SBCWP No.15570/10. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.15570/2010. Girraj Kishor Khangar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Date of Order:- December 23, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Shamsuddin Ansari for the petitioner. Shri Sunil Kumar Jain for the respondents. ******* BY THE COURT:- Learned counsel for petitioner has argued that petitioner had appeared in the second counselling of PTET Examination, 2010 and pursuant to the selection of the petitioner, he deposited registration fee of Rs.2000/- on 4/10/2010 and he was provisionally allotted the college of respondent No.2 - Siddharth Shikshan Sansthan, V.P. Khot Khavda, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur for admission. Petitioner was required to deposit balance amount of Rs.20,429/-, which he deposited within the stipulated time on 22/10/2010. Petitioner is a physically handicapped person with the disability of 40%. Disability certificate of the petitioner is on record. Problem arose when result of qualifying examination of the petitioner for BA was declared on 27/5/2010 in which petitioner was required to appear in the supplementary examination in the subject in Hindi Literature. Petitioner applied for re- SBCWP No.15570/10. 2 valuation, result of which was declared belatedly on 20/10/2010. For that reason, respondents are not allowing the petitioner to pursue the study course. It is contended that admittedly petitioner was allowed joining time and by the time petitioner went to join the said college he was fully eligible but for that technicality as aforesaid, respondents are not considering petitioner eligible and therefore denying him the permission to pursue the study course of B.Ed. Petitioner has cited the judgment of co-ordinate bench of this Court passed in Suresh Kumar Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP No.595/2008) decided on 29/6/2009 wherein, this Court while following judgment of Supreme Court in Council of Homeopathic System of Medicine V. Suchintan and others : AIR 1994 SC 1761 held that in such a situation when supplementary examination is passed by the candidate, the candidate cannot require to sit idle at home after passing the supplementary examination and to avoid such a situation, he should be deemed to have passed main examination itself by related back theory. On the contrary, Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ petition and submitted that petitioner did not qualify the examination of BA upto last date of councelling was 9/10/2010. Students, who ere allocated the respective colleges were required to join college itself. It is submitted that respondents issued notification on 27/9/2010 by which, candidates were SBCWP No.15570/10. 3 required to submit their qualifying examination certificates/mark-sheets etc. latest by 23/8/2010. Petitioner did not qualify the BA Examination upto that cut-off date and therefore he cannot be held to be eligible as per instructions of the NCTE and the State Government. Learned counsel in order to support his submission, cited the judgment of co-ordinate bench of this Court in Ms.Prianka Shripat. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, I find that peculiar facts of this case is that not only the petitioner qualified the PTET Examination but was also selected for admission to respondent NO.2 college. He deposited the registration fee of Rs.2000/- and also the Rs.20,429/-. Additionally, petitioner is a handicapped person having disability of 40% in his leg. His admission was made against the quota earmarked for physically challenged persons. If despite his admission, he is not allowed to prosecute the study course, the seat against which, he was allotted college, would go waste and conversely if he is permitted to prosecute the study course, not only the seat would be utilized but a physically challenged person would get opportunity for advancement of his career in his life. The cut-off date that was fixed by the respondents was by an executive instruction and even if that was so, that cannot be construed to mean that even if a candidate is eligible by the time study course concerns, he is eligible for admission for SBCWP No.15570/10. 4 pursue the study course and he may not be debarred to pursue such study course. Judgment of this Court in Ms.Priyanka Shripat is therefore distinguishable in the peculiar facts of this case. In the result, writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to prosecute the study course of B.Ed. in respondent No.2 – college in accordance with law. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ) J. anil