Alok Sharma, J. - (1.) THE facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 Jai Narain Vyas University issued an advertisement for conducting P.T.E.T -2014 for admission to B.Ed courses. The petitioner being a Graduate and hence eligible filled the ON -LINE application form and deposited the fee on 11.8.2014. He wrote the examination. On the result being declared he was found successful.
(2.) ON 16.8.2014 the petitioner in the first counselling approached the respondent College allotted to him as per merit/preference for registering in the B.Ed Course after having deposited the requisite fee with the University. In the ON -LINE reporting by the College the name of the petitioner, however, was not included. In the circumstances the petitioner sent a E -mail to the respondent University on 20.8.2014 pointing out the mistake of the respondent College and seeking corrective action/directions to the allotted College to admit the petitioner. It was submitted that the petitioner had wrongly been not admitted to the College i.e. Seva Sikshak T.T. College, Virat Nagar, Jaipur despite his merit and despite deposit of the requisite fee on 16.8.2014 with the University. The respondent University however did not respond to the petitioner's E -mail dated 20.8.2014 nor require the College to consider the petitioner's case for admission in the 2nd and 3rd counselling. In the circumstances the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this petition on 28.8.2014. Reply to the petition has been filed by the respondent College. It has been submitted that it is indeed true that the petitioner passed the P.T.E.T. examination and was allotted Seva Sikshak T.T. College, Virat Nagar, Jaipur as per his preference for enrollment in the B.Ed Course. It is not denied that the petitioner came for the first counselling to the College on 16.8.2014 the last date. An application form was given to the petitioner for submission with requisite originals pertaining to his qualification. However, during the course of verification of the petitioner's documents with the duly filled application form it was found that the petitioner did not attach the original mark -sheets of Class X as also the Graduation. On the petitioner being so informed, he took back the application form stating that he would resubmit it again within the course of the day along -with the requisite original documents. The petitioner however did not resubmit the application form with all originals required till 6:00 P.M. on 16.8.2014. In the absence of verification of original documents with the application form as required and the application form itself, the petitioner not admitted and ON -LINE reporting with refund thereto not done. It was submitted that the College Seva Sikshak T.T. College, Virat Nagar, Jaipur has an approval of 100 seats in its B.Ed Course. In the first counselling held between 12.8.2014 to 16.8.2014 only 91 seats were filled up. The second counselling was held between 19.8.2014 and 26.8.2014 and 7 seats were filled. In the third counselling held between 8.8.2014 to 2.9.2014 two remaining seats were filled up. Counsel submits that as per the instructions of the respondent University students are allowed to the 2nd and 3rd counselling only as per the select list forwarded to the respondent College. Those in the list for the first counselling, not seeking admission with due verification of original documents required are not, as per rules, included in the second and third counselling. In the circumstances the case of the petitioner was not considered for admission in the 2nd and 3rd counselling. It was submitted that in the circumstances obtaining nothing illegal or arbitrary or for that matter discriminatory or mala -fide can be attributed to the College and the case of the petitioner appears to one of his own making. The petitioner despite having passed his P.T.E.T. examination, was not given admission in B.Ed Course for his own fault.
(3.) MR . Sunil Kumar Jain appears for the respondents No. 1 and 2. He has submitted that the petitioner was not given admission in B.Ed Course for his own failing. Counsel however is not in a position to state any reason as to why the E -Mail dated 20.8.2014 addressed by the petitioner to the University was not responded to and his grievance not addressed but over -looked.;