# Adeed Nawaz v. State of U.P. & Others

- **Citation:** (2012) 3 ILRA 1366
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-10-19
- **Bench:** Amreshwar Pratap Sahi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/adeed-nawaz-v-state-of-u-p-others-42415
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India-Art-226- Change of
option-on allegations the restrictions
contained in clause 31 of Admission
Guide-ultra vires-petitioner once taken
admission in B.A.L.L.B. Course-based
upon his first preference-can not be
permitted to turned around-giving three
options to ensure getting admissionmandamus for alteration can not be
issued.

Held: Para 11

Coming to the argument with regard to
the vires of paragraphs 31 and 32 this
court is clearly of the opinion that it does
not
suffer
from
any
arbitrariness,
inasmuch as, such a clause has been
included to secure the final option of a
candidate who after getting admission
should not be allowed to change the
same. This in no way prejudices a
candidate who has already been given
three options and he has availed of the
benefit of admission accordingly. This
also facilitates the adjustment of options
of the candidates.
Case Law discussed:
(2008) 4 SCC 171

## Text

1366 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
and the Rules framed thereunder in the
year 1954. In case such an application is
filed along with certified copy of the
order
of
this
Court
before
the
appropriate court/authority, he shall
look into the same and pass appropriate
order in accordance with law after
hearing all concerned within a period of
six months from the date of filing of
such application .

11. It may be clarified that I have
neither
addressed
myself
on
the
maintainability of the application nor its
merit and the appropriate court/authority
is free to pass independent order in
accordance with law.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.10.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.55711 OF 2012

Adeed Nawaz

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rakesh Pande
Sri Madan Lal Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Sri S.S. Singh

Constitution of India-Art-226- Change of
option-on allegations the restrictions
contained in clause 31 of Admission
Guide-ultra vires-petitioner once taken
admission in B.A.L.L.B. Course-based
upon his first preference-can not be
permitted to turned around-giving three
options to ensure getting admissionmandamus for alteration can not be
issued.

Held: Para 11

Coming to the argument with regard to
the vires of paragraphs 31 and 32 this
court is clearly of the opinion that it does
not
suffer
from
any
arbitrariness,
inasmuch as, such a clause has been
included to secure the final option of a
candidate who after getting admission
should not be allowed to change the
same. This in no way prejudices a
candidate who has already been given
three options and he has availed of the
benefit of admission accordingly. This
also facilitates the adjustment of options
of the candidates.
Case Law discussed:
(2008) 4 SCC 171

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap
Sahi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Rakesh Pandey,
learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner has been admitted in
the B.A. LL.B. Course of the Aligarh
Muslim University and has been allocated
the campus of Malappuram in Kerala. The
petitioner while filling his option had given
his first preference for the Aligarh
University Campus, for Murshidabad in
West Bengal in the second place and
Malappuram Kerala in the third place.

3. The revision of such an option is
governed by Clause 31 of the Guide to
Admissions 2012-13 quoted herein under:-

"31.
A
candidate
provisionally
admitted to a Course/ Branch/ Main
Subject/ Stream/ Specialization of lower
preference
as
mentioned
in
the
Application Form, may be upgraded to
3 All] Adeed Nawaz V. State of U.P. & Others
1367
a
Course/
Branch/
Main
Subject/
Stream/
Specialization
of
higher
preference
as
mentioned
in
the
Application Form in the event of a
vacancy arising therein.

A candidate provisionally admitted
to a Course/ Branch/ Main Subject/
Stream/ Specialization over and above
the preferences as indicated in his/her
Application Form may be upgraded to a
Course/ Branch/ Main Subject/ Stream/
Specialization over and above the
preferences
as
indicated
in
the
Application Form or to a preference as
mentioned in the Application Form in
the event of a vacancy arising therein.

