Kumari Sarvesh vs Registrar, University of Rajasthan

Alok Sharma, J.—This petition has been filed against the letter dated 21.03.2014 issued by the University of Rajasthan to the Principal, Sugni Devi Memorial T.T. College, Near Railway Phatak, Roopbas, Alwar informing it that as the petitioner was not eligible in the first instance for admission into the B.Ed. course, she would not be allowed to write the B.Ed. examination 2014. The Sugni Devi Memorial T.T. College was also required to show cause as to under which provision of law/operative Ordinances of the University of Rajasthan or otherwise was the petitioner admitted into the B.Ed. 2014 course.

The facts of the case are that the Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur conducted PTET-2013 examination which is an eligibility test for admission into B.Ed. courses inter alia run by the University of Rajasthan. The general guidelines for admission to B.Ed. course 2013-14 in Teaching Training Institutes in the State of Rajasthan inter alia provided qua eligibility that candidates should secure at least 50% marks in the aggregate in the Bachelor''s Decree/Master Degree examination of Jain Narain Vyas University or any other university recognized as equivalent to for admission to B.Ed. Course through PTET. However, scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, other backward classes as well as physically challenged and widow and divorcee women candidates of Rajasthan having at least 45% marks in the aggregate in the Bachelor''s/Master''s degree level examination will be eligible to apply for admission. No relaxation in the minimum percentage (not even of one mark) as required was contemplated to be given to any candidate.

Aside of the condition of eligibility of percentage marks in Bachelor/Master course for admission into B.Ed. course, the brochure also set out general instructions for guidance of the candidates wherein it was provided that in the first instance the candidates had to self-assess their own eligibility to appear in PTET as there would be no checking of eligibility of candidates by the University at the stage of appearance in the test. It was further provided that appearance at the test would be at the candidate''s own risk and responsibility and would not confer any right upon the candidate writing PTET to be admitted to B.Ed. course in case he/she was subsequently found to be ineligible for admission to PTET or B.Ed. course. It was also clarified that appearance at the test would be at the candidate''s own risk and even issuance of statement of marks would also not confer any right upon such candidate for admission to the B.Ed. course, if later found ineligible

(Emphasis mine).

The candidates were cautioned to read the rules as well as general instructions very carefully and comply with the same, failing which their admission to B.Ed. course would even be cancelled

(Emphasis mine).

The petitioner appeared at the PTET-2013 examination aforesaid and passed it. Thereupon she was called for counseling and allotted Sugni Devi Memorial T.T. College, Roopbas, Alwar for pursuing her B.Ed. course. The petitioner paid the requisite fee and studied through the academic session 2013-14. Thereafter the petitioner applied to write the B.Ed examination.

At this stage, the University of Rajasthan evaluating the petitioner''s eligibility to write the B.Ed. examination found that the petitioner was not eligible to write PTET-2013 examination and hence for admission into its B.Ed. course. Consequently vide the impugned letter dated 21.03.2014, the petitioner was declared ineligible to write the university B.Ed. examination 2014 and her examination form rejected.

Mr. Manish Parihar, appearing for the petitioner would submit that the impugned letter dated 21.03.2014 is liable to be quashed and set aside primarily on the ground that the petitioner had qualified at the PTET-2013 examination, allotted a college following counseling, deposited her admission fee, studied the entire academic year and therefore was entitled to write the B.Ed. examination. The submission is based on equity allegedly operating in the facts of the case in favour of the petitioner. Counsel has also submitted that the rejection of the petitioner''s examination form for writing the B.Ed. examination 2014 is without basis inasmuch as even though the petitioner as an OBC candidate did not have the requisite 45% marks in the aggregate at the Bachelor''s level it has not been established in the reply to the petition that M.A. (English) course conducted by Singhania University in which she obtained 55% marks in the aggregate was not recognized as equivalent by the University of Rajasthan. It has been submitted that the petitioner having passed the M.A. (English) from Singhania University with 55 % aggregate marks she was eligible to write PTET-2013 Examination, be admitted to the B.Ed. course, as she indeed was and write the examination thereof in 2014.

Mr. Arun Sharma, appearing for the respondent-University would however submit that admittedly the petitioner did not possess the requisite percentage of marks in the aggregate at graduation--having secured in the said examination 41% marks as against the 45% marks required of OBC candidates--as the petitioner was, for eligibility. Counsel submitted that even the alternative qualification of the petitioner i.e. M.A. (English) from Singhania University did not confer upon her eligibility for the reason that the said course had not been declared equivalent to M.A. (English) University of Rajasthan by the Equivalence Committee or for that matter with the M.A. (English) of the Jai Narain Vyas University. Reference has been made to Section 23-A(vii) of the University of Rajasthan Act, Ordinance 330 & 331 as also Regulations 44 D, E & F. For facility of reference Section Section 23-A(vii), Ordinances 330 & 331 and Regulations 44 D, E & F are reproduced hereinbelow:

Section 23-A(vii): to advise the Syndicate regarding equivalence of examinations and recognition of the examinations of other bodies.

