# (2006) 3 ILRA 1199

- **Citation:** (2006) 3 ILRA 1199
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-07-19
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.17386 of 2006
- **Bench:** Rakesh Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/2006-3-ilra-1199-40671
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Constitution of India Art. 226-Admission
in Management Quota- Admission in LLB
three years and five years course-all the
candidates from merit list got admittedmanagement admitted some student.
Under
management
Quota
as
the
numbers of seats was lying vacant-after
accepting the examination fee-university
can not refused such students-even if
the university unable to recommend the
deserving students or merit-directions
issued accordingly.

Held: Para 13

The Government or the Universities can
have
only
regulatory
approach
but
certainly not the approach that would
destroy
the
educational
atmosphere
which is being created in the country by
participation/ establishment of these
colleges in the field of education, hence
every seat filled up by the institution is
precious and cannot be permitted to
1200 INDIAN LAW REPORT ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
remain vacant or go waste in any
session. The institutions, in this regard,
cannot
be
given
free
hand
and
Government,
Universities
and
the
institutions
should
supplement
each
other to raise the standard of education
day to day.
Case law discussed:
Spl. Appeal No. 47 of 2006 decided on
18.10.06.

## Text

3All] Krishna College of Law, BijnorV. State of U.P. and others 1199
particularly, when there was no direction
by the Court earlier for their reinstatement
with full back wages.

18. In view of the above discussions
and the facts that the petitioner has failed
to plead and prove that he was not
gainfully employed from 14.11.73 to
7.10.98, the petitioner is not entitle for
payment of back wages as of right
particularly when the Court in its wisdom
had not exercised the discretion in his
favour at the time when his writ petition
against the order of termination was
allowed in part. As there was no direction
for payment of back wages therein on
reinstatement and the claim for back
wages has been rejected by the authorities
on a uniform and a rational policy
decision, it would not be proper to
interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Moreover, even in equity it would not be
proper after 33 years to award back wages
to the petitioner for the period of 25 years
i.e.
Between
14..11.73
to
7.10.98
specifically when it is admitted that the
petitioner has not worked during the
above period.

19. The writ petition, therefore,
lacks merit and is, hereby, dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.07.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.17386 of 2006
Connected with
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.17412 of 2006
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.17765 of 2006
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.17160 of 2006
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.17455 of 2006

Krishna College of Law, Bijnor

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anurag Khanna

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Govind Saran
S.C.

Constitution of India Art. 226-Admission
in Management Quota- Admission in LLB
three years and five years course-all the
candidates from merit list got admittedmanagement admitted some student.
Under
management
Quota
as
the
numbers of seats was lying vacant-after
accepting the examination fee-university
can not refused such students-even if
the university unable to recommend the
deserving students or merit-directions
issued accordingly.

Held: Para 13

The Government or the Universities can
have
only
regulatory
approach
but
certainly not the approach that would
destroy
the
educational
atmosphere
which is being created in the country by
participation/ establishment of these
colleges in the field of education, hence
every seat filled up by the institution is
precious and cannot be permitted to
1200 INDIAN LAW REPORT ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
remain vacant or go waste in any
session. The institutions, in this regard,
cannot
be
given
free
hand
and
Government,
Universities
and
the
institutions
should
supplement
each
other to raise the standard of education
day to day.
Case law discussed:
Spl. Appeal No. 47 of 2006 decided on
18.10.06.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.)

1. These writ petitions raise
common questions of law and facts, as
such, they are being decided by this
common judgment. Civil Misc. writ No.
17386 of 2006 is being treated as main
petition.

2. Petitioner's institution- Krishna
College of Law is self financed; does not
receive
any
aid
from
the
State
Government and is running a law college
of three and five years duration. State
Government vide orders dated 19.6.2002
and 3.4.2003 respectively granted ''No
Objection Certificate' to the petitioner's
institution (for shorr ''institution'). The
institution
was
grated
temporary
affiliation to run three years' law course
provided
the
institution
obtains
permission from the Bar Council of India
vide order dated 13.8.2002 passed by the
Chancellor. Bar Council of India granted
permission to the institution to run three
years' law course with four Sections and
intake of 80 students in each Section for
the academic session 2002-2003 vide
order dated 1.10.2002 in pursuance
whereof the University permitted the
institution vide letter dated 10.10.2002 to
admit 320 students. Thus, three years' law
course continued in the institution for the
academic sessions 2003-04 and 2004-05;
examination of the students were held and
results were declared.

