Santosh Saini Vs. Co-ordinator, PTET-09 & Anr. (S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1987/2010) 1 Santosh Saini Vs. Co-ordinator, PTET-09 & Anr. (S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1987/2010) Dated : 5.3.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr Mahesh Saini, for the petitioner. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking directions to the respondents to grant her admission in B.Ed. Course in Shri Bhaghat Singh Shikshak Prakshishan Mahavidhyalaya, Nawa City, District Nagaur, (hereinafter 'respondent-institution') or any other institution where the seats are lying vacant. 2. The petitioner appeared in PTET Examination, 2009, and qualified for second round of counseling. The petitioner was allotted respondent- institution for admission to the B.Ed. Course. However, she was denied admission by the respondent-institution on the ground that she was not holding the requisite qualification on the cut off date i.e. 2.8.09. It is submitted that the result of the supplementary examination of B.A. Part III of the petitioner was declared on 22.11.09 and thereafter she approached the Principal of the respondent-institution, but she was not granted admission on the ground that she was not holding the requisite qualification as on the cut off date i.e. 2.8.09. It is submitted that even after declaration of result of supplementary examination fourth round of the counseling was in progress and, therefore, there was no reason to deny the admission to the petitioner who had already deposited registration and admission fee in pursuance of allotment of college in Santosh Saini Vs. Co-ordinator, PTET-09 & Anr. (S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1987/2010) 2 second round of counseling. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner was not holding the requisite qualification on the cut off date i.e. 2.8.09 fixed by the respondent for second round of counseling, therefore, indisputably, the petitioner was not entitled to be admitted to B.Ed. Course as she was not holding the requisite qualification. It is not the case of the petitioner that the cut off date for acquiring requisite qualification was further extended by the respondents in the third and fourth round of the counseling. Admittedly, the petitioner's supplementary examination result was declared on 22.11.09 and, therefore, if the petitioner was denied participation in fourth round of the counseling, then, she should have approached the Court with most expedition. At this stage, when the admission process is over and the academic session has already started, no indulgence can be granted by this Court to the petitioner in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, if the petitioner's admission has been cancelled on account of lack of eligibility qualification as on the cut off date, then, the admission fee deposited by the petitioner deserves to be refunded. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with the observation as above. (SANGEET LODHA), J. vij