Kunj Bhihari Saini S/O Shri Puran ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 6267 Raj/2

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR

                     S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2675/2020

1.        Kunj Bhihari Saini S/o Shri Puran Mal Saini, Aged About
          20 Years, By Caste - Saini, R/o Village - Kesarisinghpura,
          Tehsil-Baswa, District- Dausa, Rajasthan.
2.        Abhay Kumar Dargas S/o Shri Umeed Singh Gurjar, Aged
          About 20 Years, By Caste- Gurjar, R/o Village-Ralawata,
          Tehsil-Baswa, District- Dausa, Rajasthan.
                                                                                  ----Petitioners
                                              Versus
1.        State Of Rajasthan, Through Collector, Collector Dausa,
          Dausa Rajasthan
2.        Sub Division Officer, Tehsil Bandikui, District Dausa,
          Rajasthan.
3.        Station House Officer (S.h.o), Police Station Baswa,
          District Dausa, Rajasthan
4.        Police Superintendent, District- Dausa, Rajasthan.
5.        Director, Pandit Badri Parsad T.t. Collage, E-1, Ricco
          Industrial         Area        Kolana,         Bandikui,          District-        Dausa,
          Rajasthan
6.        Principal, Pandit Badri Parsad T.t. Collage, E-1, Ricco
          Industrial         Area        Kolana,         Bandikui,          District-        Dausa,
          Rajasthan
7.        Chairperson, National Council For Teacher Education, G-7,
          Sector -10 Dwarka, New Delhi-110075.
8.        Regional Director Ncet, National Council For Teacher
          Education, G-7, Sector -10 Dwarka, New Delhi-110075.
9.        Commissioner Collage Education, Shiksha Sankul, J.l.n.
          Marg, Jaipur.
10.       University Of Rajasthan, Through Its Registrar, University
          Of Rajasthan, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
                                                                              ----Respondents

Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6968/2020 Jai Lal Meena S/o Shri Panna Lal Meena, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Sabdawali Dhani Veerpal, Tehsil-Baswa, District- Dausa, Rajasthan.

(D.B. SAW/954/2021 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(2 of 8) [CW-2675/2020]

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Collector, Collector Dausa, Dausa Rajasthan.

2. Sub Division Officer, Tehsil Bandikui, District Dausa Rajasthan.

3. Station House Officer (S.h.o), Police Station Baswa, District Dausa Rajasthan.

4. Police Superintendent, District Dausa Rajasthan.

5. Director, Pandit Badri Prasad T.t. College, E-1, Ricco Industrial Area Kolana, Bandikui, District Dausa Rajasthan.

6. Principal, Pandit Badri Prasad T.t. College, E-1, Ricco Industrial Area Kolana, Bandikui, District Dausa Rajasthan.

7. Chairperson, National Council For Teacher Education, G-7, Sector- 10 Dwarka, New Delhi-110075

8. Regional Director Ncet, National Council For Teacher Education, G-7, Sector- 10 Dwarka, New Delhi-110075.

9. Commissioner Collage Education, Shiksha Sankul, J.l.n.

Marg, Jaipur.

10. Registrar, University Of Rajasthan, J.l.n Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11814/2020 Neeraj Singh Gurjar D/o Shri Mandu Singh Gurjar, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Kheenchwas, Post Bane Ka Barkheda, Dausa, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Collector, Collector Dausa, Dausa, Rajasthan.

2. Sub Division Officer, Tehsil Bandikui, District Dausa, Rajasthan.

3. Director, Pandit Badri Parsad T.t. College, E-1, Ricco Industrial Area Kolana, Bandikui, District Dausa, Rajasthan.

4. Principal, Pandit Badri Parsad T.t. College, E-1, Ricco

(D.B. SAW/954/2021 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(3 of 8) [CW-2675/2020]

Industrial Area Kolana, Bandikui, District- Dausa, Rajasthan.

5. Chairperson, National Council For Teacher Education, G-7, Sector- 10, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075.

6. Regional Director Ncet, National Council For Teacher Education, G-7, Sector -10, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075

7. Commissioner Collage Education, Shiksha Sankul, J.l.n.

Marg, Jaipur.

8. Registrar, University Of Rajasthan, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12126/2020 Jitendra Kumar Koli S/o Shri Mohan Lal Koli, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Vpo Talab, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar, Rajasthan. Roll No. 1931566

----Petitioner Versus

1. Registrar, University Of Rajasthan, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Examination Controller, University Of Rajasthan, J.l.n.

Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan

3. Director, Pandit Badri Parsad T.t. College, E-1, Ricco Industrial Area Kolana, Bandikui, District- Dausa, Rajasthan

4. Principal, Pandit Badri Parsad T.t. College, E-1, Ricco Industrial Area Kolana, Bandikui, District- Dausa, Rajasthan

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhawani Singh Shekhawat, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Akshay Sharma, A.G.C.

Mr. Indresh Sharma, Adv. with Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Ajit Maloo, Adv.

Mr. Parag Rastogi, Adv.

Mr. Abhishek Bhardwaj, Adv. on behalf of Respondent No.9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

(D.B. SAW/954/2021 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(4 of 8) [CW-2675/2020]

Order

09/11/2021

1. In all these writ petitions, the prayer made by the petitioners

is almost the same for allowing the petitioners to write their

respective examinations of B.Sc./B.Ed.-2020/2021, with consent

of the parties, these writ petitions have been heard together and

are being decided by the present order.

2. The prayer made in the writ petition-2675/2020 is as under:-

"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that the entire record related to the present controversy may kindly be called and after examining the same.