3. The institution was thereafter
granted
permission
by
the
State
Government vide order dated 3.4.2003 to
run five years' law course. The institution
was then permitted to run three years' law
course with intake of 4 Sections of 80
students and five years' law course with
intake of two Sections of 80 students for
academic years 2003-04 and 2005-06 by
the Bar Council of India. Vide orders
dated 13.8.2003 and 11.9.2003, the
Chancellor extended the affiliation to the
three years' course from 1.7.2003 and five
years' course from 1.7.2003 for five years
respectively.

4. The University vide letter dated
23.10.2003 also permitted the institution
to admit students in the five years' law
course. For the academic session 2005-06,
the University issued letters to the
students who had qualified in the entrance
examination to approach the colleges of
their choice for admission in three years'
law course and in pursuance thereof 11
students approached the institution, who
were
admitted.
Vide
letter
dated
20.11.2005 issued by the University, the
institution was informed that it can further
admit 30 students from the list sent by the
University in five years' law course.
However, only six students came forward
thereafter to take admission in the
institution which fact was informed to the
University vide letter dated 22.12.2005.

5. The institution again vide letter
dated 5.1.2006, the institution informed
the University that only 11 students had
approached for admission against the
University quota and 36 students had been
admitted in the management quota and
3All] Krishna College of Law, BijnorV. State of U.P. and others 1201
that a large number of seats were lying
vacant.

6. When the institution received no
response it filled up the vacant seats from
management quota in accordance with
Government order dated 14.12.1999.

7. Examination forms together with
examination fee of 480 students for
examinations for session 2005-06,which
were to commence in March 2006 was
submitted by the institution were accepted
by the University and roll numbers were
also issued to the students but the
institution was informed vide impugned
letter dated 18.3.2006 that it has admitted
students in excess of the sanctioned
strength as such, the students would not
be permitted to appear in the examination.

8. Counsel for the petitioner
contended that the respondent-University
is estopped from refusing permission to
the students admitted against management
quota
after
having
accepted
their
examination forms and fee. It is urged that
the petitioner has admitted the students
strictly in accordance with the norms
fixed by the Bar Council of India and the
Government order dated 14.12.1999 in
which it is clarified that in case the
students are not recommended by the
Government
or
the
University,
the
Management shall be entitled to fill up the
vacant seats. It is also urged that the
institution has not admitted any student in
excess in the Ist year Law courses rather
the respondents are confusing the matter
as the institution has taken direct
admission of some students in IInd year
law courses which is strictly within the
four-corners of the permission granted by
the Bar Council of India and as such it
cannot be said that the institution has
admitted
students
more
than
the
sanctioned strength.

9. Counsel for the respondentUniversity
rebutted
the
arguments
advanced by counsel for the petitioner and
contended that in its meeting held on
23.3.2006, the Admission Committee of
the University resolved that the admit
card be issued to the students who have
been admitted on the basis of the list
supplied by the University and against
15% management quota. The institution,
in question, had sanctioned strength of
160
seats
in
5-years'
law
course.
However, the institution has admitted 6
students from University quota and 114
directly. In the 5-years' course of law, the
University provided a list of 30 students
for admission.

10. He further submits that the Coordinator, Law entrance Examination
issued a selection letter with rank number
and option of the students for the College.
This
letter
was
issued
for
taking
admission by 827 students of General
category,498 against other Backward
Class and 385 against Scheduled Caste
upto
10.12.2005.
The
Admission
Committee resolved in its meeting held on
18.11.2005 that the last date for admission
was 10.12.2005 and thus, there was no
justification for making admission after
the cut off date. He urged that the
Government Order dated 14.12.1999 was
superceded by Government order dated
16.3.2005 and, therefore, the institution,
in question could not fill up the vacancies
in terms of Government order dated
14.12.1999.

11. Heard counsel for the parties and
perused the record. With explosion of
population,
India
now
today
is
1202 INDIAN LAW REPORT ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
represented by 70% youth. The young
generation coming up requires vast
infrastructure in education system to
make them literate and complete with the
work in any field of education. The future
of the country rests on the young ones
today. The Government is unable to cope
up with the problem of providing good
infrastructure in the education system and
quality schools in adequate number to
meet this problem. It is rather helpless and
has to rely upon on private self-financed
institutions. The students cannot be
deprived
of
the
education
as
the
eradication of illiteracy is one of the basic
goals of our Constitution which helps in
eradication of poverty and other miseries.

