IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 958 of 2008 (M/S) Km. Seewani D/O Sri Vinod Sharma, R/O Madhu Vinod Niketan, Kharkhari, District Haridwar. …… Petitioner. Versus Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University, Srinagar, Garhwal (Uttarakhand), through its Registrar. …Respondent. Sri Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri J.P.Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent-University. Date June 13, 2008. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Stay Application) Sri Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J.P.Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the condition no. 3 of the eligibility criteria containing in the advertisement dated 17-5-2008 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition). (ii) Issue any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case be passed in favour of the petitioner. (iii) Cost of the petition be awarded in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent-University has produced the Norms and Standards for Secondary Teacher Education Programme leading to Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) 2 Degree contained in Appendix-4, issued by the National Council for Teachers’ Education. The same be kept on record. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has appeared in the examination of B.Sc. (Final Year) conducted by the respondent University. The respondent has issued advertisement for admission to B.Ed. in the daily Newspaper dated 17-5-2008 and the respondent has imposed a condition that only graduate degree holders can apply for the entrance test as per condition no.3 in the eligibility criteria. The grievance of the petitioner is that the clause 3 of the eligibility criteria, which makes only the graduate degree holders eligible to apply for B.Ed. Entrance Examination. Learned counsel appearing for the Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna University has submitted that the condition no. 3 was put in the advertisement as per norms and standards for Secondary Teacher Education Programme Leading to Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) Degree. In the said guidelines, the Eligibility for the B.Ed. course has been mentioned as under:- 3.2 Eligibility 3.2.1 Candidates with at least 45% marks either in the Bachelor’s Degree and/or in the Master’s degree or any other qualification equivalent thereto, are eligible for admission to the programme. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner had appeared in the B.Sc. Final Year examination conducted by the respondent University. The result of the B.Sc. Final Year is awaited. Prior to declaring the results, the respondnt University has invited the applications for entrance examination of Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) course fixing the last date as 16-6- 3 2008, so that the petitioner cannot appear in the B.Ed. Entrance Examination. It has been further contended that it is the fault of the University not to declare the result and it is violation of fundamental right of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the University-respondent has vehemently urged that the advertisement was made in conformity with the Norms and Standards fixed for the B.Ed. Degree Course by the National Council for Teachers’ Education (N.C.T.E.). Para 3.2.1 of the Norms and Standards fixed by the N.C.T.E. provides for eligibility for the B.Ed. Course whereby candidates with at least 45% marks either in the Bachelor’s Degree and/or in the Master’s degree are eligible for the admission to B.Ed. course and the condition No. 3 in the eligibility criteria in the advertisement was made accordingly. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that as per own averment made by the petitioner that she had appeared in the B.Sc. Final Year examination, she is not having the requisite graduation degree on today. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the guide-lines of the N.C.T.E. would apply when the University grants admission to the candidates to B.Ed. course and the same would not be applicable for entrance examination. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived and not acceptable in view of the eligibility clause No. 3.2.1 of the N.C.T.E., referred to above. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed that the guidelines of the N.C.T.E. are applicable to B. Ed. course, but in the writ petition the eligibility clause fixed by N.C.T.E. for B.Ed. Degree course has not been assailed by the petitioner. It is pertinent to mention that condition no. 1 in the advertisement also refers to the norms and standards fixed by N.C.T.E., which 4 provides that the candidates should possess a bachelor’s degree or Post-graduate degree with 45% marks in any of the streams mentioned in condition no.1. While parting with the order, it may be mentioned that for admission to B.Ed. course it is a condition precedent that the candidates must possess Bachelor’s Degree or Master’s Degree with at least 45% marks. The qualification is not merely a Bachelor’s Degree or Master’s Degree, hence the respondent University has rightly put the condition no.3 in follow up action of the guidelines of N.C.T.E., which have not been assailed in the writ petition. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, I am of the view that the writ petition challenging the condition no.3 of the advertisement issued by the respondent-University for admission to B.Ed. Course-2008 is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed outright at the threshold. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP 5 6