AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Gita Mittal, J.—These writ petitions all pertain to admissions to the two year Elementary Teacher Education (diploma course)(hereinafter referred as ETE for brevity) run by the State Council of Educational Research and Training(hereinafter referred as SCERT).
As the scheme for reservation as was applied in all the four writ petitions is the same and questions raised are overlapping. These writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.
In order to appreciate the issues raised it is necessary to set out the scheme under which admissions are effected to the course by the respondents. All the petitioners belong to different reserved categories and are seeking entitlement to admission under said categories. Therefore before addressing the individual writ petitions, I propose to consider the scheme and manner of admissions to the course in the question.
It is noteworthy that the SCERT, Delhi is an autonomous body of the Government of NCT of Delhi stated to have been established in 1988. It is the nodal agency recognised by the National Council of Teachers Education (NCTE) for admission, curriculum constructions, course conduct guidance, examination and certification of the pre-service training programme for elementary school teachers. The two year diploma in ETE is being offered in nine District Institutes of Education and Training (DIETs) which are wholly state owned and run as well as in four recognised private institutes in Delhi. The programme is based on NCTE guidelines to prepare teachers at elementary level for the schools of Delhi.
So far as the content of the course, method of admission and selection and allocation of institutes is concerned, the same was duly notified to all candidates in the prospectus issued for the session 2004-2006 by the SCERT in April, 2004. It was clearly notified in this prospectus that the four private institutes that offer the ETE course are restricted to female candidates only and are recognised by the Government of NCT of Delhi as well as NCTE.
The prospectus also provided that the ETE is a professional programme and that candidates selected for admissions are required to take the programme with seriousness and to undergo two years of rigorous educational experience requiring a commitment to become teachers of young children.
The schedule for admission in the ETE course inter alia provide as under:
Date Activities Mode/Code no of Venue 19th to 29th April Sale of Prospectus RN, KP, MB, KKD, DG, 2004(10.00 AM cum Application GH, PP, BNN, RKP, RK, to 4.00 PM) form VT, LT 19th to 30th April Submission of RN, KP, MB, KKD, DG, 2004(10.00 AM Application forms GH, PP, BNN, RKP, RK, to 4.00 PM) VT, LT Despatch of Admit 1st to 10th June Cards Registered Post 2004 Issue of Duplicate Down loading from web 15th June, 2004 Admit Cards in case site www.scertdl.org of loss Indian Express, Nav Declaration of Bharat Times, DIETs, 17th June 2004 Centres with address website 17th June, 2004 (9.00 AM to 12.00 Inquiry regarding RN, KP, MB, KKD, DG, Noon) Admit cards, if any GH, PP, BNN, RKP, RK, VT, LT 18th June, 2004 To collect duplicate RN, KP, MB, KKD, DG, (3.00 PM to 5.00 admit card GH, PP, BNN, RKP, RK, PM) VT, LT 20th June, 2004 Entrance Test At allotted Examination (10.30 AM to 1.00 Centres PM) 10.30 AM to 1.30 Declaration of Roll PM) Nos of candidates for Indian Express and Nav 1st Counselling and Bharat Times, website, payment of fees DIETs 16th July 2004 1st Counselling and payment of fees 20th and 21st July, DIET, Motibagh 2004 Declaration of (9.00 AM to 4.00 Results for second PM) Counselling Indian Express and 27th July, 2004 IIIrd Counselling DIET, Moti Bagh and payment of fees 29th July, 2004 Declaration of Roll Indian Express, Nav Nos for on the spot Bharat Times, admissions DIETs, web site 30th July, 2004 All 9 DIETs and 4 On the spot pvt. institutes admissions 30th July, 2004 Closing of admission in ETE Course in DIETs and private institutes
The same prospectus provided all the lists of the teacher training institutes offering the ETE programmes including the nine state run DIETs and the four recognised unaided institutions with the clear stipulation that the four recognised unaided institutions are for female candidates only.
Inasmuch as these writ petitions are concerned with one or the other of the reserved category, it is necessary to examine the scheme of reservation as was notified in the prospectus. It would be beneficial to set out herein the details provided in the prospectus itself. Reservation was provided under clause 3 which read thus:
Reservation
There is provision for reservation of seats for following categories. In case candidates are not available in the ST Category, the seats will be converted to Sc Category. In case candidates are not available in all categories except ST Category, the seats will be converted to General Category.
