Sarita Birda (Ms.) vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.

In this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to the respondent co-ordinator for considering the case of the petitioner for admission to the BSTC course on the basis of her merit.

The main contention of the petitioner is that she was in the merit and was called for interview by way of issuing interview call letter dt. 07.12.2007 and she was directed to appear for interview on 20.12.2007 in the office of Maharshi Dayanand University, Ajmer. It is stated that the petitioner is residing in village Kasumbi Tehsil Ladnu (Distt. Nagaur) where she received the call letter on 24.12.2007 i.e. after expiry of the date of interview.

It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner stood in merit and she belongs to OBC category but, without any fault on her part, she may be deprived of her valuable right to admission and there are so many vacancies in existence against which the petitioner�s case may be considered. It is further submitted that on 26.12.2007 the petitioner immediately went to the respondent co-ordinator and prayed for admission but her prayer was not granted.

In the reply filed by the respondents it is specifically contended that now the process of admission is complete and after interview of all the candidates the matter was referred to the Government vide communication dt. 24.12.2007. It is also argued by the respondents that a notification was also published in the news-paper dt. 15.12.2007 in which it was specifically mentioned that those persons who are in the merit as mentioned in the advertisement may attend for the purpose of interview and, therefore, even if the call letter was received by the petitioner on 24.12.2007, prior to that, there was already information to the petitioner and as such there is no fault on the part of the University and the petitioner herself is responsible for not attending the interview.

It is true that there is no fault of the University in any manner in communicating the candidates. Vide Annex. R/2/1, it is specifically observed that after completion of the counselling for admission seats were vacant and no admissions were granted against unallotted seats which are still vacant.

Therefore, in my opinion, when the petitioner is resident of a farflung village, it is possible the news-paper in which the said notification was published may not have been circulated in village Kasumbi. It is also one of the important facts that the petitioner was found in merit, therefore, she was called for inrerview and she is claiming admission as per her merit. In the interest of justice, it is proper and just in the facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioner�s valuable right to seek admission may not be denied.

I am, therefore, inclined to accept the writ petition. The respondent co-ordinator University is directed to send the name of the petitioner also to the Government for admission to BSTC course, if obviously the name of the candidates with lesser merit have been sent inasmuch as according to the respondents there are vacancies left after completion of counselling. However, before that, the petitioner shall submit all her documents before the respondent University and after taking into consideration, if the petitioner is found eligible for admission, her name shall be sent to the Government for admission. The petitioner shall appear before the respondent University on or before 31.01.2008.