IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4968/2007. Nitu Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order:- 31 January 2008. HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Shri Ved Prakash for the petitioner. Shri R.A. Katta for the respondents. **** By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondents No.1 and 2 to consider petitioner as eligible for B.Ed. Course on her obtaining more than 45% marks in B.A. Course. Further prayer made by the petitioner is a direction to the University of Rajasthan to include 56% instead of 36% marks for History subject of B.A. Part-I Examination thereby to award 20 more marks for Part-I of B.A. Examination. The petitioner after completion of B.A. Course submitted an application for her selection in P.T.E.T. Examination, 2007 treating herself to be eligible. She was allowed to appear in the examination and given call letter for counseling vide Annexure-4 however, in the said order 2 SBCWP NO.4968/2007. it was made clear that as per the guidelines provided for the examination, one is required to complete and possess the required qualification. Otherwise, even if a candidate appears in the merit list, her selection will stand cancelled. The grievance of the petitioner is that though for the B.A. Part-I Examination of 2006, minimum qualifying marks of B.A. so provided was 45% for general category candidates and 42% for O.B.C. category candidates but, for P.T.E.T. Examination 2007, such percentage of marks were altered and was kept 50% for general category candidates and 47% for O.B.C. category candidates and its consequence was that petitioner was treated as unqualified. Further grievance raised is that petitioner having appeared in History paper of B.A. Part-I Examination as a due paper, she obtained 56% marks but University has wrongly added only 36% marks in the said subject and resultantly, she could not secure 47% marks. Prayer of the petitioner is that if 20 marks are added in the total marks of B.A. examination then also she qualifies for P.T.E.T. Examination of 2007. This court vide order dated 13/7/2007 passed interim-order in favour of the petitioner to the effect that respondents should permit the petitioner in counseling and result of the counseling shall be subject 3 SBCWP NO.4968/2007. to the decision of this writ petition. It is stated that pursuant to the said order, petitioner appeared for the counseling thus, counsel for the petitioner prayed that matter should be heard finally at an early stage because B.Ed. Course has already been started. In view of the consent of the parties, the matter was taken up for final hearing. Respondent No.2 who had conducted the P.T.E.T. Examination has filed detailed reply stating that as per the guidelines of 2007, minimum eligibility for P.T.E.T. Examination was made known to all concerned inasmuch as, in clause (i), it was clearly provided that a candidate is required to secure 47% percentage of marks if he/she belongs to O.B.C. category. For general category minimum qualifying marks in B.A. was provided as 50%. Submission of the respondent No.2 is that not only the petitioner appeared in the P.T.E.T. Examination but she failed to obtain qualifying marks and her appearance was without any protest and even while filing the writ petition, there exist no challenge of the guidelines which were otherwise prepared as per the instructions. Therefore, respondent No.2 prayed for a summary dismissal of the writ petition as petitioner was not qualified for the P.T.E.T. Examination of 2007. It was also stated that after 4 SBCWP NO.4968/2007. counseling, all the seats have already been filled and in any case, B.Ed. Course is on the advanced stage therefore, admission of the petitioner to the said course should not be permitted not only for the reason that petitioner is not qualified but also for the reason that the B.Ed. Course has gone at advanced stage by now. Preferring to the judgment rendered in SAW No.7113/2005, it was submitted that if any seats are available, then also it is virtually impossible for a candidate to complete the attendance as per the standard/norms. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has also referred to Ordinance 322 of the University of Rajasthan Ordinances to show that the same was the source of conducting the P.T.E.T. examination and not only the Ordinance but even the guidelines framed as per the instructions issued by the N.C.E.T. are not under challenge. A separate reply has been given by the University of Rajasthan stating that as per Ordinance 193(c), petitioner was awarded marks of due paper of History subject hence, claim of the petitioner that he should have been awarded 56 marks in the aforesaid subject instead of 36 marks is not tenable. It was submitted that as and when a candidate fails in a subject on the first occasion and appears in the said subject as due paper then, as per 5 SBCWP NO.4968/2007. Ordinance 193(c) only minimum passing marks of the subjects are allowed and counted. In view of the provisions referred to above, it was prayed that prayer of the petitioner is not sustainable moreso when the aforesaid Ordinance has not been challenged by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner in rejoinder emphasized that the vacancies are still available therefore, the petitioner may be allowed to study B.Ed. Course and if not for this year then respondents be directed to admit her in P.T.E.T. Examination of 2008. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and scanned the material on record. A look to the guidelines for the P.T.E.T. Examination 2007 specifically clause (i) shows that it was made known to all concerned that the minimum qualifying marks of B.A. examination for general category candidates would be 50% whereas for O.B.C. category candidates it would be 47%. Petitioner was admitted in the said examination without any challenge or protest of the guidelines and only when she was declared not to be qualified for the examination, lateron filed this writ petition even without making any prayer to set-aside the 6 SBCWP NO.4968/2007. guidelines so issued by the respondent No.2 for conducting the P.T.E.T. Examination of 2007. This is apart from the fact that those guidelines were framed not only as per the Ordinance 322 of the University Ordinances but also as stated in the reply pursuant to the instructions of N.C.E.T. The position thus, comes out is that in view of the existence of the guidelines for P.T.E.T. Examination 2007, petitioner having secured less than 47% marks in B.A. Examination thus, she cannot be declared to be qualified for those examinations. So far as the second issue is concerned as to whether petitioner should have been awarded 56% marks in the History subject of B.A. Part-I Examination or 36 marks were not rightly counted for the aforesaid subject, a bare reference of Ordinance 139(c) of the University Ordinances shows that as and when candidate appears in a due paper having failed in the subject on first occasion then, only minimum passing marks are to be awarded and not the actual. The petitioner was awarded 36 marks in History paper of B.A. Part-I Examination pursuant to the said provision which is not under challenge. Therefore, the relief claimed by the petitioner that the University of Rajasthan should calculate her total marks after adding 56 marks in History subject of B.A. Part-I Examination 7 SBCWP NO.4968/2007. instead of 36 marks, cannot be accepted being contrary to the provisions and without there being any challenge to the Ordinance. In view of the discussion made above, both the prayers made by the petitioner cannot be accepted hence, the writ petition fails and same is dismissed with no order as to costs. (M.N. BHANDARI), J. anil