(a) 15% for Scheduled Caste(SC) candidates
(b) 7.5% for Scheduled Tribe(ST) candidates
(C) 15% for Other Backward Classes(OBC) candidates
(d) 3% for Physically Handicapped candidates (both perso ns with visual and orthopaedic impairment)
(e) 2% for Education for All (EFA) Volunteers
(f) 1% for NCC Cadets
(g) 2% for Sports Men/Women
(h) 1% for Wards of Ex-servicemen
(i)2% for Wards of Delhi School Teachers
(j) 1% for Wards of regular employees of Delhi DIETs and SCERT (only for seats in DIETs)
Table gives seat location for each category of reservation in each institution
KKD DG RN KP MB Panjabi Urdu GH PP BNN RKP RK VT LT GR Total SC 15 15 15 15 9 3 15 3 15 15 8 7 7 15 8 8 8 ST 7 8 8 4 1 7 1 7 7 4 4 4 8 4 4 78 O 15 BC 15 15 15 9 3 5 3 15 15 8 7 8 15 7 8 8 P H 3 3 3 2 1 3 1 3 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 32 EF - - A 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 20 N - - - - - CC 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 SC 15 15 15 15 9 3 15 3 15 15 8 7 7 15 8 8 8 Sp ort 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 22 s Ex - - - - - .Sr 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 ST W 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 22 SD - - - - - - - TZ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 W G E 53 N 51 50 50 31 10 51 10 51 51 25 25 25 51 26 25 2 To 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 tal 0 0 0 60 20 0 20 0 0 50 50 50 0 50 50 50 It is noteworthy that the institutes which have been abbreviated from RN to RKP were Government run DIETs whereas the names of four private institutes were abbreviated as RK, VT, LT, GR.
The respondents have considered a total number of 1050 seats which are available for allocation in both the Government DIETs as well as the private institutes. Out of these 800 seats were in the nine DIETs and 250 seats for female candidates in the four private ETE institutions. It is to be borne in mind that reservations have been effected of the prescribed percentages of seats out of the total number of seats and had not been restricted to only the seats available in Government DIETs.
On this basis, the following number of seats have been provided in the reserved category:
Total No. of seats 1050 SC (15%) 158 ST (7.5%) 78 OBC (15%) 158 PH (3%) 32 EFA (2%) 20 NCC (1%) 10 Sports (2%) 22 Ex-Sr. (1%) 10 STW (2%) 22 SDTW (1%) 8 Gen 532
It has been pointed out on behalf of the respondents in all the writ petitions that only 1% reservation was provided in the NCC category and ex-servicemen category which amounts to a total of 10 seats in each category out of the total seats. In case reservation was restricted to Government institutions, there being nine DIETs, only nine NCC seats and ex-servicemen seats would be allocated to the nine Government DIETs. Therefore one seat would remain for all admission.
It is also noticed that only six Government DIETs have a total capacity of 100 seats whereas the others had 80 or 50 seats. In case reservation of one percent was effected in either of these categories in these institutes, only a fraction of a seat would be permissible to be reserved. For this reason, it was decided that the reservation of 1% quota would be distributed only in those DIETs where there was a total strength of 100 students. Therefore, six of these reserved category seats were allocated and distributed between the six State run DIETs. For this reason four seats out of the ten reserved seats in the NCC/Ex-servicemen quota would go to private DIETs.
Three of the private institutes namely RK, LT and GR had a total capacity of only 50 seats. Therefore, in order to maintain reservation of 1% of seats even at the institute level, it would be found that the Institute with 50 seats would get only half a seat in either of the NCC or the ex-servicemen category.
In order to ensure that no injustice was done either to the students or to the institutes, inasmuch as there cannot be half seat allocation, therefore in order to ensure that even institutes having 50 seats only provided for reserved categories, the respondents distributed the seat so that an institute having a total of 50 seats only would grant reservation of one per cent seat to the NCC category for one year and to the ex-servicemen category in the second year. Thereby reservation and the 1% stipulation were both maintained.
