1 1. SWETA JAIN & ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4917/09) 2. NIDHI SAINI & ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4612/09) 3. REETA MISHRA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. (S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5046/09) Dated:- 17.11.09 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr. Sandeep Saruparia , for the petitioners. Mr. Sandeep Bhandawat, Government Counsel. Mr. P.S.Chundawat, for the respondent no. 3 (in writ petition no.4917/09 & 4612/09). 1. In these writ petitions, the petitioners who were admitted to Diploma in Technical Education in the respondent Polytechnic Colleges are aggrieved by refusal of the respondent no. 1 and 2 to enroll them on the ground that they have less than 45% marks in Science and Maths at secondary level examination. 2. The petitioners having more than 45% marks at secondary level were granted admission in first year of Diploma in Technical Education in the respondent no.3-Institution . The petitioners no. 1 to 9 in writ petition no. 4917/09 were admitted to Shri Jawar Mahila Polytechnic College, Dausa , petitioners no. 1 to 3 in writ petition in 4612/09 were admitted to Vivekanand Institute of Technical Education, Girls Polytechnic College, Bhilwara and petitioner in writ petition no. 5046/09 was admitted to Swasthya Kalyan Women Polytechnic College, Tonk. The petitioners in all 2 these writ petitions have more than 45% marks in aggregate in the secondary level examination but their marks in subject of Science & Mathematics are less than 45% and for this reason alone they have been refused enrollment. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the first instance the respondent no. 1 and 2 issued a notification dated 19.9.07 whereby the condition of obtaining 45% marks in Science & Maths. was relaxed to the extent of 40% for the academic session 2007-08. It is not in dispute that for the academic session 2008-09 no such relaxation was granted. However, the petitioners though having less than 40% marks in the subjects Science & Maths. were admitted to the first year of Diploma course for academic sessions 2008-09 by the respondent no.3 Institution in each writ petition. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of the admissions granted by the respondent Institution, the petitioners are pursuing their studies and they did not look for admission in any other course. It is submitted that the petitioners are pursuing their studies and have already appeared in the first year examination therefore, if at this stage, they are refused enrollment then their entire year will go waste. It is submitted by the learned counsel that for the academic session 2009-10 again even the requirement of 45% marks in aggregate stands relaxed by the respondent no.1 and 2 therefore, there is absolutely no 3 reason as to why the petitioners and their likes who have been granted admission for the academic session 2008-09 should be deprived of the benefit of relaxation. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that it is settled law that in the academic matters, normally the court should be slow to interfere with a decision taken by the experts for academic excellence. It is submitted by the learned counsel that admittedly, no relaxation in percentage of marks in Science & Maths. was granted for the academic session 2008-09 therefore,the petitioners are not entitled for any relief and they have been rightly refused the enrollment. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioners were not fulfilling the eligibility qualification therefore, the respondent Institution should not have granted the admission to the petitioners in the course . 6. I have considered the rival submissions. 7. Indisputably, the petitioners not possessing the requisite percentage of marks in subjects Science & Maths. in qualifying examination, in absence of any notification granting relaxation, could not have been granted admission by the respondent Institution. But then, it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners have obtained admission by committing fraud or any misrepresentation. That apart admittedly, the condition of 4 obtaining 45% marks in Science & Maths. was relaxed to the extent of 40% by the respondents for the academic session 2007- 08 and for the academic session 2009-10 the requirement of 45% marks in the qualifying examination as such as been relaxed. In these circumstances, there is no reason as to why the petitioners who have pursued the studies of the course during the entire academic session 2008-09 and have already appeared in the first year examination should be deprived of the benefits thereof at this stage. Obviously, if the petitioners are denied enrollment at this stage, for no fault on their part, their entire year will go waste.Thus, having regard to totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, in considered opinion of this court, it will be unjust to deny the petitioners the benefits of the studies they are pursuing, particularly when the condition of requirement of 45% marks in the subjects Science & Mathematics again stands relaxed for the academic year 2009-10. 8. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. The respondent no.1 and 2 are directed to enroll the petitioners and permit them to pursue the diploma course in Technical Education to which they were admitted. Needless to say that the result of the petitioners of the first year examination wherein they have appeared in pursuance of the interim order granted by this court shall be declared forthwith. No order as to costs. (SANGEET LODHA),J.