Ordinance--330: Applications from the Universities, Boards or other Agencies conducting examination for recognition of their examinations as equivalent to the corresponding examinations of the University, shall be considered by the Equivalence Committee. A case for granting equivalence to the Examinations/Decrees/Diploma/Certificates of an institution which has not applied for the same may also be referred to the Equivalence Committee for consideration. In the case of the statutory India Universities/Boards, provisional recognition may be given for a specified period pending detailed examination of the relevant Rules, Recognitions and syllabic in respect of the examinations concerned where after a final decision about equivalence shall be taken by the University.

Ordinance--331: The Equivalence Committee shall consist of:

(1) The Vice Chancellor.

(2) Deans of Faculties.

Regulations--44D: A candidate passing the Bachelor''s degree examination of any University recognized for the purpose by the Syndicate under R.44F infra as a private candidate be deemed eligible for admission to the various higher courses of study in the University in the Faculties of Arts, Commerce, Law and Education.

Regulations--44E: Master''s degree in Social Work of a recognized University will be treated as equivalent to the M.A. (Sociology Degree) of the University for the purpose for registration for Ph.D. Degree.

Regulation--44F: The following examinations of the under-mentioned Universities have been recognized as equivalent to the corresponding examination of the University as shown against each, subject to the provision of the foregoing Regulation 44D.

Counsel submits that as the Equivalence Committee of the University of Rajasthan whose B.Ed. examination-2014 the petitioner seeks to write constituted under the Ordinance 330 has not recognized M.A. (English) of Singhania University as equivalent to M.A. (English) of University of Rajasthan, the petitioner''s decree in M.A. (English) from Singhania University was of no avail for the purpose of her eligibility. It has been submitted that in this view of the matter, there is no force in the petition and the impugned letter dated 21.03.2014 was rightly issued by the University of Rajasthan.

Heard. Considered.

A candidate for writing and qualifying PTET examination and subsequently to be admitted to a B.Ed. course run by the University of Rajasthan as the affiliating University must have the requisite eligibility. That eligibility lies either on having obtained a minimum of 45% marks at the graduation level or the same percentage of marks at the Master level. Admittedly the petitioner had obtained only 41% marks at the graduate level. There is no dispute on this aspect between the contesting parties. The case of the petitioner however for writing PTET examination and thereafter to be admitted to the B.Ed course in Sugni Devi Memorial T.T. College following counseling by Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur is that her M.A. (English) from Singhania University with 55% marks conferred eligibility for admission into PTET examination and on qualifying to the B.Ed. course as per the conditions of the brochure for the PTET-2013 Examination. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it was/is for the respondent-University to prove that M.A. (English) course from the Singhania University was not equivalent to M.A. (English) course of University of Rajasthan. That to my mind is fundamentally erroneous. The burden of proving equivalence lies with the petitioner. That has not been discharged. Contrarily it has been categorically stated by the University of Rajasthan in its reply, to which no rejoinder has been filed, that M.A. (English) from Singhania University is not equivalent to M.A. (English) of University of Rajasthan as it has been not so recognized by the Equivalence Committee under Ordinance 331 of the University Ordinances. There is nothing before this Court to disbelieve the averments of University of Rajasthan in its reply to the writ petition duly supported by an affidavit. I am therefore of the view that M.A. (English) from Singhania University was/is not equivalent to M.A. (English) from University of Rajasthan. With this conclusion, the eligibility of the petitioner for writing the PTET-2013 examination on that basis thereafter of being admitted to B.Ed. course turns out to be absent.

I am also of the view that the doctrine of estoppel, promissory or otherwise agitated by the counsel for the petitioner cannot attract to the facts of the case at hand. The brochure for PTET-2013 examination made it mandatory for the candidates writing the PTET examination 2013 to self assess their eligibility for the said examination. Quite obviously the petitioner failed to do so and instead appears to have taken a chance to write the PTET examination and then get admitted to the B.Ed course on having qualified it. In my considered opinion, the obligation on the petitioner as a candidate for the PTET examination was clearly to self assess her eligibility. The failure to do so would take her case out of the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The petitioner on the face of it was in default on her own obligation and cannot take advantage of her own wrong. Eligibility/rights cannot be reduced to a chance. They exist or they don''t. In the instant case, it is apparent from the discussion hereinabove that the petitioner was lacking in basic eligibility to write the PTET-2013 examination and could not have either done so or be further admitted to B.Ed. course on the basis of qualifying therein. Aside of the above, the issue of equivalence of the various courses of other universities to courses conducted by University of Rajasthan is determinable with reference to Ordinance 331 of the University of Rajasthan Ordinances which provides for a Equivalence Committee to determine equivalence. For this Court to hold without material proof that M.A. (English) from Singhania University is equivalent to M.A. (English) of University of Rajasthan would be an act in excess of its jurisdiction overlooking the discretion of the Equivalence Committee of the University of Rajasthan. In my considered opinion, mere misplaced equity as agitated by the counsel for the petitioner in the instant case cannot warrant the circumventing of University of Rajasthan Ordinances and procedures thereunder specific to deceleration of equivalent of courses of other universities with the courses of the University of Rajasthan. The argument on behalf of the petitioner based on estoppel is therefore liable to be rejected.

In the circumstances thus obtaining, I do not find any force in the writ petition.

Dismissed. Stay application also stands dismissed.