It is noteworthy that 1% reservation is provided in both the NCC category and the Ex-servicemen category which comes to a total of ten seats in each category. In order to ensure that no injustice results, the respondents have had to evolve a formula of rotation of these seats. In the current year, that is the academic session 2004, there being nine DIETs, nine seats out of the ten NCC reserved category seats would go to them and one seat would go to a private institution having 100 students.
To provide for the distribution of the ex-servicemen, six seats have been given to Government DIETs with the strength of 100 students and four seats have been allocated to private DIETs. Out of the four private institutes, only one institute has a strength of about 100 students. The other three have a strength of 50 seats each only. Since the three private institutes having 50 seats did not get any seat in the NCC category, they have been given one full seat in the ex-service men category.
The scheme evolved by the respondents is that this will be followed by a rotation in the next academic year to the effect that the NCC reserved category will have a bifurcation of 6 seats in DIETs and 4 seats in the private institutions. The ex-service men will have 9 seats in DIETs and only one reserved seat in the private institutes where the total strength is 100 in the next academic session.
This scheme and seat availability was provided for in the prospectus which was available to all the petitioners as back as in April, 2004 and this is the manner in which the reservation has been given effect to and admissions have been effected to the ETE course in these reserved categories.
Addressing the facts of each case in the light of the aforestated scheme, I may deal with the individual cases on the individual pleas as have been raised.
Writ Petition (Civil) 12272/2004 entitled Sandeep Rana v. SCERT and Writ petition 12272/2004 entitled Sh. Rakesh Kumar Mann v. SCERT.
(i) These two candidates had applied for admission in the ex-servicemen quota and were declared successful having secured merit rank 1071. It has been pointed out that in this reserved category, three candidates secured merit rank 540, two candidates secured 840 and six candidates got 1071 rank. The result of the candidates was published in newspapers. As per the notified scheme, counselling was held on 21st July, 2004.
(ii) The petitioners contend that in a second advertisement published on 27th July, 2004, the respondents called upon candidates lower in merit than the petitioner who were at merit rank 1570 onwards for counselling.
(iii) The respondents have placed the list of the students in the Ex-servicemen category also in the order of merit. The same reads as under:
Sl. Name Rank No. 1 Virender Singh Dahiya 540 2 Savita Attree 540 3 Neelam Vashisht 540 4 Manju Sharma 840 5 Sandeep 840 6 Shankar Gulia 1071 7 Ajay Brahmraj Singh 1071 8 Rakesh Kumar Manner 1071 9 Sandeep Rana 1071 10 Neeraj Rana 1071 11 Ritesh Kumar 1071 (iv) Perusal of the aforestated list shows that a candidate namely Shankar Guliya who also secured an overall rank 1071 was at serial number 6 of the merit list in the Ex Servicemen category.
As per the scheme notified for allocation of the reserved category seats, six seats in the ex-servicemen category were reserved in the Government DIETs. These were exhausted with the grant of admission to Shanker Guliya who was also at rank 1071.
(v) The remaining four reserved category seats were available only in private institutes which had been notified to be admitting female candidates alone. Even though the petitioner Sandeep Rana was at merit rank nine and Rakesh Kumar Mann was at serial number eight, however being males they could not be granted admission to the only seats available in this reserved category which were in the private DIETs restricted to female candidates.
(vi) The respondents have contended that the first available girl candidate in the merit list had secured merit rank 1570. It was in these circumstances alone that candidates below rank 1071 were granted admission. These candidates were girl candidates and the petitioner cannot in any circumstance contend that the respondents have not effectuated the merit list.
The challenge made by the petitioners to the scheme of reservation at this highly belated stage has been objected to by the respondents contending that there was no challenge to the scheme which was duly notified in the prospectus. The petitioners had accepted the validity, submitted application forms, participated in the examination, accepted the result and for this reason alone participated in the counselling and as such cannot contend any illegality in the scheme of reservation merely because they could not get admission.
(vii) The petitioners have challenged the action of the respondents on three main grounds which are firstly, that the respondents have no power to effect reservation for private institutions, secondly, the respondents cannot effect reservation in institutions which are restricted to female candidates as thereby the male candidates in the reserved categories are being discriminated against and the same amounts to double reservation; thirdly, even assuming that there are more meritorious candidates than the petitioners, such candidates not having come to court, their claims have to be ignored and only claims of such candidates who have approached this Court have to be considered.
