CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2011) 02 RAJ CK 0086

Poornima Kumari vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 15 February 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 15633 of 2010
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 321 words

M.N. Bhandari, J.—The short controversy involved in the present matter is regarding admission in B. Ed. Course.

2.

The Petitioner was successful in P.T.E.T. Examination and accordingly, participated in on-line counselling. The Petitioner was allocated the college of her choice but when she appeared before the college to seek admission, she was asked to submit certificate of OBC/Tada. The Petitioner clarified that she never applied for OBC/Tada category as she is not belonging to that area. The college concerned shown the document forwarded to them by the Coordinator, mentioning Petitioner belonging to Tada area.

3.

Pursuant to the aforesaid, learned Counsel appearing for the Coordinator, PTET was asked to get the original form submitted by the Petitioner. Today, form has been shown to me. Therein Petitioner has not mentioned anything to belong to Tada area. The Respondent Coordinator has now realized his mistake, though it has been stated by the counsel that college was informed to correct the mistake but it is not born out from any written document.

4.

Learned Counsel for all the Respondents submit that Petitioner is now pursuing studies pursuant to the interim order would be allowed to complete her studies. She would further be permitted to appear in the examination and her attendance would be counted from the date of admission pursuant to the interim order.

5.

In the light of the aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed. The Petitioner may be permitted to pursue her studies followed by appearance in the examination. Her attendance would be counted as indicated by the Respondents and mentioned hereinabove. Since Petitioner is unnecessarily dragged in the litigation on account of default of Respondent No. 2, may be bonafide, they are settled with cost of Rs. 1,000/-towards expenses.

6.

Learned Counsel appearing for the University of Rajasthan has tendered his apology for wrong statement made before this Court on 19.02.2011. Appology aforesaid is accepted. This disposes of the applications also.