1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER 1. SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15131/2010 KMD Memorial College of Education & ors Vs The State of Rajasthan & ors 2. SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15043/2010 Nav Bharti Shikshak Prashikshan Mahav. Vs State & ors 3. SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15208/2010 Sneh Teachers Training College Vs State of Rajasthan & ors 4. SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15295/2010 Eminent TT Girls College Vs State of Rajasthan & ors 5. SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16122/2010 Tagore TT College Vs State of Rajasthan & ors 6. SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16123/2010 Baba Ganga Nath TT College Vs State of Rajasthan & ors 7. SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16129/2010 Mother Teressa Girls Teacher Training College Versus State of Rajasthan & ors 8. SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16195/2010 Yaduvanshi College of Education Vs State of Rajasthan & ors 9. SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15835/2010 Sunrise Gurukul TT College Vs State of Rajasthan & ors 10.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16454/2010 Smt Kamla Devi TT College & ors Vs State of Rajasthan & ors 11.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15253/2010 Saraswati Teachers Training College & ors Vs State of Rajasthan & ors 14.12.2010 HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr Ashok Gaur with Mr AK Jaiman 2 Mr Rinesh Gupta Mr Laxmikant Sharma for Mr Lokesh Sharma Dr Mahesh Sharma Mr Anupam Agrawal Mr Anoop Dhand - for petitioners Mr Rachit Sharma for Mr AK Sharma Mr SD Khaspuria, Dy GC – for respondents Mr Sanjay Pareek – for NCTE Mr Sunil Kumar Jain – for University BY THE COURT: Since on same set of facts similar relief has been claimed, all these writ petitions have been heard together and decided by this common order. This bunch of writ petitions pertains to admission in B.Ed. course through PTET- 2010. All the petitioner institutions are having recognition for running B.Ed. course. Respondent-Co- ordinator, PTET-2010 called for applications for holding entrance examination for admission to B.Ed. course. Result of the examination was thereafter declared followed by a call for counselling for various colleges of the State. First notice was issued on 7.8.2010. A candidate was required to submit his preference for college to seek admission in B.Ed. course. After completion of first round of counselling, respondents issued notice for second round of counselling on 27.9.2010. All those who have qualified PTET- 2010 and secured cut off marks were allowed to apply for admission. On completion of second round of 3 counselling, there are around 12000 seats lying vacant in the institutions. The petitioner institutions made representation to the respondents to hold third round of counselling for admission to aforesaid course so that remaining seats may also be filled in, however, they were surprised to note that the State Government vide order dated 27.10.2010 at Annexure-8 communicated to the Co-ordinator, PTET of the respondent University not to hold third counselling for admission to 12140 vacant seats of B.Ed. Course. Petitioners thus left with no option but to approach this court by filing present writ petitions. It is stated by learned counsel for petitioners that on previous occasions also, third round of counselling were held for B.Ed. course and, for this year, in Shiksha Shastri, M. Ed., B.Tech, MBA and MCA etc courses third counselling is permitted by the State thus there is no reason to make an exception for B.Ed. course for holding third round of counselling. The prayer is accordingly to direct the respondents to hold third round of counselling. It is stated by learned counsel for petitioners that petitioners have incurred huge amount to create infrastructure and they are having required staff. In absence of getting students as per their intake capacity, it would be difficult for them to run the 4 institutions. Learned counsel for the State submits that policy decision has been taken by the Government not to hold third round of counselling for B.Ed. course. This is precisely to observe and maintain the Regulations of the National Council for Teacher Education. Petitioner institutions are those which have not been preferred by the students and thereby seats are lying vacant otherwise other institutions have already been allotted students as per their intake capacity. So far as third round of counselling for other professional courses are concerned, it cannot be put at par with B.Ed. course. He submits that after observing the mandate to undertake minimum 200 classes in an academic session as per Regulations of NCTE with six hours study per day the government took a decision not to hold further counselling as it would not be possible to complete 200 classes. He has given reference of the judgment in the case of Vikas Kulhari & ors Vs Jai Narayan Vyas University, Jodhpur & anr (2003 WLC (Raj) UC 76). Therein, challenge to the policy decision of the Government was not held maintainable more so when no discrimination was found in the State action. The court came out with the conclusion that after completion of admission process, it should not be disturbed by the 5 courts. Learned counsel for the NCTE prays that if any direction is issued in favour of the petitioners then a rider may be put for observation of 200 classes with required six hours study per day. If the aforesaid requirement cannot be fulfilled, the prayer made by petitioners may not be granted. Similar prayer has been made by learned counsel for the University. I have considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for parties and perused the record. The issue raised in these writ petitions is regarding order of the State Government not to hold third counselling for admission to B.Ed. course. It is no doubt true that government has made a policy decision in consonance to the Regulations of the NCTE thus cannot be scraped casually. The fact, however, remains that while observing Regulations of NCTE, the government has to take into consideration number of vacant seats in recognised colleges. The institutions are required to have infrastructure and staff as per intake capacity granted by the NCTE and if seats are lying vacant in such institutions then it would be difficult for the 6 institutions to run smoothly. Thus, to balance the equity between the parties and, at the same time, to follow the Regulations of the NCTE, I deem it proper to direct the respondent State to reconsider the matter regarding third round of counselling for B.Ed. course more so when the State had already undertaken third round of counselling for admission to Shiksha Shastri and other courses. Accordingly, all these writ petitions are disposed of with the direction to the State Government to reconsider the matter in regard to third round of counselling for admission to B.Ed. course looking to 12000 and more vacant seats in the institutions. The decision in this regard may be taken by the respondents within a period of fifteen days from receipt of copy of this order. It is expected that respondent State will take a sympathetic view keeping in mind that petitioner institutions are having their infrastructure and staff as per the intake capacity granted by the NCTE. 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 7 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. Petitioners are directed to furnish copy of this order to the competent authority within a week from today so that compliance of the order aforesaid may be made by the respondent State within time frame given to them. (MN Bhandari), J. bnsharma