In support of the aforestated submissions, reliance has been placed on behalf of the petitioners on the judgments of the Apex Court reported at Islamic Academy of Education and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, entitled Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka; Kumari Rekha Tyagi Vs. Vice Chancellor, University of Delhi and Ors, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Foundation (Regd.) and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, Sandeep Tak and Another Vs. All India Institute of Medical Science and Others, Benny Vs. State of Kerala, and The State of Rajasthan and Another Vs. Dr. Vijay Kumar Agrawal and Another,
I have considered the rival contentions and the law relied upon by the parties. It is noteworthy that as per the scheme of admissions, the prospectus was made available to the petitioners as back as in April, 2004. The petitioners laid no grievance whatsoever to the scheme of admissions notified in the brochure. Full particulars of the quota available in the reserved category was duly notified. The percentage quota distribution was also informed to the public at large and even the specific number of seats available for reservation as well as the institutes where such reserved seats was available was notified by the respondents in the brochure itself. The respondents had repeatedly notified in the brochure in several places that the private institutes were available for admission only to female candidates.
No petitioner at any point of time raised any objection either to the respondents giving effect to the reservation in the private institutes or the fact that such reserved seats were available only to female candidates in such private institutes. I have noticed in a judgment pronounced by me earlier in the WP (C) 15132/04 Vivek Dabas v. SCERT to the effect that the respondents are effecting reservation out of the total number of 1050 seats and not out of only 800 seats available in the Government DIETs. It is noteworthy that the number of seats available in the reserved category considerably goes up if reservation is effected out of 1050 seats and not out of 800 seats only. Assuming that the contentions made by the petitioners were accepted, then reservation was to be effected out of 800 seats available in the Government DIETs alone. One per cent of such 800 seats would amount to eight seats only against the ten seats which have been provided for by the respondents. Only seven Government DIETs have 100 total number of seats. If reservation was restricted to Govt. DIETs, then necessarily only seven seats would be available in this reserved category.
From the foregoing, neither the petitioners namely Sandeep Rana or Rakesh Kumar Mann could possibly get admission in the order of merit inasmuch as one Sh. Ajay Brahmraj Singh who was at roll number 24410 had also secured 1071 rank but was placed above the petitioners at serial number 7 in the order of merit of the ex-servicemen category who would be entitled to such admission.
It has been repeatedly held by the Apex Court and by this Court that merit cannot be ignored while granting admission. Even claims of meritorious candidates who had not come to court has to be protected by courts while effecting admissions.
I am unable to agree with the submission on behalf of the petitioners that reservation ought not to have been granted in private institutes. This scheme has been accepted by not only the students but by the private institutes as well and there is no objection from any quarter to the same. The scheme for reservation is intended to effectuate the constitutional mandate and to provide for an opportunity for social upliftment of what has been considered hitherto as such categories of society which needed to be encouraged and facilitated.
The considerations proposed would be different if the scheme was being considered from perspective of objections raised by the institutes. In the present case the implementation of the scheme of reservation has been accepted by the private institutes and the same has resulted in furthering the laudable objectives of ensuring social justice and has ensured availability of a larger number of seats to the reserved categories and such action cannot be faulted for any reason.
In any case, even assuming that the objection of the petitioners was to be upheld, there would be no difference in the result inasmuch as the petitioners would still not have been able to secure admission.
In this view of the matter, the judgment of the Apex Court in the Islamic Academy case has no applicability in the facts of this case. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has pointed out that the petitioner is placing reliance on the observations of the Apex Court (para 122). It is however noteworthy that the court was concerned with objections raised on behalf of the institutes which is not so in the present case.
So far as judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in 1993 (2001) DLT 831 is concerned, the matter related to reservation of posts for employment for persons with disability and the court had held that reservation of 3% of the posts for persons with disability in accordance with the applicable enactment was permissible in Government educational institutions or aided institutions. None of the issues which arise for consideration in the present case had arisen for consideration before the Division Bench and as such the judgment has no bearing on the issues raised.
