IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated:- 22.01.2011 Coram:- THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAJA Writ Petition No.22687 of 2010 and M.P. No.1 of 2010 S.M.Naseema Parveen ... Petitioner vs. 1. The Director, The Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai-6. 2. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu B.Ed. Admissions Single Window Counselling 2010-11, Lady Willington College of Advanced Study in Education, Chennai 5. ... Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the relief as stated therein. For petitioner : Mr.V.Jeevagiridharan For respondents : Mrs.Dakshayini Reddy, Addl. Government Pleader. O R D E R The petitioner herein-S.M.Naseema Parveen, by filing this writ petition, seeks for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to allot to her a seat in B.Ed. Tamil Course in the Government College of Women at Coimbatore for the academic year 2010- 2011. 2. Mr.V.Jeevagiridharan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, points out that the petitioner, who belongs to Backward Community (Muslim) with graduation in B.A. Tamil, applied for B.Ed (Tamil) Degree Course for the year 2010-11 and the selection was by Single Window System based on counselling in the order of rank and communal reservations. The petitioner, a native of Coimbatore, opted https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for admission in the Government College of Education at Coimbatore, which was allotted, in total, 120 seats for various subjects, out of which, 10 seats were earmarked for B.Ed Tamil. Learned counsel further points out that the petitioner, who obtained 85.769 marks and was called upon, by intimation dated 17.08.2010, to attend the counselling to be held on 24.08.2010 at Lady Willington Institute of Advanced Study in Education at Chennai, attended the counselling and awarded with 4th ranking in General Category and she expressed her option to join the course at the Government College of Education for Women at Coimbatore. While so, out of 3 candidates standing ahead in the ranking, one candidate opted to join the Coimbatore College and the other two candidates chose to join other colleges and the petitioner, being the 2nd person opting to join the Coimbatore College in the General (O.C.) category, was not allotted seat in the said College and she was asked to join some other college. The petitioner was very particular to join the Coimbatore College because of the reason that she is a native of Coimbatore and after marriage, she has a baby to look after. So pointing out, learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the prospectus, wherein it is shown that 31% is reserved for O.C. Category and by stating that out of the 14 seats, only one candidate under O.C. General Category was given admission in the college in question and that the petitioner, who stood at Rank No.2 in opting the said college was denied admission unjustly, vehemently contended that the respondents did not apply the communal reservation method in the case of the petitioner while filing up the seats. Under such circumstances, it is prayed that this Court may issue a direction to the respondent to allot a seat to the petitioner in the Coimbatore College for B.Ed. Tamil course for the academic year 2010-11. 3. Per contra, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that only 10 seats were allotted to the Government College of Education, Coimbatore, for Tamil and out of those 10 seats, 3 were ear-marked for General (OC) Category and that too was also subject to 3% reservation for Physically Handicapped as provided in G.O.Ms. No.185, Higher Education Department, dated 13.06.2005. Further, under Physically Handicapped Quota, two candidates were allotted seats in General (OC) Category in the Coimbatore College. Under such circumstances, since 3 seats were to be filled up with General (OC) Category subject to the above said G.O. Ms. No.185, dated 13.06.2005 and two seats came to be filled up under 3% physically Handicapped Quota by virtue of G.O. Ms. No.182, Higher Education (G1) Department, dated 07.07.2010, the petitioner could not be given a seat in the opted college and therefore, she was asked to join some other college in Coimbatore itself under BC (Muslim) Community Quota, however, she adamantly refused to join any college other than the opted one. Learned Additional Government Pleader further highlighted that the petitioner applied under BC (Muslim) Category for B.Ed Tamil Degree Course 2010-11 and as per Roaster System, under the said Category i.e., BC Muslim, no seat has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ been allotted to the Coimbatore College so as to accommodate her under the community quota. Therefore, the petitioner cannot say that she was unjustly denied admission in the opted college. In spite of the proposal to join some other college in Coimbatore, it was the petitioner who refused to join the course, therefore, she cannot now allege bias on the part of the respondents stating that communal reservation method was not followed and she was prejudiced in not being allotted a seat in a college at the native place where she lives with family. Thus, there being absolutely no merit in the claim of the petitioner, learned Additional Government Pleader prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Having heard the counsels on either side and upon perusing the materials available on record, even at the outset, I am of the view that the contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader deserves acceptance. It is seen that the guidelines governing Admission to B.Ed. Courses for the year 2010-11 came to be framed after the recommendations made by the Director of Collegiate Education having regard to various aspects including the judgment of the High Court regarding Government Quota and pendency of a special leave petition before the Apex Court. In the case on hand, out of 10 seats for B.Ed. Tamil course allotted to the Government College of Education, Coimbatore, 3 were to be filled up with General (OC) Category subject to G.O. Ms.No.185, Higher Education Department, dated 13.06.2005. Out of those 3 seats, 2 seats were filled up under 3% quota meant for Physically Handicapped Persons in terms of G.O. Ms. No.182, Higher Education (G1) Department, dated 07.07.2010. Thus, there remains one seat under the OC Category. It is the definite case, as borne out by papers, that the petitioner could not compete for the said one seat under the OC Category, as admittedly, another candidate by name R.E.Uma Maheswari who was allotted the remaining one seat had secured 88.15 marks whereas the petitioner obtained only 85.769 marks. Under such circumstances, the petitioner who was standing in the next ranking could not be considered for allotment of seat in the opted college under O.C. General Category. Even under B.C. (Muslim) Category, she could not be accommodted since the college in question was not allotted any seat under 'BC Muslim' Category, however, considering the ranking of the petitioner, she was asked by the authorities to join any other college in the Coimbatore District itself. In the letter of the 2nd respondent vide Na.Ka. No.1368/D/10, dated 11.10.2010, it is specifically pointed out that the petitioner quit the counselling without even returning the OMR Form and other Applications refusing to join any college other than the opted one in Coimbatore. That being so, the contention that the petitioner case was not considered under the community quota so as to accommodate her in the opted college seems to be so vague particularly when it is borne out by records that no seat was allotted to the college under BC Muslim Quota. The petitioner cannot even complain that she would be put to hardship if seat is allotted to her in a college outside her native place/Coimbatore, since the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondents had asked the petitioner to join in any of the colleges in Coimbatore and not in other Districts. It is also reported that the single Window Counselling is already over and colleges have also been opened on 06.09.2010. Thus, this Court does not find any substance in the case and claim of the petitioner and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. In the result, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar //true copy// Sub Asst.Registrar JI. To 1. The Director, The Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai-6. 2. The Secretary,Tamil Nadu B.Ed. Admissions Single Window Counselling 2010-11, Lady Willington College of Advanced Study in Education, Chennai 5. 1 cc to Mr.V.Jeevagiridharan, Advocate, Sr.No.4809 1 cc to Government Pleader, Sr.No.5069 Order in WP No.22687/10 TRM {CO} TP/15.2.2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/