1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR JUDGMENT Pooja Kumari V/s. State of Rajasthan & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.9343/09 S.B. Civil Writ Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India Date of Judgment :: 18.01.2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN Mr. Ravi Kasliwal for the petitioner. Mr. P.R. Singh ) Mr. Sunil Jain ) Mr. Shashi Bhushan Gupta ) for the respondents. Although this case comes up on an application with a prayer to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner provisional admission in B.Ed. course, but with the consent of learned counsel for the parties this case is being decided finally. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents had issued an advertisement for PTET Examination, 2009. According to the said advertisement, 2 persons studying in Final Year B.A. would be eligible to apply for in the said examination. Since the petitioner was studying in third year B.A., she applied for the same. According to the examination result, she had passed the said examination. Therefore, she was called for first round of counselling by Vardhman Mahaveer Open University, Kota. According to the allotment letter, issued by the Coordinator PTET, the petitioner was required to file her mark-sheet for B.A. III year. However, as the result of B.A. III year was not declared, the petitioner could not file the required mark- sheet. Therefore, respondent No.2, Baba Narsingh Das Mahila T.T. College, refused to admit the petitioner. Since her mark-sheet for the B.A. III year was not available, this petition was filed before this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that it is a case of grave hardship as the result of B.A. III year was declared after the last date for the counselling. He has further contended that since according to the advertisement a person studying in B.A. III years was eligible for participating in the examination, therefore, even if a mark-sheet was not available on the last date of counselling, still the person should be admitted by the college. After all, it is not the fault of the petitioner that the 3 result for B.A. III year was not declared by the concerned authority. Hence, a sympathetic view should be taken and this Court should direct the respondents to admit the petitioner in the B.Ed. Course. Lastly, the petitioner's fees was accepted. The said fees is still lying with the concerned college. Moreover, enough seats are available in the B.Ed. Course, therefore, no prejudice would be caused to anyone, in case the petitioner were admitted to the B.Ed., course. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents, has contended that it was made amply clear in the advertisement itself that the persons would be required to have B.A. III year mark-sheet on the last date of counselling. Since the petitioner did not have the mark-sheet of B.A. III year on the last date of counselling, she was ineligible for admission in the B.Ed., course. Secondly, even if she has passed the B.A. III year, the last date for counselling is long over. Moreover, sympathies of this Court should not be misplaced to the extent that the rules are bent, and direction is issued to the respondents in violation of the rules. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the petitioner cannot be given admission in the B.Ed., course. 4 In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that since the fees is with the college, the respondent should, at least, be directed to return the fees along with interest. Heard, the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. A bare perusal of the advertisement dated 12th April, 2009 clearly reveals that the respondent had made it amply clear that a person would be required to have his/her mark-sheet of B.A. III year on the last date of counselling. Admittedly, the petitioner did not have her mark-sheet of B.A. III year on the last date of counselling. Therefore, obviously, she did not possess the eligibility requirement. Since she was ineligible, the respondents were certainly justified in rejecting her admission. Moreover, merely because her fees has been accepted would not make the doctrine of estoppel applicable to this case. For, there is no estoppel against any statute. Furthermore, even if she has passed her III Year B.A. Course, she cannot be declared to be eligible as the result was not available on the last date of counselling. At best, the petitioner is entitled to receive the fees that has been deposited by her to the college. 5 In this view of the matter, the college is directed to return the fees to the petitioner along with the interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of depositing of the fees with the college. The amount shall be paid within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed off. [R.S.CHAUHAN]J A.Asopa/