Honble CHAUHAN, J.–The instant writ petition has been filed for issuing direction to the respondents for giving admission in B.Ed. Course to the petitioners by determining their merit as per Faculty-wise criteria.

(2). The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that there are about 6000 seats in B.Ed. Course in the State of Rajasthan; out of which 600 seats are reserved for Shiksha Shastri, which is equivalent to B.Ed. Respondent No. 2 conducted the Pre-Teachers Education Test, 2000 (for short, ``P.T.E.T.) on 8.10.2000. The result was declared on 12.12.2000 but as there had been some error in publishing the result by the local news- papers, the amended result was declared on 17.12.2000. Candidates had been offered admission but petitioner has not been admitted to the B.Ed. Course. Hence this petition. For deciding the case, facts in respect of petitioner No. 1 are taken into consideration.

(3). Mr. Pushpendra Singh, learned counsel for petitioners, has submitted that persons securing lesser marks in P.T.E.T. had been offered admission ignoring the claim of the petitioner, hence he has been subjected to hostitle discrimination. The candidate, who secured 460 marks, had been given admission while petitioner had secured 462 marks and such a course is impermissible. Moreso, the Guidelines/Rules for the purpose provide to prepare the merit list faculty-wise and if the merit is determined accordingly to faculty-wise criteria, he deserves to be admitted in the course.

(4). The respondents have contested the case submitting that the National Council of Teachers Education (hereinafter called NCTE) established under the National Council of teachers Education Act, 1993, has issued certain guidelines fixing the ratio of 1 : 24, i.e. one teacher for 24 students, therefore, the admission has to be offered considering availability of teachers in a particular subject also. Moreso, every candidate had to give option of three subjects for B.Ed. Course, in which he has done his Graduation and two courses would be offered to him taking into account the availability of the institution and the teacher, of course, strictly in accordance with merit; no candidate securing the lesser merit than the petitioner in the same discipline has been offered admission; the person who secured 460 marks and has been admitted belonged to Mathematics Group while petitioner was in Biology Group. Therefore, there is no discrimination in offering admissions.

(5). I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

(6). As per the Scheme of Admission, there has to be a combined test for all the eligible candidates throughout the State for the aforesaid seats. 20% of the total number of seats had to be filled up strictly in accordance with merit, i.e. offering admission to the students who are in the top of combined merit list irrespective of their district-wise merit and group/discipline etc. and remaining 80% seats had to be filled up considering the availability of the course and teachers in a particular subject. As per the Rules/Scheme, admissions were required to be made taking into consideration also the merit; group of the candidate; reservation; availability of the seats; subjects etc. and also the choice of the students regarding the educational institution. Thus, while giving admission, 20% of the students whose names appeared in the top of the merit list, had been offered admissions as per their choice. There has been no restriction either of their caste or district. Remaining 80% candidates had been offered admission taking into consideration their subject, availability of teachers and institutions in a particular district.

(7). Whether merit list can be prepared district-wise or not, is not under challenge and none of the petitioners has raised this issue. In a particular case, if 20% students in the top of the merit list has been offered admission strictly in accordance with their merit and choice, in certain cases, all th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document