Miss Ekta vs The State of Rajasthan and Others

Appellant Ekta filed writ petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a direction to the respondents to reserve 25 seats out of 120 seats for Certificate Course in Physical Education and 12 out of 60 seats in the Diploma Course and consider the case of the petitioner for admission in the Course and also a direction that the condition of passing examination of Mathematics in Secondary/Hr. Secondary for the purpose of grant of admission in Certificate Course in Physical Education be declared as invalid. The learned single Judge vide impugned Order dated December 13, 1990 dismissed the writ petition and the aggrieved petitioner has preferred this appeal.

The case of the appellant averred in the writ petition was that she had done her graduation in Articles and secured 46.63% marks and had represented District Bhilwara in games in State Level Competition. That, she applied for admission to Diploma Course in Physical Education and Certificate Course in Physical Education in the year 1990. She did not hear about the fate of her applications and made representations. On inquiry being made by her, she came to know that reservation was confined to the candidates in open selection by merits and not for those who were being admitted on the basis of population Districtwise allocations. The petitioner also came to know that her case was not considered for the Course for the reason that she did not pass Mathematics as her subject in her Secondary/Hr. Secondary examination as required for the admission to the Course.

The case of the respondents in reply was that the insertion of sub-r.(3) of Rule 20 of the ''Sharirik Shiksha Shikshak Prashikshan Sansthan Mein Pravesh Sambandhi Niyam'' (hereinafter to be referred as ''the Rules''), reservation was confined only to the open admission of 20% seats and not to the seats allotted District wise. It was also the case of the respondent that the Rules required Mathematics as subject in Secondary Examination. The learned single Judge found force in the case of the respondents and dismissed the writ petition which has given rise to this appeal.

Mr. M. Mridual, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that Rule 19 of the Rules lays down quota of reservation for the admission for the Certificate Course and Diploma Course in Physical Education. The provisions of reservation of seats being already there in Rule 19 of the Rules and having not been deleted, the insertion of sub.- rule (3) of Rule 20 for the 20% seats being for open competition on merit basis and sub.- rule(8) providing for the reservation for that 20% allocation in accordance with Rule 19 would not affect the quota of reservation already fixed.

Rule 19 of the Rules provided reservation of 20% seats for women, 16% for S.C., 12% for S.T. and 30% seats for the persons in service with Government as Physical Instructors. Prior to the amendment in the Rules oh May 25, 1988 all the seats were to be allotted on the basis of population Districtwise. By the amendment on the aforesaid date sub-r.(5) of Rule 20 provided for 20% seats on the basis of merit and 80% seats on the basis of population District wise.

Sub-r (8) of Rule 20 reads as under:

"8

fu;ekoyh ds fu;e 19 es foHkUu oxZokj vkj{k.k iz.kkyh dsk [kqys :Ik ls lh/kh HkrhZ ds fy, 20 izfr''kr vkaofVr lhVks ij izos''k gsrq ykxw fd;k tk;sxk A

The learned Judge interpreted sub-r.(8) of Rule 20 of the Rules as confining the reservation to 20% open seats only and not for the 80% seats to be allotted on the basis of population Districtwise.

We do not feel inclined to agree with the interpretation made by the learned single Judge because the words incorporated in sub-r.(8) do not use the word "hee" (only). Rule 19 has been referred in this sub rule for the purpose of giving the percentage of reservation and not with the intention that Rule 19 which continued to exists will cease to be effective for the 80% seats to be allotted on the basis of population District wise. The necessity of insertion of sub-r.(8) was not to circumscribe the quota of reservation but to make the provisional reservation applicable to the 20% open market seats also. Had the intention of the framers of the Rules been otherwise, there would have been specific provision that reservation for 80% seats on the basis of population Districtwise would be stopped.

We however agree with the findings of the learned single Judge regarding the validity of the Note appended to Rule 2 of the Rules making Hindi, English and Mathematics as being the necessary in the Secondary Examination passed by the candidates for the purpose of getting admission to the Course. Mr. Mridul, learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that physical Instructors are not to teach the students and therefore, even if Mathematics is not a subject in Secondary Examination that would not disqualify the candidate for the admission and the condition imposed in the Note to Rule 2 of the Rules is arbitrary. Learned single Judge has taken into consideration the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents that the persons holding certificate course are normally sent as third grade teachers to the primary and Upper primary Schools where apart from imparting Physical Education they have to teach Mathematics and other subjects and therefore, keeping this aspect in view, Mathematics has been made a necessary curriculum for the Certificate Course. Mr. S.M. Singhvi, learned Deputy Government Advocate produced for perusal and administrative order and a circular in this regard.

Mr. Mridul, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that when Physical Instructors are appointed there is no condition that they will have to take classes for Mathematics or any other subject and therefore, the administrative instructions or circular will not make them liable to teach the various subjects.

In our opinion the learned single Judge has rightly held that primarily it is for the Education Department to decide that what should be the curriculum for the Certificate Course, and it cannot be said that there is no relevancy for keeping Mathematics as a necessary subject in Secondary Examination for eligibility to the Course. As the petitioner does not possess the basic qualification for eligibility to the Course because of not having Mathematics as her subject in the Secondary Examination no direction can be given for considering her candidature for the Course and our finding on the point of reservation would not in any way help her.

Consequently, the appeal having no merits is dismissed.