(i)By issue an appropriate writ or direction to the respondent no. 7, 8 & 9 to inspect the collage record and if found respondent collage not perform as par the guideline and norm, take action against the respondent no. 5 & 6 as par the law. Or May kindly directed to the respondent no. 7,8 & 9 to arrange any other collage to the petitioners in which petitioner could complete their study (B.Sc., B.Ed).

(ii) By an appropriate writ order or direction any other appropriate relief to which the petitioner is found entitled to may also kindly be granted in their favour."

3. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent-

college did not allow the petitioners to enter into the college

premises and the petitioners filed a complaint before the police

authorities as well as District Administration upon which an

enquiry was conducted and documents in support of their

contentions have been place on record. Counsel further submits

that the petitioners-students were not allowed to study in the

college by the respondents, therefore, there is no fault on the part

(D.B. SAW/954/2021 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(5 of 8) [CW-2675/2020]

of the petitioners. Counsel further submits that the respondent-

college has not allowed the petitioners to write the practical

examination.

4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-college

submitted that the petitioners took admission in the B.Sc.B.Ed.

and B.Ed. (2 years) course respectively. Counsel further submits

that the petitioners failed to attend the college even after several

notices sent to them. Counsel further submitted that they have

pleaded in their reply filed on behalf of the college, the petitioners

have appeared in 3rd Year Examination under the orders of this

court, however they have not taken admission in 4 th Year,

therefore they are not entitled to write the exam of 4 th year.

5. Counsel appearing on behalf of the university submitted that

the petitioners are not entitled to write the exam as they are not

having the required attendance according to regulations of

N.C.T.E. and the counsel for the respondent-university has relied

upon the affidavit submitted on behalf of the college in this

regard.

6. In support of his contention, counsel relied upon the

judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter

of Manoj Kumar Mundotia & Ors. Vs. University of Rajasthan

& Ors., D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1481/2018, decided on

12.07.2019 wherein it has been held as under:-

"We have given our anxious consideration to rival submissions and carefully perused the material on record.

Division Bench of this Court in University of Rajasthan Vs. Shiv Charan Lal Bairwa & Another (supra) took note of the

(D.B. SAW/954/2021 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(6 of 8) [CW-2675/2020]

fact that the University has issued guidelines of minimum attendance of 75% under the directions of the University Grants Commission and in compliance of judgment of this Court, it was necessary for the respondents in that case to attend classes regularly in order to be eligible for appearing in the examination. The respondent petitioner in that case was provisionally permitted to appear in the examination under the order of the Court and result was declared as contempt petition was filed by the respondent. The appeal was allowed and writ petition was dismissed. The respondent therein was directed to surrender original mark-sheet so issued to him.

We have examined Ordinance 325 of the University Ordinance which inter alia provides that candidates who fail in B.Ed. Examination in part I or/ Part 2 the theory of education may present themselves for re-examination there in at a subsequent examination without attending a further course at an affiliated training college. Ordinance 326 of the University Ordinance provides that the candidates who fail in the B.Ed. examination Part I and II only in the practice of teaching and internship may appear in the practical examination in the subsequent year provided that they keep regular terms for four calendar months per year and give at least 20 lessons (10 in part 1 and 10 in part 2) supervised lessons. Ordinance 326A provides that a candidate who complete a regular course of study in accordance with the provision laid down in the ordinance, at an affiliated teacher's training college for two academic year but for good reasons fails to appear at the B.Ed. examination may be admitted to a subsequent examination as an Ex-

student as defined in Ordinance 325 or

326. Ordinance 326B provides that no candidate shall be permitted to appear as an ex-student at more than one subsequent examination. The B.Ed. programme shall be of duration of two academic years, which can be completed in a maximum of three years from the date of admission to the B.Ed. A cumulative reading of the aforesaid clauses of the University Ordinance would make it clear that a candidate, who has completed

(D.B. SAW/954/2021 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(7 of 8) [CW-2675/2020]

required minimum attendance in Part I and II, may be permitted to appear in examination of III year as ex-student. That is why maximum duration of B.Ed. has been indicated to be three years but there is no escapement from attendance. If the attendance falls short from minimum requirement, then such candidate/student cannot be granted degree.

As regards appearance of the appellants in B.Ed. Part-II Examination 2018 vide order of this Court dated 18.06.2018, it may be noted that the aforesaid order was provisional and it was clearly mentioned therein that the same would be subject to final outcome of the writ petition. Such interim arrangements are being made due to the exigency of the situation but the same does not finally determine the issue in question. Mere appearance of the appellants in the examination does in any manner improve case of the appellants so far as fulfillment of requirement of the minimum attendance is concerned.

In view of above, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Stay Application No. 21437/2018 also stands dismissed."

7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. These writ petitions filed by the petitioners deserve to be

dismissed for the reasons; firstly, the petitioners have failed to

attend the college and are also not having the minimum 75%

attendance which is required as per the university ordinance &

NCTE Regulations; secondly, in view of the judgment passed by

the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Manoj Kumar

(supra) the petitioners are not entitled for the relief prayed for, in

view of the Ordinance of university and lastly, the petitioners have

not taken admission in the last semester in the respondent-

(D.B. SAW/954/2021 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

(8 of 8) [CW-2675/2020]

college, therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioners

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

9. Hence, these writ petitions are dismissed. A copy of the

order be placed in each connected file.

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

JYOTI /218-221

(D.B. SAW/954/2021 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)