12. After perusal of record, there is
no iota of doubt in my mind that no
excess student was admitted in the Ist
year law course by the institution. The
students, whose names were included in
the list circulated by the University had
choice to take admission in any of the
Colleges which were affiliated with the
University. Admittedly, less number of
students approached the institution for
admission but all those students who
approached the Colleges, in pursuance of
the
examination
conducted
by
the
University and list circulated by it were
give admission by the institution. No one
of them was denied admission nor there
was any grievance by any student that
he/she has not been admitted. It is
apparent that the University confused the
issue as the institution, in question,
admitted some direct students according
to circular issued by the Bar Council of
India. In similar circumstance, a Division
Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No.
46
of
2005-
Rajiv
Academy
of
Technology and Management Mathura
and others Vs. State of others passed the
following orders:-

"Thus accordingly it is directed that
pending disposal of this appeal or further
orders of this Court, whichever is earlier,
the Universities will not disaffiliate any
college or take any other steps adverse to
them or their admitted students because
and
only
because
the
impugned
Government
Order
regarding
seat
allotment and reservation has not been
allowed or is not being followed by the
college, in question. In other words no
adverse steps will be taken if the College,
in question, admits a lesser percentage of
the Universities forwarded students than
85% or admits a large number of privately
admitted students than 15%. This will
also cover the Colleges which have
admitted already more than the 15% on
the management quota. We make it clear
that the admissions granted by the
Colleges on the management quota and
which are to be granted hereafter will be
so done at the sole risk and responsibility
of
the
Colleges
and
the
students
themselves who are being thus admitted;
it should be understood that no equities
are finally being created in favour of the
students only by reason of their admission
on the management quota if those are in
excess of 15%.
We also direct each and every
college hereafter in regard to management
quota admission above 15% to bring it to
the notice of each such students admitted
that the admission is subject to the results
in these appeals and is being permitted on
the basis of the interim order we pass
hereinbelow: a copy of this interim order
has to be served to each such freshly
admitted students. It shall be ensured by
each college and they will keep record
signed documents in their possession for
3All] Krishna College of Law, BijnorV. State of U.P. and others 1203
showing to this Court as and when
necessary that each such admitted student
was given a copy of our interim order
before money was taken from such
student for admission and admission
granted to him.
The order and observations herein,
however, worded, are without prejudice to
the final rights and contentions of the
parties in these appeals or the future
proceedings. We take note that in spite of
the time honoured fifty-fifty formula
honoured and accepted by the Supreme
Court so far, the Government Order
impugned before us, covers not merely
the 2004-05 academic session but future
sessions as well. Whatever might be the
fate of the students, or Universities or the
Colleges affiliated to them for the session
2004-05, if final pronouncement in regard
to appropriateness or the otherwise of the
Government
Order
in
the
final
pronouncement of these appeals is likely
to benefit all concerned in the future years
to come. As such the appeals will be
heard out fully and decided and it should
be borne in mind that the results for the
current academic session and the mode of
admission therein might be quite different
from the mode of admission which might
be decided as correct and just according
to the Constitution and other laws of the
country for the future academic session.
We make it clear that we are not directing
any admission to be made by the order
nor finally permitting any such admission.
All admission, as we have said earlier,
will ultimately abide by the results of the
appeals and the admissions given or
admission taken on the part of the
colleges and students respectively will be
with their eyes fully open that even during
the academic session such admissions
might be nullified and result in a loss of
several months of studies to the students
apart from the monetary loss which might
also be a consequences of the final order
in appeals.
Put up on 31st March, 2005 for
further hearing, marked ''After recess'"

13. It is the colleges established in
the private sector which have came
forward to give respite to the students and
professional
fields
by
imparting
education. They invest huge amount of
money and provide best infra-structure
available. Though they may not be
allowed to indulge in profiteering but are
certainly entitled to cover the expenses
and
to
gain
some
profit
so
that
advancement in teaching skills and infrastructure
can
be
made
by
future
investment. If such colleges do not
provide quality teaching or indulge in
unfair practice, certainly the students will
not prefer such colleges. The Government
or the Universities can have only
regulatory approach but certainly not the
approach
that
would
destroy
the
educational atmosphere which is being
created in the country by participation/
establishment of these colleges in the field
of education, hence every seat filled up by
the institution is precious and cannot be
permitted to remain vacant or go waste in
any session. The institutions, in this
regard, cannot be given free hand and
Government,
Universities
and
the
institutions should supplement each other
to raise the standard of education day to
day.