A candidate who wants to retain
the Course/ Branch/ Main Subject/
Stream/ Specialization, in which he/she
has been admitted, shall submit an
undertaking on Notary Public Affidavit
to
the
Deputy/Assistant
Controller
(Admissions),
Admission
Section,
A.M.U., Aligarh on the same date of
admission for not upgrading his/her
Course/
Branch/
Main
Subject/
Stream/Specialization in which he/she
was originally admitted."

4. The petitioner was admittedly
given admission at Malappuram and he
deposited his fee and started pursuing
his course there.

5. The petitioner contends that one
of his brothers Nadeem Ahmad is also
studying in the same campus and
therefore he wanted to continue in
Kerala.

6. The third paragraph of Clause
31 quoted hereinabove clearly requires
the filing of an affidavit giving an
undertaking that a candidate does not
wish to get his place and campus of
admission upgraded against which he
was originally admitted.

7. The petitioner admittedly did
not file any such affidavit and therefore
since he had given his second option for
Murshidabad his admission has been
upgraded by the impugned order and the
petitioner has been called upon to now
pursue
his
course
finally
at
Murshidabad. It is this communication
dated 8th October, 2012 Annexure 9 to
the
writ petition
which is being
challenged contending that had the
petitioner been given any information
earlier
he
would
have
opted for
Malappuram itself, even though it was
his third option.

8. In the alternative, there is a
challenge to paragraphs 31 and 32 of the
Admission Guideline to declare it as
ultra-vires
contending
that
it
is
absolutely arbitrary and the filing of the
affidavit has no rational nexus with the
object of upgradation.

9. Having heard Sri Pandey so far
as the rules are concerned they are clear
and if the petitioner had failed to give
an undertaking on a notary public
affidavit his allotment could have been
altered in terms thereof.

10. The petitioner had given his
second option for Murshidabad, and
therefore, he has been upgraded from
Malappuram
to
Murshidabad
as
Malappuram was his third option.

11. Coming to the argument with
regard to the vires of paragraphs 31 and
32 this court is clearly of the opinion
1368 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
that it does not suffer from any
arbitrariness, inasmuch as, such a clause
has been included to secure the final
option of a candidate who after getting
admission should not be allowed to
change the same. This in no way
prejudices a candidate who has already
been given three options and he has
availed of the benefit of admission
accordingly. This also facilitates the
adjustment of options of the candidates.

12. Even otherwise after having
sought admission under the rules, the
petitioner cannot be permitted to turn
around and challenge the provisions of
the rules itself to which he will be
deemed to have acquiesced and waived
his right of challenge in view of the law
laid down by the apex court in the case
of Dhananjay Malik and others Vs.
State of Uttaranchal and others
reported in (2008) 4 SCC 171.

13. In the aforesaid circumstances,
the prayer made by the petitioner cannot
be accepted.

14. The writ petition is however
disposed of with liberty to the petitioner
to approach the Vice Chancellor who
may
sympathetically
consider
the
reallocation in case it is possible in view
of the fact that the petitioner's brother is
also studying at Malappuram.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.10.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J.
THE HON'BLE MUSHAFFEY AHMAD, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 56016 of 2012

Smt. Gainda Devi

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Gopal Verma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226allotment of Fair Price Shop-Gaon Sabha
passed resolution in favor of petitionersend
information
to
Tehsil
level
committee-Headed by S.D.O.-on basis of
complaint
on
Tehsil
Diwas-without
opportunity
of
hearing-by
impugned
order proposal canceled by accepting the
version of complaint as gospel truthheld-illegal-quashed.

Held: Para-7 and 8

It is true that the Committee had the
authority to entertain the complaint and
take cognizance, but the same would not
mean that the Committee can proceed to
act solely on the basis of the complaint
without
testing
its
veracity.
The
committee
cannot
be
permitted
to
proceed in such arbitrary manner and if
the same is permitted, in every case at
the last moment complaint can be filed
and treating the same as correct without
enquiring into the complaint and without
giving the affected party any opportunity
of hearing, each and every resolution of
the Gram Sabha can be set aside.

In such view of the matter, we are of the
opinion that the decision of the Tehsil