SBCWP NO.2794/09. SBCWP NO.1051/09. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR O R D E R 1) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2794/2009. Vijay Kishore Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1051/2009. Kumari Kusum Kochar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Date of order:- May 8, 2009. Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri Biri Singh Sinsinwar and Shri Himanshu Agnihotri for the petitioners. Shri Pradeep Kalwania, Additional Govt.Counsel. Shri R.A. Katta for the respondents. **** These two writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not allowing them to participate in the counseling for admission to BSTC/NTT (Sanskrit) Course. 2) It is contended that respondents invited applications for appearing in the NIT (Sanskrit) Pre-Entrance Examination, 2008. Petitioners SBCWP NO.2794/09. SBCWP NO.1051/09. 2 applied in response to such notice and they were allowed to appear in the examination conducted on 15/6/2008. Respondents issued call letters to all the successful candidates on 21/11/2008. According to the petitioners, call letters were actually dispatched on 24/11/2008 in SBCWP No.1051/09 which were said to have been received by the petitioners on 1/12/2008 and to the ptetioners in SBCWP No.2794/09 on 29/30.12.2008, respectively whereas, by that time counselling already took place on 27/11/2008. In these circumstances, petitioners were deprived of their right to admission. Learned counsel submitted that the counseling was only meant to verify original documents and there was no certainty to the interview. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Arun Kumar & Anr. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. : SBCWP No.456/2009 decided on 9/2/2009 and argued that the aforesaid writ petition was allowed with direction to the respondents to hold the counseling of the petitioners and if found suitable and eligible they may be given admission to the BSTC/NIT/Course, 2008 and petitioners were SBCWP NO.2794/09. SBCWP NO.1051/09. 3 directed to appear before the Controller of Examination, Government College, Ajmer on 24/2/2009 along with all their required documents. SBCWP NO.2794/09. SBCWP NO.1051/09. 4 3) Learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the writ petitions and argued that judgment of Arun Kumar, supra on which reliance has been placed has been assailed by the respondents in appeal before the Division Bench being DBSAW No.219/2009 (The B.S.T.C. /N.T.T. / B.S.T.C. (Sanskrit) Pre Test-2008 Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) and the Division Bench vide order dated 6/4/2009 while admitting the appeal stayed operation of the aforesaid judgment. It is contended that admission process was completed on 29/11/2008. Learned counsel submitted that Division Bench of this Court in M.D.S. University, Ajmer & Anr. Vs. Smt.Anju Mittal (DBSAW No.1113/2005) decided on 2/1/2006 held that even if seats were available in any college, it would be virtually impossible for the respondent to complete the attendance as per the standards/norms fixed by the NCTE. I the circumstances, the respondent has no option but to wait for admission in the next session. 4) On facts, I find that petitioners may be justified in complaining that respondents were lacking while not timely dispatching the call SBCWP NO.2794/09. SBCWP NO.1051/09. 5 letters due to which they could not appear for counseling and consequently, they could not be allocated to any college/institute however, it is also a fact that almost six months have gone since commencement of the said court and in view of the ratio of the judgment of Division Bench in M.D.S. University, Ajmer supra and the judgment of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Arun Kumar supra, requiring now the respondents to give admission to the petitioners, would be a forcible asking them to violate the norms/standards of NCTE and petitioners in any case would be able to complete the requisite number of teaching days. Judgment of this Court in Arun Kumar supra which is subject-matter of challenge in appeal, operation of which, has been stayed in that appeal, cannot be for that reason made basis to pass similar judgment in favour of the petitioners. In view of above discussion, both the writ petitions are dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. SBCWP NO.2794/09. SBCWP NO.1051/09. 6 anil