CW 4298/10 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.4298/2010 Bhavna Choudhary Versus Univ. of Raj. & Ors. Date of Order : 03/05/2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Mahesh Kalwania, for petitioner Mr. JN Sharma, for respondent-2 Institute Dr. YC Sharma, for respondent-University Instant petition has been filed by petitioner with the grievance that she may be permitted to appear in B.Ed. examination being held for academic session 2009-10. Petitioner on having qualified in requisite pre-B.Ed admission test, 2008 was admitted in B.Ed training course for academic year 2008-09 initially in Acharya Chanakya College, Kotputli. But it appears that she has not undertaken studies and under order dt.09/01/09 of this court was transferred to the Institution (respondent-2) in January, 2009. Counsel for petitioner submits that because of petitioner’s physical inability & sickness, she could not appear in the examination held for academic year 2008-09; however, under Ord.326A of the University, she can certainly appear in B.Ed examination of subsequent academic year as an ex-student as defined in Ord.324 to 326A of the University. CW 4298/10 //2// Reply to the writ petition has been filed by respondents inter-alia averring that the petitioner did not attend classes and as per attendance sheet, she attended only 6 classes while Ord.323 provides that a student of B.Ed course has to attend 66% of the periods devoted to physical training, games & sports/dance or similar other activities – in the absence whereof, one is not eligible to appear in the B.Ed examination. Counsel for respondents submits that those being eligible to appear in examination, if for good reasons, are unable to appear, can appear in subsequent year’s examination as provided under Ord.326A of the University; but since the petitioner has not attended requisite classes as defined in Ord.323 of the University and was not even eligible to appear in academic year 2008-09; as such cannot be held eligible to appear as ex-student in subsequent academic year’s examination of B.Ed., 2009-10. This Court has considered rival contentions advanced by Counsel for the parties and with their assistance, examined material on record. Ord.323 of the University being relevant reads ad infra: “Ord.323 – No candidate shall be allowed to appear in the B.Ed examination unless he/she has CW 4298/10 //3// attended 66% of the periods devoted to Physical Training, Games & Sports/Dance or similar other activities.” Thus, Ord.323 clearly provides that for appearing in B.Ed. examination, one has to attend 66% of the periods in academic session; and the students who are eligible & having failed only in practice of teaching or in theory of Education in academic session, under Ord.325 or 326 of the University, are eligible to appear in B.Ed. examination of subsequent year as an ex student under Ord.326A. Indisputably, the petitioner attended only six classes in academic year 2008-09 and there is no material on record which may show that she attended classes as required for one to become eligible for appearing in examination of B.Ed. in terms of Ord.323 of the University – in absence whereof, the petitioner cannot be held to be eligible to appear as an ex-student under the garb of Ord.326A of the University. This Court finds no justification to exercise extra ordinary jurisdiction U/Art.226 of the Constitution. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p3/ 4298CW2010May3DsBEd.doc