AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Satish K. Agnihotri, J.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 19-8-2009 (Annexure P-3), whereby the provisional admission of the petitioner to D.Ed. course (first year) was cancelled on account of non-receipt of the instructions from the higher officials.
The indisputable facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner was found eligible for admission to D.Ed. course (first year). She could not appear in the counselling, thereafter, the petitioner appeared on a subsequent date in the counselling. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 admitted the petitioner to D.Ed. course (first year) in the District Education & Training Institute. Nagri, District Dhamtari. It appears that it was the case that the provisional admission was subject to instructions of superior officials. No instruction was received by the respondent No. 2 and the impugned order was passed canceling the petitioner''s admission to D.Ed. course.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that if the required instruction does not come within time, it may be treated as deemed sanction. However, on account of failure on the part of senior officers, the admission could not have been cancelled to cause loss and prejudice to the petitioner.
Shri Shridhar, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondent submits that the admission of the petitioner was provisional, as she did not appear in the counselling, which was scheduled on 27-7-2009. Subsequent counselling, on her representation, cannot be treated as proper counselling; therefore, her admission was not in accordance with rules. Though the petitioner was allowed to attend classes after provisional admission from 7-8-2009 and immediately within 15 days, the impugned order was passed.
Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it appears that the admission was cancelled not on account of any defect or non-compliance of any provisions of law.
In the case on hand, the petitioner could not appear on the fixed date of counselling, however, on her representation she was allowed to appear for counselling on 6-8-2009. The counselling is not for the purpose of any scrutiny, but for the purpose of verification of the testimonials. Thereafter, the petitioner was admitted to B.Ed. course (first year) subject to instructions from the superior officers and if the superior officers failed to give instruction within prescribed time, the cancellation of her admission for want of instructions from superior officer is not just, proper and legal.
There are no other reasons for cancellation of her admission except the respondent No. 2 could not receive instructions from the superior officers. The reasons assigned in the impugned order dated 19-8-2009 are not in accordance with law and unsustainable from any angle. Accordingly, the impugned letter dated 19-8-2009 is quashed.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.