Similarly in the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Foundation (Regd.) and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , the court had held that inasmuch as there was no notification notifying the scheduled tribe categories for Delhi, the Government could not by way of executive instruction direct filling up of posts in such category. Again in Sandeep Tak and Another Vs. All India Institute of Medical Science and Others, the court had held that reservation would be post based and not vacancy based.
In the instant case, in any case, the respondents have effected reservation out of the total number of seats and as such it cannot possibly be contended that the respondents have in any manner flouted the principles laid down by the courts. So far as the objection with regard to reservation being effected in private institutes is concerned, in view of the discussion aforestated it is noteworthy that effect of reservation being effected in private institutes had resulted in more seats being available for private categories. In case reservation was to be restricted in Government DIETs alone, the effect would be that the seat availability would have to be computed out of the total number of 800 seats available for admission in the Government DIETs.
It has been pointed out that this policy has been in place since 1988 and the challenge raised could have at best been raised, if at all, by the private institutes which have not only accepted the seat allocation but have given full effect to the policy of the respondents.
In acceptance of the legality and validity of the policy, the petitioner submitted the application form, undertook the entrance exam and participated in the counselling. As such the judgment reported at Jitendra Pal Kaur Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, would not be applicable to the facts of the instant case.
Similarly in the judgment reported at Sujal Atul Munshi and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Others, , the court was concerned with the Government decision that no reservation would be made in the payment seats and such policy was upheld. There is no challenge to that effect in the instant case. The respondents have contended that there is no pronouncement stating that there can be no reservation whatsoever in private institutions or in paid seats.
Therefore, looked at from any angle assuming that reservation was to be effected only in the Government DIET, there is no seat available for allocation to the petitioners at the merit position secured by them.
The challenge made in the writ petition (C) Nos. 12287/2004 and 12272/2004 is wholly misconceived and is hereby rejected.
W.P. 13655/2004 Anuradha v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.
(i) This petitioner had applied for admission under the reserved category for NCC cadets.
(ii) The petitioner is stated to have secured rank number 1573. The petitioner has contended that the result for the DIETs was declared on 14th July, 2004 for 800 seats. Only thereafter on 1st August 2004 the result for the admission to the 250 seats in the private institutions was declared.
(iii) The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that keeping in view the stipulation in the brochure that the reservation etc is the same for government DIETs and the private institutes. Therefore the respondents should have effected identical reservation for the nine Government and four private institutes.
(iv) According to learned counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as there were 250 seats in private institutions, the respondents were bound to have effected reservation of 1% of the 250 seats which should be 2.5 seats, rounded off to either two seats or three seats. Similarly reservation in the private institutes for the ex-servicemen category having been stipulated as being 1% of the seats would be either two seats or three seats.
(v) The petitioner contends that against this reservation stipulation, the action of the respondents in reserving only one seat in one private institute for the NCC quota candidate and four seats for the ex-servicemen quota in this session is wholly illegal.
(vi) As per the Brochure, the respondents have provided reservation of one percent being 10 seats in the NCC reserved category out of the total number of 1050 seats. As per the seats allocation notified in the brochure and as noticed above, for the academic session 2004 for the current session, the respondents have provided that nine NCC seats would go to all the nine Government DIETs and one seat would go to a private institution having 100 seats this year. For the academic session 2005-2007, 6 seats for the NCC category candidates would be in the Govt. DIETs having total intake strength of 100 students each and four in the private institutions.
(vii) The petitioner has challenged this policy and seat allocation on the ground that according to the stipulation contained in the brochure, it was clearly provided that the reservation for Government DIETs and private institutions were the same. Reliance has been placed on the following stipulation which is mentioned in the brochure:
The Course of Study, eligibility conditions, reservation, selection procedure etc. for recognised unaided Institutions will be same as given in the prospectus for admission to ETE Course at DIETs.
(viii) This stipulation is the whole basis of the petitioner''s challenge in this writ petition.
(ix) The respondents have explained that reservation is not effected institution-wise. If this was the scheme of reservation, then reservation of 1% of the seats would not be possible in institutions having less than 100 seats as one per cent of a number less than 100 comes to a fraction of a seat which cannot be allocated. In order to give effect to the complete purpose and intendment of the scheme, the reservation has been effected out of the total number of seats and thereafter distribution has been made bearing in mind the requirement of ensuring fairness to candidates as well as the institution and hence the reservation being rotated between the two categories where in the 1% reservation is possible i.e. the ex-servicemen and the NCC quota. For this reason, the respondents have ensured that 1% of the total number of seats is reserved and rotated between the institutions to ensure that their total reserved quota is maintained at 1% out of their individual seat allocation as well.
