[2025:RJ-JP:35967] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7461/2021 Dalchand S/o Shri Budharam Jhinjad, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Dhani Hari Singh Ki Jod, Vpo Narayanpur, Tehsil Thanagazi, District Alwar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Raj Rishi Bhartrihari Matsya University, Alwar, Through Its Vice Chancellor 2. Controller Of Examination, Raj Rishi Bhartrihari Matsya University, Alwar. 3. Anand T.t. College, Karana, Bansur, District Alwar Through Principal. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Kailash Chand Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr.Sudhir Yadav with Ms.Kiran Yadav JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 08/09/2025 1. The instant writ petition has been preferred with the following prayer:- “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and (i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby direct the respondents to declare the result of B.Ed. Part-II Exam-2020 of paper critical Understanding of ICT of petitioner under Roll No.758198 Enrollment No.2016/33663 and issue marksheet as well as degree of B.Ed. Part- II. (ii) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and [2025:RJ-JP:35967] (2 of 3) [CW-7461/2021] circumstances of the case may also be given in favour of the petitioner.” 2. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking direction against the respondents to declare the result of his B.Ed. Part-II Examination, 2020 and issue his marksheet as well as Degree of B.Ed. Part-II Examination. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner took admission in B.Ed. Course in the academic session 2016-17, but he remained absent during the examination and thereafter, he was granted one more opportunity to appear in the successive examination. In spite of appearance of the petitioner in the B.Ed. Part-II Examination, 2020, his result was not declared, hence, under these circumstances, he has approached this Court for the aforesaid purpose. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that the duration of the B.Ed. Course is of two years and as per Appendix-4 attached to the National Council for Teacher Education (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulation, 2014 (for short, “the NCTE Regulations, 2014”), the duration of the B.Ed. Course is of two years, which could be completed within a maximum period of three years from the date of admission to the Course. 5. Counsel submits that the petitioner was supposed to complete the B.Ed. Course before 2019, but he has failed to complete the same within the aforesaid period, i.e., three years. Counsel submits that by mistake the college accepted the examination form of the petitioner and forwarded the same to the University and accordingly, the petitioner was allowed to appear in [2025:RJ-JP:35967] (3 of 3) [CW-7461/2021] the examination, but at a subsequent stage, this fact came into the notice of the University that the three years period of the petitioner has already expired in the year 2019, hence, under these circumstances, the result of the petitioner was not declared. 6. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the result of the petitioner cannot be declared as per the provisions contained under the NCTE Regulations, 2014. 7. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 8. Considering the aforesaid submissions made by counsel for the respondents, this Court vide its order dated 23.08.2024 directed the counsel appearing for the University to bring the result of the petitioner. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the result of the petitioner has been brought in the sealed cover pertaining to the B.Ed. Part-II, which shows that the petitioner has failed to secure the passing marks, hence, he has been declared as failed. 9. Even otherwise also, the petitioner has failed to complete his B.Ed. Course within the stipulated time, i.e., three years as per the NCTE Regulations, 2014, hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief as sought for in the instant writ petition. 10. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /79