IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATCA AT BGL ORE Datea this the 30th day of June, 1998 B EFOqE THE HON’EMR. JUSTICE V.P. MOHAN KUMAR WRIT PETITIOt NO. 19872 OF 1996 BEPEEN Guddana GQud Sb Mylara Goucia aged about 22 years Yelburga Village, Yelburga Taluk RAICHUR DI T PlC T .. El’I TI Ct ER (Sri. L.M. Qiidanandaiah, Advocate) A N D 1. State of Karnata)ca rresented by its Secretary to the Departmeit of Education M 5, Building, Bangalore 2. Special Officer, Centralised Admision Cell for IH, B, Ed Adniions, Central Junior College Building, Cpp. Cauvery Bhevan, Bangalore — 560 002 \ — —2— 3, Bapuji Teechers Training Institute, Mangaluru, Yelburga Talujc, Raiciur District represented by it 5 Principal ,. REsPa4LTs (Sri for R-1 & 2 Smt. Pkknahadevi for R —3 Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India 4 . praying to; ISSUE an order, direction or writ in the nature of writ of Certiorari quashing the noti fication nr1exure- dated 20,6,1996 made in C/ADM 1/96—97 passed by the 2nd respon — dent; ISSUE an order, direction orrit in the nature of writ of Maixianus, directing the respondents more particularly the 2nd and 3rd respondents to admit the petitioner for the study of TCH course in 3rd respondent college, etc. Thi 5 Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary hearing in “B” Group, this cay, the Court made the following : ORDER The question involved in this writ petition reiate to admission of students to T,C.H, Course. Initially all can.dates who have studied Pre University irres — pective of nature of curriculum were eligible for — 3— for admission to T,C.H. Course, With effect from 1996, Rile 3 of the Ri]. framed by the authorities, namely 0 the Kamataka Selection of Candidates for Athdssion to Teacners Certificate hig1cr Course(T.C.H,) and Bachelor of Education Course (B.Ec), 1996, was amended. The proviso to Rile 3 (a) (ii) reeds as fOllows : “Provided further that no person who has passed secondary/Pe-University Vocational Educ ation Course/ Diploma or any other Job Oriented Course shall be eligibl e for aission to T, C .H. Course.” Thereafter a candidate who has t&cen tfle course made mention in the proviso, became Lneligible for being admitted. The validity of the Rules was the subject — matter fore thi 5 Court in 4,P,No. 21006/97 and connected cage, disposed of by this Court on 3rd November, 1997. In the said judgment, thig Court took the view as follows : “In guch circumstarces, the rule ghoul d be made applc able to only those students who have joined the Pre-TJniversity Course after the rule came into force end the rule —4— rule will not apply to those students who have canpieted the PrUniversity Course after the Government notification ded aring them as ui v al ent (Anneu re- F in W,P.o, 21006/97) axx prior to ccuing into force of the rule now in force. With this clarification, the writ peti - tions are disposed of.” The resultant position would be that those stucnts who have completed the Pre-University Course prior to caning into force of the rule now in force, woulo be eligible for T.C. H. admission, Thi 5 Court made a further ciaration in the operative portion of the judgment, which reads thus : “Therefore, I would di rect that the applications submitted by the petitioners may be amineci and conside rca by the .te s pondents for admission to T,C.H, Course within 15 days from today. This deciara — tion is confined to only such of those stidents who sucnit tfleir plications for admission to T,C, H, Course for the year 1997—98.” — 2, In other words? by virtue of the above ceclara — tion 1 . the canoidates who have initte their aWli — cations for admission to p. C, H, Course for the year 1997—98 are eligible to be consioered for admission irres pective of the ft that they have passed econdary/Pre — University Vocational Education Course/ploma or any other Job Oriented Course made mention of in the proviso, referred to above, 3, Thi 5 benit was confined to only those students who have submitted their applic ation for admission to T.C.H. Course for the yr 1997—98. 4. The case of the petitioner is that he is one of guch can(idates, who had submitted his application for T,C,H, Course for the year 1997—98 and he is entitled for the declaration, 5. I have heard Mr, L. Chidenandayya, learned counsel for the petitioner 0 and Mr. N.K h, learned Governmeit Advocate appearing for respondents Nos, 1 —6— Nos, I and 2. In vi of the ciumstee that the petitioner also happens to be a candidate who had sub mitted his p1ication for mission to the T.C.H. Course for the year 1997—9, the benefit of the judgmt referred to above will be conferred on him as well. His p1i — c atiori wi11 at so be nsi de red for edmi g Si on to T. C. H. Course without a1ying the prohioition made mention of in the proviso to Rule 3 referred to above. If he satisfies all other conditions for eligibility for a&ni — ssion, he will considered for admission. The respondents are free to anine the question as to whether the peti — tiener is otherwi se eligible for admis 5 ion to T, C, H, Course without Insisting upon the prohibition made mention of in the proviso referred to above. The writ petition is oisposed of as above. Sd! JUDGE k, 4s /