I find that the scheme of respondents was not faulted by the petitioner at any time hitherto. It was notified when she has participated in the examination as well as the counselling and has opted to litigate after the respondents have implemented the scheme of admissions notified in the brochure. Even classes are stated to have commenced on or around 1st August, 2004. This writ petition has been filed thereafter on the 10th August, 2004.
The petitioner has submitted that if the respondents had effected the 1% reservation in the 250 seats available in the private institutions, then two seats would have been available and the petitioner would have got admission to the course under the NCC quota.
The respondents have handed over the merit list of selected candidates under the NCC category which reads as under:
Sl.No. Name of Candidates Sex Rank 1 Shilpi Arya F 458 2 Manjeet Singh M 458 3 Rohan Sharma M 458 4 Kishore Kumar M 540 5 Sandeep Kumar M 720 6 Satyendra Kumar Jha M 720 7 Neeti F 840 8 Sangeeta F 840 9 Megha Gupta F 958 10 Preeti Gahlawat F 1573 11 Anuradha F 1573
It is noteworthy that according to the respondents, the petitioner was at serial number 11 of this list. Admittedly, she had secured rank 1573 in the NCC quota. The candidate above the petitioner namely Preeti Gehlawat had also secured rank 1573 but was more meritorious than the petitioner.
It is contended that the respondents have effected admissions to 10 seats in the NCC quota and cannot be directed to give admission to the petitioner in this reserved category as well as inasmuch as the respondents would thereby exceed the 1% reservation quota prescribed in the brochure. The respondents contend that in any case, the petitioner was at serial number 11 in the order of merit in this reserved category and only the first ten candidates were entitled to get seats, irrespective of whether they were in the Government DIET or in the private institutions.
I do not find any reason to hold that the method evolved by the respondents is either arbitrary or illegal. Even assuming that the contention of the petitioner that two or three seats were to be reserved in the private DIETs out of the 250 seats, it is noteworthy that there are four female candidates above the petitioner in the order of merit. Assuming that serial numbers 1 to 9 were exhausted in the Government DIETs,the petitioner would not have secured admission in the reserved category in the private DIET.
Furthermore, for so holding that the respondents were required to effect 1% reservation out of the private institutions, it has to be borne in mind that in three of the institutes, the total permitted intake is only fifty candidates. One per cent of such fifty candidates comes to a fraction i.e. 0.5 or a half seat. For this reason also, there could not have been allocation of one seat in these institutes. It is only in the private institute which has 100 seats that one seat could be allotted to meet the 1% reservation quota.
The petitioner in any case has challenged the policy and the seat allocation by the respondents after the commencement of the admission process. Even the course had commenced on the date of filing of the writ petition. The challenge is wholly unsustainable. The very scheme of admissions being implemented is in place since 1988. I find no illegality in the action of the respondents.
For all these reasons, I have no reason for holding in favour of this petitioner in WP (C) No. 13655/2004.
W.P. (C) 17093/2004 entitled Daljeet Kaur v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.
(i) This petitioner has contended that her mother was a teacher in a school run by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and therefore she had applied under two quotas. Firstly, in the general quota and secondly, as a ward of a school teacher. The petitioner has contended that she had participated in the common entrance examination for the ETE course for the academic session commencing in 2004. The examination was held on 20th June, 2004 and results were declared on 14th July, 2004. It is contended that the petitioner''s result was declared only in the general category where she was shown as having secured merit rank 458.
(ii) As per the public notice, 82 candidates had secured 458 rank. Out of these students the respondent had admitted only 15 candidates.
(iii) The petitioner submits that she had reached the Moti Bagh site for counselling on the 20th July, 2004 which was the notified date. The petitioner has contended that the Secretary of the SCERT, respondent No. 3, told the petitioner to come for counselling on the 2nd August, 2004.
