Telangana High Court
WP/26839/2005 of P. Geetha, Vs The Commissioner AND Director of School Education, on 26 December 2005
SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26839 of 2005 Dated 26-12-2005 Between: P.Geetha. .. PETITIONER AND The Commissioner & Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad-cum-Chairman, DIET CET-2005 and others. .. RESPONDENTS ORDER The petitioner appeared in the
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.26839 of 2005
Dated 26-12-2005
Between:
P.Geetha.
.. PETITIONER
AND
The Commissioner & Director of School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad-cum-Chairman, DIET CET-2005 and others.
.. RESPONDENTS
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The petitioner appeared in the entrance examination conducted by the firstrespondent for selecting candidates into D.Ed. course (Tamil Medium). There are 50seats of that course in the third respondent institution. The petitioner states that oneseat which is reserved for S.C. woman is remaining vacant on account on non-availability of candidates and though she made a representation for consideration ofher case against such seat, the respondents have not taken any steps and sheseeks appropriate directions.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader forSchool Education.
The petitioner claims that she belongs to BC-B category. She Secured 57[th] rank inthe entrance examination conducted for the purpose of selection of candidates toD.Ed. course (Tamil Medium). She was not selected either against general categoryof seats or those reserved in favour of BC-B candidates. Even assuming that a seatreserved for S.C. woman is vacant, the petitioner cannot claim admission againstsuch a seat as of right. The respondents have to verify the list of qualified candidatesand see whether any S.C. candidates are available. It is only when such a candidateis not available, the seat is to be kept open, for being filled up by other categories ofcandidates. Here the action would depend upon the contents of the relevant rules,viz., whether the seat must be treated as belonging to the open category or be madeavailable to the other reserved categories. In the ordinary course of things, the seatsamong S.C. and S.T. categories are interchangeable. However, as observed earlier,much would depend upon the purport of the rules. This court is not in a position toform any opinion on these aspects, because of lack of proper material before it. Theduration of the course itself is very short. The matter cannot be kept pendingindefinitely.
For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondentsto examine as to whether there exists any seat and, if so, whether the candidature ofthe petitioner can be considered along with other qualified candidates and thereafterfill the seat strictly in accordance with the Rules of admission. This exercise shall becompleted within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of thisorder. No order as to costs.
Note:
Issue C.C. in three days
(B/o)
26-12-2005
______________
Prv