HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI S.R.NAYAK, C.J. HON'BLESHRI SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J. Writ Petition (C.lNo.3428 OF 2006 Petitioners Resnondeats Versus 1. 2. 3. Kumari Sonia, Daughter of Shri Shrichand Singh, Age about 19 years 10 months, Permanent resident of Village and Post Lutu, Tehsil Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, Local Address - C/o Parmeshwar Sharma, 751, Adarsh Chowk, Sundar Nagar Raipur, Chhattisgarh Miss Poonain Kumari, Daughter of Shri Data Ram, Age about 19 years 10 months, Permanent resident of Village and Post Charawas, Tehsil Khetadi,' District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, Local address - C/o Parmeshwar Sharma, 751, Adarsh Chowk, sundar nagar Raipur, Chhattisgarh State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh Vyavasaik Pariksha Mandal, through Director, C-168, Tagore Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh The Chairman, B.Ed, Course Adnaission Counseling Committee and Principal, Govemment Education College, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh '<» Present : Shri Sachia Siugh Rajput, learued counsel for fhe petitioners. Shri Prashant Mistu-a, leamed Additioiial AG wifh Shri Utkarsh Venna, learaed Dy GA for the State. (ORAL ORDER) (6THOCTOBER 2006) The foUowiug order of fhe Court was passed by 8-R.Nayak, C.J. The petitiouers having appeared m. fhe pre-B.Ed examiaation conducted by the Chliattisgarh Vyavasaik Pariksha Mandal, ttie 2nd respondent hereiu passed the examiuation aad obtauied 3442 aad 6622 ranks, respectively. The grievance of the petitioners is that though they have ototained ranks 3442 & 6622 in fhe pre- B.Ed. exarmnation, fhey were not admitted to the B.Ed. Course on the ground that they have not coinpleted 20 years ofage as on 31rt Deceniber 2006. In the circum.statice, this writ petitiou is filed under Article 226 of fhe Constitution of India assaiUng the vaUdity of Rule 3 (c ) of Chhattisgarh B.Ed. Admission Rules, 2006 (for short 'Rules') which prescribes fhe muiiuiiun age qualt&cation for the caudidates for admission to B.Ed. Course. (2) We have heard learaed counsel for fhe parties. (3) It was contended by leamed counsel for the petitioners fhat iu fhe notification caUing for appUcations for appearance iu the B.Ed, examination no age qualification was prescribed aud, fherefore, it was totally irrational for fhe 2nd respondent to deny admission on the basis ofthe provisions of Rule 3 ( c) ofthe Rules. It was altematively contended fhat the age qualiflcation prescribed under Rule 3 (c) of fhe Rules is arbitrary, uu reasonable aad it caa not staad the scrutinv ofArticle 14 offhe Constitutiou oflndia. (4) Haviag heard leamed counsel for fhe parties, we do not fiiid auy inerit in. the writ petition, It is weU settled tfaat it is not withio. the doniaui offhe reviewiag Court to caU in question the relevancy and suitability of quali&cations in.cludirig age qualification prescribed for any post or adinission, unless iu a given case it is deinonstrably shown fhat the quali&cation so prescribed by the recruiting/admitting agency is ex fade irrational and fllegal, and fhere is no nexus with the object to be achieved. The B.Ed. graduates are appoiated as teachers to iaipart education ia schools, Therefore, it is T.uiiversaUy accepted fhat fhe teachers should have inatured minrl to impart education to students. In that view ofthe inatter, the a%e qualificatioa prescribed under Rule 3 (c) offtie Rules that caadidates to B.Ed course should have the minimum. svge of 20 years could not be condenuied as faTational aad arbitrarv. (5) The first contention ofthe leamed counsel for the petitioners is required to be uoticed only to be rejected. Even assunung that ia fhe notification caUmg for appUcations from fhe candidates to appear for pre-B.Ed. examination, age quaUfication as reflected ia Rule 3 (c) of fhe Rules was not iucorporated, that circuinstarice itselfwould not iavest aay enforceable right ia fhe petitioners to iusist that regardless of fheir age, fhey should be admitted to ftie B.Ed. course ia utter violation of the niaiidatoiy provisions ofRule 3 (c ) of the Rules. Siace the petitioners seek admission to the B.Ed. course under fhe Rules, they should satisfy the mandatoiy conditions of admission. Admittedly, both the writ petitioners did not possess ^e quaUfication to dpply aud to be considered for 4 admission to B.Ed. course duriag this academic year. The writ petitioBj^_Uierefore, disinissed. No costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice subbu Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge