JUDGMENT
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
1. The petitioner seeks direction to the respondents to admit her in anyone of the nine Government DIET in the two years diploma for Elementary Teachers Education course in the OBC i.e. reserved category candidate.
2. The State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT) was set up by the Government of NCT in 1988 to improve the quality of school education by training school teachers at various levels. To achieve this, nine DIETs (District Institute Education and Training) were established. They function under the administrative control of the Government of NCT. Admission to the DIETs are on the basis of qualifying examination at the 10+2 level. For the current academic year 2007-2008, the prospectus-cum-application form were sold between 21.7.2007 and 30.7.2007. It is not in dispute that the petitioner applied for the course. Between 10.8.2007 to 12.8.2007, the respondent displayed status of the various application forms received on its website. The Petitioner’s application was shown to have been received. She claims to have fallen ill on 11.8.2007 and, therefore, could not approach the respondents on 13.8.2007 to correct the application form. The petitioner claims that the application form was incomplete in regard to an inconsequential detail i.e. date of birth. Admittedly, she had left the relevant portion blank.
3. It is alleged that petitioner’s father approached the respondents along with requisite documents such as date of birth certificate etc. on 13.8.2007. He also produced a copy of the medical certificate evidencing her illness. It is further alleged that the respondents refused to entertain the request and eventually declared the result on 27.8.2007. The petitioner’s application was not entertained.
4. Mr. Sehrawat, learned Counsel contends that the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature is arbitrary and unreasonable. He contended that the prospectus had indicated in para IV(i) that candidates were put on notice about the status of their application for the period 10.8.2007 to 12.8.2007. In spite of admitting receipt of the petitioner’s application, the respondents denied her opportunity of correcting the incomplete form on 13.8.2007. It was contended that petitioner’s father was turned away on the ground that the candidate herself had approached the authorities.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE and Ors. to submit that once a candidate is eligible, non-availability of some documents should not come in the way of a valuable right of admission and pursuing an educational course.
6. Learned Counsel for the respondents, appearing on advance notice relied upon the conditions stipulated in the prospectus – (which contains the application form) – that candidates had to fill the application form carefully with blue/black ball pen and that incomplete application forms were to be rejected outright. It was contended that the admission procedure incorporated the feature of an OMR (Optical Mark Reader) form which obliged the candidate to fill relevant details such as name, date of birth, father’s name, domicile and other relevant details in a particular manner using a specific pen. Any application form which did not contain such details, was liable to be automatically rejected by the computer programme designed to sort out the forms. Learned Counsel produced the original form and submitted that the petitioner did not enter her date of birth – the same was left blank.
7. It was contended that several hundred applications were rejected like the petitioner’s on the ground of incomplete but relevant particulars i.e. lack of date of birth, reserved category and place of domicile etc. Learned Counsel contended that candidates were not given any further opportunity to complete the application forms as was contended on behalf of the petitioner.
8. The above narrative show that admittedly the petitioner’s application form was received by the respondents; the receipt was also displayed on its website. The relevant clause in the prospectus which respondents are now relying upon to say that candidatures were rejected reads as follows:
a The candidate is required to fill the application form carefully with blue/black ball pen. Information given must be accurate. Incomplete application form will be rejected outrightly. Cutting and erasing in application form is not allowed.
9. The petitioner relied upon the following condition to say that candidates who had submitted incomplete forms were given a further opportunity:
(i) Candidates are required to view the status of receipt of their application form on website www.scertdelhi.org from 10.08.2007 to 12.08.2007. In case the date of a candidate is not available on the aforesaid website, he/she must report to Controller of Examinations, SCERT, Varun Marg, defense Colony, New Delhi-24, in person on 13.08.2007 from 11 A.M. to 4 P.M. (except lunch hours 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.) positively, Along with photocopy of the application form and two copies of recent photographs, original acknowledgment slip with registration number as a proof of submission of application form. His/her claim for submission of application and consideration for admission will not be entertained if he fails to do so.
10. A reading of both the above conditions in my considered opinion does not support the petitioner’s contention. The first stipulation in para III (a) is categorical; it entitles the respondents to reject the application outright. In such a situation, the mere display of the status of application as having been received itself could not have entitled any applicant to correct or fill up the relevant details. The second stipulation relied upon by the petitioner refers to a contingency where an applicant’s form is not shown on the website; such candidates were given a chance to be considered. As the petitioner’s application was undoubtedly received, the occasion of such representation could not arise. The procedure adopted by the respondents has been applied uniformally. Several application forms with incomplete particulars were rejected.
11. The reliance placed upon Dolly Chhanda’s case, to my mind, is not apposite in this case. That was a dispute where the institution refused to accept the disability certificate produced by the candidate; her father was a disabled defense personnel. The certificate had not been issued in the proper form and by the concerned official. There was no dispute about the eligibility or entitlement of the candidate. However, the facts here entirely different. The application form was incomplete and all candidates were put on notice that such forms would be rejected. The petitioner, therefore, has no actionable grievance.
12. In view of the above, I am of the view that this petition cannot be entertained. It is accordingly dismissed.