On the 2nd August, 2004 the petitioner was not considered and was not granted admission. Consequently, the petitioner had sent a legal notice on 11th August, 2004 to the respondents stating that she was entitled to admission. Prior thereto, it is contended that the petitioner had made representations on the 9th August, 2004, 10th August, 2004 and 11th August, 2004.
(iv) The petitioner has contended that only 15 students who had secured rank 458 were given admission on 20th July, 2004 and the rest were told to report at the Defence Colony office of the respondents on 2nd August, 2004 for deposit of fees and submission of forms. However when the petitioner reached the office on 2nd August, 2004 to deposit fees and documents she was denied admission on the ground that admission to all categories were over and closed on 20th July, 2004.
(v) The petitioner submitted that her mother suffered poisoning in suspicious circumstances on the 28th August, 2004 and was hospitalised thereafter. The mother of the petitioner was undergoing severe depression and had not resumed her duty as well and in these circumstances the petitioner was prevented from agitating her right by way of the instant writ petition.
In these circumstances, it is contended that the petitioner has filed the writ petition on the first available opportunity and that there is just cause for the delay in her approaching this Court by way of the present writ petition. On behalf of the petitioner it has been contended that the explanation given for the petitioner invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court long after classes for the course had commenced in August, 2004 should be accepted and the writ petition considered on merits.
(vi) The respondents have appeared in answer to the notice to show cause and placed on record their counter affidavit. It is submitted by the respondents that the petitioner did not appear in the counselling deliberately. It is submitted that as per the notice notified in the newspaper, the candidates were fully aware that admissions to the reserved category were to be effected on 21st July, 2004. The respondents had also prepared the merit list as per the scheme notified in the public notice of all the candidates who had secured merit rank 458. The petitioner was placed at serial No. 46 of such list. It is submitted that irrespective of the reserved category, the candidates are first arranged in the order of merit. All such candidates are considered for allocation against the general quota seats.
It is pointed out by the respondents that the total number of seats available for allotment in the general category were 385. The respondents were able to effect admissions to 370 seats up to merit rank 393, leaving a balance of 15 seats.
According to the respondents, 15 candidates who had secured 458 rank were filled up out of the merit list prepared of the candidates who had secured such rank. These candidates were admitted to Government DIETs. As such, in all 385 seats are stated to be filled up in the general category on the 20th July, 2004.
(vii) According to the respondents, out of the 82 candidates who secured rank 458, only 61 candidates had appeared for counselling on 20th July, 2004. The petitioner''s name had appeared at serial No. 46 of the merit list of these candidates.
On 21st July, 2004 counselling for the reserved categories was taken up. If the petitioner had participated in the counselling on this date, she would have been admitted under the category for which she was also entitled but unfortunately, for reasons best known to herself she did not appear.
(viii) The respondents have submitted that all those candidates who were present and had secured 458 rank and had the requisite certificate of their respective category in which they were seeking admission, were granted admission. The only reason that the petitioner did not secure the admission was because she did not appear on this date.
It has been stated on affidavit that when counselling was held for the reserved category candidates, 24 candidates who were eligible for admission in various reserved categories were granted admission. The respondents have denied that any announcement was made that counselling for other category candidates would be undertaken on 2nd August, 2004.
It has also been pointed out that after completion of the counselling for the Government DIETs, the respondents held counselling for private institutions on 28th July, 2004. The petitioner could have been considered for admission even in the private institutions as her name appeared on the merit list. But as the petitioner did not report, such candidates who were present and wanted to take admissions to the private institutions were granted admissions.
(ix) The respondents submit that the petitioner did not care to turn up for the counselling even on 2nd August, 2004 and that, had she appeared on such date, the petitioner would have been granted admission to the private institutions. It was submitted that the fault being fastened for her non-appearance upon the respondents is without basis and unjustified.
(x) The respondents have also disputed the receipt of any letter from the petitioner on 2nd August, 2004. It is submitted that the only letters received were dated 9th August, 2004 and 10th August, 2004 when she was informed that she had been denied admission as she had failed to appear on the requisite dates and that nothing could be done to assist her.
(xi) The respondents have challenged the maintainability of the writ petition on ground of delay and laches and submitted that admissions to all the Government DIETs were full on 30th July, 2004 and that the course having commenced she cannot be granted admission even if vacancies are available.
