seats were allotted to each Training School. 50 seats were alloted to DIET, Chittorgarh. (ii) Further case of the petitioner is that minimum qualification for admission to BSTC Course was Sr. Secondary Examination (10+2) or equivalent and minimum 45% marks were prescribed in the said examination. (iii) Further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had passed Sr. Secondary (Vocational) Examination in the year 1998 from the Board of Secondary Education for Rajasthan and got 74.67% marks in total. Thereafter she passed bridge course in the year 2001 in the subjects of Political Science, History and Social Study and she submitted the application form for admission in BSTC Course in District Education and Training Institute (DIET), Chittorgarh on 23.10.2003 and the same was registered at Serial No. 1783. A copy of the marksheet of Sr. Secondary (Vocational) is Annexure 3. (iv) Further case of the petitioner is that the merit list was to be prepared according to marks obtained in the Sr. Secondary Examination. (v) Further case of the petitioner is that she belongs to OBC category and 4 seats were reserved for OBC (Women) category. (vi) Further case of the petitioner is that merit list was published on 12.12.2003 in which Smt. Sangeeta Tailor (79.54%), Anita Vaishnav (77.69%), Anita Patwa (76.62%) and Deepika Sahu (73.69%) were held entitled to get the admission. (vii) Further case of the petitioner is that she secured 74.67% marks, whereas Deepika Sahu was having 73.69% marks and thus, she was less meritorious than the petitioner. (viii) Further case of the petitioner is that on enquiry she came to know that her candidature was not considered because she had passed Sr. Secondary (Vocational) Examination and not Sr. Secondary (Academic) Examination. (ix) Further case of the petitioner is that this Court in the case of Bhagwati Lal v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2247/2002, decided on 2.5.2003 has held that Sr. Secondary (Vocational) is equivalent to Sr. Secondary (Academic) and therefore, denial of admission to the petitioner on the ground that she had passed Sr. Secondary (Vocational) is illegal. Hence, this writ petition with the above mentioned prayer.
(3.) Reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and their case is that since the petitioner had passed Sr. Secondary (Vocational) and not Sr. Secondary (Academic), her candidature was rightly rejected and the writ petition should be dismissed.;