D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.297/09 Bhagwana Ram Suthar & ors. vs. The State of Raj. & ors . 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. JUDGMENT Bhagwana Ram Suthar vs. The State of Raj. & ors. & ORS. D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 297/2009 under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 against the judgment dated 16.2.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge, in SBC Writ Petition NO.01275/09. Date of Order:- May 26th,2009. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH TATIA. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI. Mr. Hanuman Singh & Mr. Rajat Dave for the appellants. Mr. P.R. Singh for the respondents. BY THE COURT ( Per Hon'ble Mr.Tatia,J.): 40 writ petitioners preferred joint writ petition No.01275/09 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 16.2.2009 after observing that even 4th round of counseling for admission in B.Ed.Coure is already completed and the petitioners D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.297/09 Bhagwana Ram Suthar & ors. vs. The State of Raj. & ors . 2 are claiming admission on the ground that they were denied admission after appearing in the 2nd round of counseling. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 16.2.2009 permitted the petitioners to submit representation to the Coordinator, PTET Examination, JNVU, Jodhpur so that their representation may be considered. Similar orders were passed in several other writ petitions. Not satisfied with the similar orders passed by the learned Single Judge,several D.B. Civil Special Appeals have been preferred and one of the D.B.Civil Special Appeal No.295/09-Ravi Kant Beniwal v. JNVU, Jodhpur & ors., was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 6.4.2009 after accepting the contention of the respondents that the last admission given to the candidate who secured 320 marks and the petitioner in that case secured 319 marks. Five D.B. Special Appeals along with D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.328/09-Nanak Ram and anr. v. State of Raj. & anr. were also dismissed by this Court along with other connected appeals vide order dated 24.4.2009 (in which one of us Mr. Prakash Tatia,J was party to the judgment). Thereafter, this Bench dismissed the D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.297/09 Bhagwana Ram Suthar & ors. vs. The State of Raj. & ors . 3 D.B.Civil Special Appeal No.350/09-Anil Kumar vs. State today, wherein also the similar order was under challenge. Since the present writ petition preferred by the 40 candidates was dismissed in limine, therefore, the respondents submitted reply to the writ petition in appeal raising preliminary objection that the joint writ petition is not maintainable as the 40 petitioners belonging to different categories,viz., Schedule Caste, Schedule Tribe, OBC and General Category, for which different cut out marks were fixed for being eligible to take part in counseling at different stages of counseling and, therefore, fact of each petitioner's case is different, hence, writ petition preferred by 40 petitioners deserves to be dismissed on this ground. It is also submitted that some of the petitioners took part upto 4th round of counseling, whereas some of the petitioners were eligible upto 2nd and 3rd round of counseling and were not allowed to take part in 4th round of counseling. Therefore, the every petitioner has his own individual case and, therefore, also the writ petition of the petitioners is not maintainable. It is also submitted that names of the petitioners have been given but their category has not been D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.297/09 Bhagwana Ram Suthar & ors. vs. The State of Raj. & ors . 4 disclosed in the writ petition. It is submitted that, for example, in 4th round of counseling when petitioner no.1 opted for the Vishva Bharti, T.T. College, Sardarsahar, the last admission accorded was to the person having 327 marks and as per the documents annexed with the writ petition, most of the students did not opt for the said institution. It is submitted that the petitioner-appellants no.1,2,4,7,9,11,16,22,23,27,28,31,32,33 and 40 are belonging to Other Backward Caste Category and as per their option for the college, they were not entitled to the said college as they had lesser marks for giving admission in the institution of their choice. The same is position for the petitioners, number of which has been given in para 5 of the reply and the respondents identified the petitioners who were belonging to Schedule Tribe Category and the General Category and submitted that in totality, they were not eligible for admission on the basis of their marks. Looking to the totality of the facts of the case, we are of the view that the petitioners' joint writ petition itself was not maintainable and since it was dismissed in limine, therefore, issue has not been noticed by the learned Single Judge. D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.297/09 Bhagwana Ram Suthar & ors. vs. The State of Raj. & ors . 5 At this juncture, it will be relevant to mention here that as per the learned counsel for the petitioners, there were total 72,000/- seats for the B.Ed Course in the State of Rajasthan. The first round of counseling took place on 5.10.2008 and after first round of counseling,total 5226 seats remained unfilled and 7000 candidates were waiting for the admission. Then 2nd and 3rd rounds of counseling were conducted and thereafter in view of the order dated 12.12.2008 passed by the High Court, in another petition, some more seats became available and after 4th round of counseling, which is the last round, net result remained is that 628 seats remained vacant in the women colleges where only women candidates could have been given admission. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, because of faulty procedure adopted by the respondents, at one side there are 628 seats lying vacant in the women colleges whereas several women candidates have been given admission in the Co-Ed. B.Ed. Colleges. In women colleges, no male student could have been given admission, therefore, the male students could not get admission in any college inspite of the fact that the petitioners gave their choice for D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.297/09 Bhagwana Ram Suthar & ors. vs. The State of Raj. & ors . 6 admission to any college in the State. The net result is that inspite of 628 vacant sets for B.Ed. Course, a few number of male students could not get the admission. It is submitted that the petitioners gave their choice not for a particular college but gave their choice under the head “any where”, yet they have been denied admission. The grievance of the petitioner-appellants may be just but the process for giving admission to a particular course is required to be completed within a reasonable period and it cannot be stretched and extended to indefinite period. Admittedly, the seats were increased because of the fact that some orders were passed by the High Court and because of which some educational institutions became eligible to give admission to the students to the B.Ed. Course and because of that reason, the process delayed and during this process, the girls were given admission in the Co- Ed. institutions as at the relevant time, the seats were not available in girls colleges. This position may be the position for the year in question and accrued because of the peculiar facts and circumstances which includes increase of seats and several rounds D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.297/09 Bhagwana Ram Suthar & ors. vs. The State of Raj. & ors . 7 of counseling for the allotment of the seats in B.Ed. Colleges after entrance test. The petitioners, at this belated stage, cannot be given any relief because it will result into reshuffling of large number of students in mid of session and if it is to be done then that can be done only with the consent of the girls students who already took admission in different educational institutions. At the most, we may expect from the respondents that in future, they will evolve a proper procedure so as to to avoid the situation wherein the students are denied admission inspite of availability of several seats for the course in question. With these observations, the appeal of the appellants is dismissed. No costs. ( VINEET KOTHARI),J. (PRAKASH TATIA),J. mlt.