IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17286 of 2008 VIJAYA KUMARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr Vipin Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr Prashant Choudhary, Assistant Cou8nsel to GP 7 -------- 4. 28.01.2009 Heard leaned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. Despite the order dated 11.12.2008 and the observations made therein as also the order dated 13.1.2009 no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent State. This Court is, therefore, not inclined to grant any further indulgence to the respondents and proceeds to dispose off the writ application on basis of materials on record applying the principles of non traverse. The petitioner claims to be an applicant for admission to the Primary Teachers Training Course ion the Women Teachers Training College, Rambagh, Muzaffarpur in response to an advertisement issued on 13.8.2008. The advertisement at Annexure 1 reflects 50 seats in women category. The petitioner claims to be an Upshashtri in Sanskrit from Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University. Her grievance is that notwithstanding the government circular/regulation dated 29.5.1968 reserving 10% of the vacancy for those having qualification in Sanskrit i.e. five seats, the respondents did not incorporate such requirement in the advertisement. Likewise the regulation/circular of 1968 provides for 7% reservation for those possessing qualification in Urdu and which has in fact been given and admission provided to those holding qualification in Urdu on that basis. Refusal and/or failure of the respondents to file counter affidavit leaves this Court with the only conclusion that the respondents were equally aware of the government circular dated 29.5.1968 with regard to 10% reservation in admission to those holding qualification in Sanskrit and 7% reservation of seats for those possessing qualification in Urdu. While the later is alleged to have been acted upon the former has been ignored. The Court holds that it is impermissible for the respondents to do so. The advertisement issued on 13.8.2008 has to be read in context of the circular dated 29.5.1968 in its entirety, whether it be in its application or rejection and it cannot be read in truncated manner to allow the respondents to implement the circular dated 29.5.1968 according to their own choice. At this stage the Court only considers it proper to reiterate what was observed in the order dated 13.1.2009 that the circular dated 29.5.1968 does not find reference in the advertisement. In that context the observations made by this Court on 11.12.2008 with regard to those granted admission in the 7% seats reserved for Urdu candidates shall also have to be appropriately considered by the government. The writ application is disposed off with a direction to respondent no. 5 to examine the candidature of the petitioner in accordance with law and in light of discussions as aforesaid and take an appropriate decision within a period of one month, considering the submission that the Session is stated to have commenced in the first week of January 2009, from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. In the event of an order prejudicial to the petitioner, the respondent no. 5 shall be required to pass a reasoned and speaking order. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)