14. The controversy raised in these
petitions are covered by the decision
dated 12.12.2005 rendered by this Court
in Anurag Kumar Tiwari and others vs.
state of U.P and others wherein it has
been held as under:-
1204 INDIAN LAW REPORT ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
"The basic idea for passing of the
said order is that in self financing
institution seats shall not go waste and
arrangement shall be made for filling up
the said seats. Consequently, in the
present case also, as seats have been filled
up on the same principle that the seats
shall not go waste and as no complaint
has
been
made
by
any
candidate
recommended by the University that they
were denied admission and further no one
has come forward complaining that his
merit
has
been
ignored,
in
these
circumstances and in this background as
on the strength of interim order petitioners
have already undertaken the examination,
as such consequently it is hereby directed
that the result of the petitioners be also
declared forthwith."

15. The aforesaid decision was
challenged in Special Appeal Nos. 47 of
2006 Chattrapati Sahu ji Maharaj
University, Kanpur Vs Rao Gajendra
singh Yadava and others and Special
Appeal no. 48 of 2006- Chattrapati Sahu
ji
Maharaj
University,
Kanpur
Vs
Anurag Kumar Tiwari and others.
Dismissing the Special Appeals vide
judgment and order dated 18.1.2006, the
Court held as under:-

"We are in respectful agreement with
the reasoning given and the order passed
by Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Shukla on the
12th of December, 2005. The following
passage from his Lordship's judgment is
extracted below:-

"This fact is also undisputed that
each and every student who had been
recommended by the University had been
accorded admission by the institution, in
question and no candidate come forward
to complain that in spite of their name
being recommended by the University
they were not admitted by the institution,
in
question
and
directives
were
disregarded on account of extraneous
considerations.
Here
institution
has
accorded admission to each and every
candidate recommended by the University
to the institution, in question. This fact is
also undisputed that there are 100 seats
sanctioned and as far as petitioners are
concerned their admission has been made
well within the sanctioned strength and at
no point of time any dispute has been
raised that there is any ineligibility or
disqualification attached to them and no
candidate has come forward complaining
that
on
account
of
extraneous
consideration there candidature has been
ignored and deprived."

Acceptance of the appellant's case
would mean that at the instance of the
University, the Court would have to direct
the withholding of result of students who
have already been admitted, completed
the course and taken their examinations.

The reading of the Government
orders involved do not at all show that it
was
intended
that
self-financing
institutions would allow their seats to go
vacant even if the University was unable
to recommend sufficient number of
qualifying and deserving students.
The
appeals
are,
therefore,
dismissed."

16. This position is more or less
same in all these connected writ petitions.
That being so, they deserve to be allowed.

17. In the result, the writ petitions
are allowed. The respondent-University is
directed to declare the results of the
students, within 15 days from the date of
3All] Prabhu Dayal V. State of U.P. and another 1205
production of a certified copy of this
judgment and order, who had been
allowed to appear in the examination in
terms of interim orders passed by this
Court. No order as to costs.
Petition Allowed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.03.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMAR SARAN, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 4563 of 2005

Prabhu Dayal
...Claimant/Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & others ...Opposite Parties/
 Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Hardev Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ravi Prakash Singh
A.G.A.

U.P. Gangsters and anti social Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986-Section 14 (i)-
Attachment of ancestral property-not
acquired by the gangster-can not be
attached.

Held: Para 3

As the order attaching the property
clearly states that the property belongs
to Khajji's grandfather, hence it cannot
be said that the property had been
acquired by a gangster as a result of
commission of an offence triable under
the said Act.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amar Saran, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
appellant, learned AGA and perused the
record. Counter affidavit and rejoinder
affidavit have been exchanged in this
case.

2. A very short submission has been
made in this case that as per the order of
attachment of the disputed property under
section 14 (1) of the U.P. Gangsters and
Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act,
1986, (hereinafter referred to as Act)
dated 12.10.2004 passed by the District
Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, the said
property was an ancestral property as it
belonged to the applicant, Prabhu Dayal's
father, Bhagwandin, and even if it is
accepted for the sake of argument that the
appellant Prabhu Dayal's son Khajji @
Rupesh has spent money in the renovation
of the said property, as the property had
been acquired in a legal manner, the
property could not have been attached. In
this connection reliance has been placed
on section 14 (1) of the Act, which is
being quoted hereinbelow:

"14 Attachment of property.-(1) If
the District Magistrate has reason to
believe
that
any
property,
whether
moveable or immovable, in possession of
any person has been acquired by a
gangster as a result of the commission of
an offence triable under this Act, he may
order
attachment
of
such
property
whether or not cognizance of such offence
has been taken by any Court.

(2) ..........."

3. As the order attaching the
property clearly states that the property
belongs to Khajji's grandfather, hence it
cannot be said that the property had been
acquired by a gangster as a result of
commission of an offence triable under
the said Act.