JUDGMENT
Rajendra Saxena, J.
1. The petitioner by means of this writ petition has prayed that the respondents be directed to admit him in the S.T.C. Course for the academic session 1990-91 or in the alternative to admit him in the next session of S.T.C, Course commencing from July, 1991.
2. The petitioner passed the Senior Higher Secondary Examination, 1989(Vocational) from the Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan as is evidenced from the mark-sheet Annexure 1 and secured First Division. He is a physically disabled person as per certificate Annexure 2. He submitted his application for admission in the School Teaching Course (in short S.T.C). He was called by the Selection Committee of Smt. M.G. Bohra Government Shikshak Prashikshan, Phalodi for interview for the admission in the first year of S.T.C. for the session 1990-91 on 26.9.90 vide interview letter dated 20.9.1990 (Annexure 3) alongwith his original certificate. It is the case of the petitioner that the said interview letter Annexure 3 which was sent by post, was delivered to him on 26.9.90 at 5 p.m. by the postal authorities as per Post Office certificate Annexure 4. In such circumstances, he could not appear before the said Selection Committee and was thus deprived from the admission without his fault. The respondents should have dispatched the interview letter to him at least a fortnight prior to the date of interview and thus, the action of the respondents has been violative of Article 14, 15 of the Constitution of India.
3. A counter has been filed on behalf of the respondents. They have contested the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner was asked to come alongwith the certificate about his Orthopedics disability issued by a Specialist in Orthopedic, but he did not appear before the Selection Committee. Moreover, the certificate Annexure. 2 submitted by the petitioner has been issued by a Civil Assistant Surgeon, and as such the said certificate is not valid. Another objection taken by the respondents is that since postal certificate has not been counter-signed by the Post Master, its genuineness is doubtful and even if it is assumed that the letter of interview was delivered to the petitioner at 5 p.m. on 26.9.1990, he ought to have appeared before the Selection Committee on the next day. It has also been asserted that since the petitioner did not turn up in time, as per admission Rules, persons who were at seniority No. 3 and 6 and who were available before the Selection Committee were given admission.
4. It may be mentioned here that this Court by its ad-interim order dated 11.12.1990 directed the respondents to provisionally admit the petitioner in the S.T.C. Course. The said interim order was confirmed by its order dated 17.7.91. In pursuance of Courts’ order, the petitioner was admitted in the S.T.C. Course. He passed the First year of the said Course. He has also appeared in the final examination of the S.T.C. Course but his result has not been declared so far.
5. It is also pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has filed another Certificate issued by Dr. P.C. Joshi, Junior Specialist, Government Hospital, Nagaur, dated 6.1.91 (Annexure 5), wherein it has been certified that the petitioner has residual police in his left lower limb 25-75% resulting in total disability. Thus, the petitioner is an orthopeadically handicapped candidate and was entitled for consideration in Orthopeadically handicapped quota in the S.T.C. Course.
6. A perusal of Postal Certificate, Annexure. 4 reveals that it bears the seal of the Experimental Post Office, dated 26.9.90 alongwilh the signatures of the Post Master testifying that the registered letter No. 4846 was delivered to the petitioner Hema Ram on 26.9.90 at 5 p.m. The interview letter dated 20.9.90 (Annexure 3) was dispatched on 20.9.90. In such circumstances, it cannot be presumed that Postal Certificate Annexure 4 is not a genuine document or that the factum of the delivery of interview letter Annexure 3 to the petitioner on 26.9.90 at 5 p.m. is doubtful. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that the petitioner was deprived to appear before the Selection Committee for the interview on 26.9.90 without his fault and due to slackness of the staff of respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 ought to have dispatched the interview letter sufficiently well in time, so as to ensure that the same could be delivered to the petitioner prior to 26.9.90 i.e., the date when the interview was fixed. Hence the petitioner was legally entitled to get the admission in the S.T.C. Course. As narrated earlier, he has already been given provisional admission, passed the examination of First year and has also appeared in the Second year S.T.C. Examination.
7. In the premise of above discussion, the respondents are directed to declare the result of the petitioner for the final year of the S.T.C. Course and if he is found successful then the necessary Certificate be issued in his favour.
8. Thereafter, Shri S.K. Vyas, Addl. G.A. submitted a sealed envelope containing the result-sheet of the petitioner Hema Ram. The said letter was opened in the Court. As per result-sheet, petitioner Hema Ram has been declared successful in the S.T.C. and his result shall take effect w.e.f. 24.11.1992.
9. A photo copy of the result-sheet be kept in file and the original result-sheet be handed over to the Additional Government Advocate.
10. With these observations and findings this writ petition is accordingly disposed off. No order as to costs.