The issues raised in Daljit Kaur''s petition are purely in the realm of facts. There is no dispute whatsoever to the merit position of the petitioner. On the contrary, the respondents have fairly stated that the petitioner was eligible and entitled for admission to the reserved category in the Government DIET. The only reason that she could not be granted admission is her non-appearance. It was disputed that the petitioner appeared for counselling on the 2nd August, 2004. The respondents have made deposition on affidavit with regard to her non-appearance on the date of counselling.
I find no reason to disbelieve the statement made by the respondents. The petitioner ought to have been vigilant inasmuch as the public notice itself stated that a candidate should see his/her result in the general as well as the reserved list. The instruction No. 1 set out in the public notice clearly stipulated that provisionally selected candidate were required to report for allotment and admission in DIETs and private institutions on 20th and 21st July, 2004 as per the schedule given in the notice. The respondents have notified that any candidate who did not appear for counselling on the specified date and time, shall forfeit his/her right for admission to the ETE course and that no request for change in counselling date would be entertained. The public notice stipulated that on 20th July, 2004, counselling for general category candidates from rank 1 to 233 would be held from 9 a.m. and that counselling for candidates who had secured merit rank 283 to 458 would be held at 1 p.m. The public notice also stipulated that the counselling for candidates in the OBC/SC and ST ward categories would be held from 9 a.m. on the 21st July, 2004.
Assuming that the petitioner could not be admitted to the general category list on 20th July, 2004, the petitioner was aware that she has applied under the School Teacher Ward Category as well and as such ought to have appeared for the counselling on 21st July, 2004. The petitioner had been put to notice with regard to the requirement of certificates which she had to produce.
I am unable to believe that the petitioner was told to appear on 2nd August, 2004. The petitioner ought to have appeared on the date and time stipulated alongwith the requisite documents as were notified in the public notice itself. The respondents have given the explanation as to the manner in which the list is taken out. In case the petitioner was entertaining doubts of any kind, the same could have been clarified by her immediately when the result was published.
The petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court reported at Ms. Manju Vs. Lt. Governor and Others, , I find that the issue raised in this case related to the validity and genuineness of the certificate of participation in the Education For All Programme conducted by the respondents. Inasmuch as there were doubts expressed in respect of the same, the court had directed inquiry and in this circumstance entertained the writ petition and admission was granted. The order made in the petitioner''s favour in the decision has no bearing on the issues raised in the present case.
The petitioner also relied on the judgment reported by the Apex Court at 2000 Dolly Chhanda Vs. Chairman, JEE and Others, to contend that the court should not apply strict rules of proof and the submission of the petitioner should be believed. This judgment is also of no benefit inasmuch as this Court is not being called upon to effect relaxation in rules or procedure in the instant case.
The main opposition to the writ petition is based on the fact that the course had commenced on the 30th July, 2004 and the petitioner approached this Court only in October, 2004. In these circumstances, the issue which has to be considered relates to the permissibility of effecting mid-session admissions.
In this behalf, the respondents have placed reliance on the observations of this Court in the judgment reported at Smt. Tara Wati Vs. S.C.E.R.T. and Others, It would be useful to reproduce the observations of the court in para 19 of the petitioner which are to the following effect:
Principles of laches, to my mind, impeded the grant of any relief in these Writ Petition. These petitioners would have to be accommodated either midway the course or in the academic year 2003-2004, in respect of which third parties will be affected. In the former course such an approach would run counter to the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Medical Council of Medical Council of India Vs. Madhu Singh and Others, in which a Two Judge bench of the Hon''ble Supreme Court has deprecated midsession admission.
The petitioner, therefore, cannot possibly be granted admission at this stage. I have however already held that the petitioner had been put to notice in the public notice published by the respondents to the effect that counselling would be held in the reserved categories on 21st July, 2004 and that the petitioner ought to have made herself available for counselling alongwith the requisite certificates.
In this view of the matter, the petitioner in the instant case cannot be granted any relief on any equitable considerations as well even if her contention that she was directed to report on 2nd August, 2004 was to be believed.
I, therefore, find no merit in the writ petition.
In view of the foregoing observations, the writ petitions are hereby dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.