CW – 3022/06 - Smt. Sukhi Mali Vs. State & Ors. : Order dt.19.3.2008 1/4 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3022/2006 Smt. Sukhi Mali Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of order : 19th March, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. Mahipal Vishnoi for Mr. Rakesh Arora for the petitioner. Mr. A.K. Rajvanshi for the respondents. Mr. S.S. Sadrecha, Addl. Government Counsel. --------- 1. Heard learned counsels. 2. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner seeking admission in B.S.T.C. Course which was refused to the petitioner vide Annex.5 dated 31.5.2006 by the respondent No.3, District Institution of Education Training (DIET), Bagadi Nagar, District Pali on the ground that the examination passed by the petitioner from Gujarat Secondary Education Board did not have English as a subject and without that the petitioner could not be admitted in the said B.S.T.C. Course. The petitioner has come with the case that subsequently the petitioner could pass the subject English also from the Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan vide Annex.2 Senior Secondary Marksheet dated 19th May, 2005 and from the Board of CW – 3022/06 - Smt. Sukhi Mali Vs. State & Ors. : Order dt.19.3.2008 2/4 Secondary Education Rajasthan, Secondary School Examination 2006 vide marksheet dated 5th June, 2006. 3. By the interim order of this Court dated 6th July, 2006, the petitioner was allowed to appear in the B.S.T.C. Examination while admitting this writ petition. By subsequent order dated 27.6.2007 passed by the coordinate Bench, the Court allowed the petitioner to apply for the Second Year B.S.T.C. Examination also this was so done because it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that last date for filing such application for Second Year B.S.T.C. was to expire on that date itself. Again on 23rd July, 2007 another learned Single Judge of this Court directed the respondents to permit the petitioner in Second Year B.S.T.C. Correspondence Course Examination provisionally subject to decision of this writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner informs that the petitioner has now completed the Two Years B.S.T.C. under the orders of this Court. Learned counsel for the State however, submits that no right came to be vested in the petitioner on account of such interim orders passed by this Court and since at the date of admission into the said course she was not entitled as she had not passed the CW – 3022/06 - Smt. Sukhi Mali Vs. State & Ors. : Order dt.19.3.2008 3/4 mandatory examination of English, the petitioner is not entitled to any final relief in the matter. 5. Mr. A.K. Rajvanshi appearing for the respondent No.4, Registrar, Vardhman Mahaveer Open University, Kota submits that the respondent No.4 has been absolutely unnecessarily impleaded in the present writ petition as they have no concern in the matter and the said B.S.T.C. Course is not conducted by them at all and they have no lis in the matter with the present petitioner. 6. Having heard learned counsel at bar this Court is of the opinion that since the petitioner has now been allowed to undertake the said course and appear in both years examination of B.S.T.C., under the order of this Court only, it would cause serious prejudice to her if at this stage it is held against her that she was not even entitled to enter into the said course. Therefore, without going into the merit of the contention of the petitioner as to whether she was eligible or not on account of aforesaid reason, this Court is inclined to dispose of this writ petition by holding that if the petitioner has already appeared in both the years examination of B.S.T.C. let her result be announced by the respondent No.3. CW – 3022/06 - Smt. Sukhi Mali Vs. State & Ors. : Order dt.19.3.2008 4/4 7. Since the respondent No.4 has been impleaded unnecessarily in the present writ petition, to this extent it is a clear abuse of process of this Court by the petitioner qua respondent No.4 who has been unnecessarily dragged into this litigation. Learned counsel for the respondent Mr. A.K. Rajvanshi, therefore, prays for imposition of the cost upon the petitioner. Though the prayer of the respondent No.4 appears to be justified, in view of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that this was on account of inadvertent and bonafide mistake of the counsel in having impleaded the respondent No.4, no cost is imposed at this stage, however, with a note of caution to the counsel that in case such mistake is repeated, this Court may consider imposition of exemplary cost even upon the counsel. 8. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.48 babulal/-