Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/9522/2008 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9522 of 2008
=========================================================
CHAUHAN
TUSHARSINH VIRBHADRA- SINH - Petitioner(s)
Versus
HEMCHANDRACHARYA
NORTH GUJARATUNIVERSITY & 3 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SHIRISH JOSHI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR MITUL K SHELAT for Respondent(s) : 1,
NOTICE
SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 2,
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for
Respondent(s) : 3,
MR AJ SHASTRI for Respondent(s) :
4,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 17/10/2008
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN)
1. Draft
Amendment is allowed. The petitioner to carry out the amendment as
per draft amendment forthwith.
2. This
is a petition seeking a writ of mandamus/certiorari or any writ,
order or direction quashing and setting aside the order/letter dated
28.4.2008 at Annexure D to the petition passed by respondent No.2 and
also to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to declare the result of the
petitioner of B.Ed. Course and other consequential reliefs.
3. We
have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
4. Detailed
affidavit in reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and
2. On behalf of respondent No.3 also affidavit in reply has been
filed. It has been stated in the affidavit filed on behalf of
respondent No.3 that minimum eligibility for admission to B.Ed.
Course 2007-08 was 50% marks at the graduation level. Clause 3.2 of
the statutory norms and standards of NCTE prescribing eligibility
conditions for admission to B.Ed. Course 2007-08 provides that
candidates with at least 50% marks either in Bachelor’s degree and/or
in the Master’s degree or any other qualification equivalent thereto,
are eligible for admission to the programme. Admittedly the
petitioner does not possess the required qualification.
5. Learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that appropriate direction may be
given to respondents to give relaxation. This Court cannot give any
such direction to respondents as it is for the respondents to decide
as to what should be the minimum qualification for admission to B.Ed.
Course.
6. In
view of the above facts, we find no merit in the petition. The
petition is accordingly rejected. Notice is discharged. No order as
to costs.
(K.S.
Radhakrishnan, C.J.)
(Akil
Kureshi, J.)
…
(karan)
Top