Inderjeet Singh, J. - (1.) With the consent of both the parties, the writ petition is heard finally.
(2.) By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has made the following prayers:- (1) By an appropriate writ, order of direction in the nature thereof the impugned order dated 21.7.2016 passed by the respondent No. 3 University may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) By an appropriate writ, order of direction in the nature thereof the respondents may kindly be directed to declare the result of Ist year B.Ed. course of the petitioner and also allow her to participate in the B.Ed IInd year exam scheduled to be held in the Month of June 2017 by considering the qualification of B.A.P. of the petitioner equivalent to the Sr. secondary Exam. (iii) Any other relief as this Hon ble Court may deem fit and proper be also passed in favour of the petitioner."
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this court in the matter of Seema Yadav Vs. University of Rajasthan, S. B. Writ Petition No. 4201/2016 decided on 15.02.2017, wherein it has been held as under:- "On hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned order, this Court finds that there is no denial to the fact that petitioner had passed the BAP examination from VMOU and thereafter he studied as regular student and obtained the degree of B.A. from the same university. Petitioner was permitted to appear in the PTET. Thereafter, he was allotted respondent no.2- college. He studied there as regular student in B.Ed. Course. As regards the minutes of the meeting of Equivalent Committee (Annexure-R/2), the respondent themselves have deviated from the said rule now when they issued fresh guidelines in 2016 (Annexure-7) in clause (6) of which it is stated that the candidates who have not passed the scheme of 10+2+3 or 10+1+3 would not be eligible to appear in the PTET, even if they passed BAP examination from VMOU, provided they have subsequently qualified/passed graduation course as regular student. With regard to them it is specifically stated that they would be eligible for admission to B.Ed. The decision of the Equivalence Committee, which the respondents rely has thus been deviated by the respondents themselves. It has not been made clear that whether there has been any intervening change in the Statutes or Rules available with the respondent-university. The coordinate bench of this Court in Sunita Meena,distinguished the division bench judgement in Lachcha Ram,by observing that aforesaid judgement was rendered in special circumstances and factual matrix of the case, but the division bench has dealt with the aspect of equivalence of Bachelor of Arts Preparatory Course and held the same equivalent to senior secondary course of Board of Secondary Education. Though facts may be different, but the question before the division bench was exactly the same. It was held that at the relevant time admission to graduation course in VMOU could not have been given to a person without possessing senior secondary examination certificate or its equivalent, thus by all practical purposes, the candidates who got admission after passing BAP course were treated as equivalent to senior secondary or intermediate. This is also reflected in the State Government circular dated 9.5.2002. On that note, the judgement of single bench in that matter was affirmed. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned notice dated 12.3.2016 is set aside. The respondents are directed to declare the first year examination of the petitioner of B.Ed. Course and also allow her to study further in the second year examination of the B.Ed. Course. ";