# Ajay Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 10 ILRA 220
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-10-15
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 937 of 2024
- **Bench:** Manoj Kumar Gupta, Vikas Budhwar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ajay-kumar-pandey-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51128
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

student in order to be eligible should
possess the graduation degree relatable to
the academic session 2016 or thereafter -
However, the Law College took admission
of 55 students, who did its graduation in
the year 2008 - Admittedly no fraud was
played by the students to take admission
- Fault of the College found proved -
Adequate compensation - Determination
- Held, the Law College has acted not only
in a careless and reckless manner but also
exhibited a conduct other than bona fide
just in order to enroll and admit students
in order to charge fees playing with their
future - Division Bench enhanced the
monetary compensation from Rs. 30,000/-
to Rs. 5,00,000/-. (Para 16 and 17)

Special Appeal disposed of. (E-1)

## Text

220 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
contract of a teacher working in private
institution will not be maintainable.

21. The special appeal lack merit
and the same is dismissed.
----------
(2024) 10 ILRA 220
APPELLATEJURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.10.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

Special Appeal No. 937 of 2024

Ajay Kumar Pandey ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Km. Anjana, Sri Sarveshwari Prasad

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C, Sri Grijesh Tiwari, Sri Nitin Chandra
Mishra.

A. Education - Admission - LLB three year
course - Eligibility -As per Brochure, a
student in order to be eligible should
possess the graduation degree relatable to
the academic session 2016 or thereafter -
However, the Law College took admission
of 55 students, who did its graduation in
the year 2008 - Admittedly no fraud was
played by the students to take admission
- Fault of the College found proved -
Adequate compensation - Determination
- Held, the Law College has acted not only
in a careless and reckless manner but also
exhibited a conduct other than bona fide
just in order to enroll and admit students
in order to charge fees playing with their
future - Division Bench enhanced the
monetary compensation from Rs. 30,000/-
to Rs. 5,00,000/-. (Para 16 and 17)

Special Appeal disposed of. (E-1)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar, J.)

1. This intra-court appeal is against
the judgment and order of the learned
Single Judge dated 28.08.2024 passed in
Writ-C No. 33767 of 2022, whereby the
writ petition preferred by the appellant-writ
petitioner challenging the orders dated
01.11.2021
and
04.01.2021
of
the
Registrar,
Deen
Dalay
Upadhyay
Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur, second
respondent and Executive Examination
Controller,
Deen
Dayal
Upadhyay
Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur, third
respondent was dismissed.

2. The case of the appellant before the
writ court was that there happens to be an
institution by the name of Prabha Devi
Bhagwati Prasad Vidhi Mahavidhayalay,
Anantpur, Harpur-Budhahat, Gorakhpur,
fourth respondent (in short 'Law College')
affiliated
to
Deen
Dayal
Upadhyay
Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur (in short
'University').

3. A notification came to be
published by the University on 15.10.2019
for the grant of admission in LLB three
years course for the academic session
2019-20. As per the notification, the last
date for submission of the application form
was
23.10.2019.
According
to
the
appellant-writ petitioner in order to secure
admission, the relevant documents were to
be submitted before the Law College and
therefrom, the same were to be transmitted
to the University. As per the appellant-writ
petitioner the required documents was
though submitted before the last date i.e.
23.10.2019 before the Law College but the
same stood transmitted to the University on
10.06.2020.
Thereafter,
an
online
examination form came to be issued. The
appellant writ petitioner was accorded
10 All. Ajay Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
221
admission and he was allowed to appear in
the first semester examination of the LLB
course for the year 2019-20 and the results
were declared on 26.05.2020. Since the
marks for LLB first semester examination
2020 were not awarded as per the
expectation of the appellant-writ petitioner
so he preferred Writ-C No. 20136 of 2020
in which on 08.12.2020, the following
orders were passed.-

 "This writ petition has been filed
for the following relief;

 "(i) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding and directing the respondents
to produce the answer-sheet of LLB Ist
Semester Exam 2020 revaluate the same
within stipulated period as fixed by this
Hon'ble Court."

 Counsel for the petitioner submits
that marks given to the petitioner in LLB
Ist Semester Examination are far less than
expectation of the petitioner. He further
states that the petitioner has not applied for
and has not been given a copy of the said
examination.

 Considering
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case, the petitioner is
granted liberty to apply for giving copies of
LLB 1st Semester Examination for which
the petitioner may submit requisite fee with
the respondent-University.

 Sri
Rohit
Pandey,
Advocate
appears on behalf of Respondents No. 2
and 3 and assured this Court that in case the
petitioner approached the University by
filing any such application, the same shall
be supplied to the petitioner within a period
of three weeks from the date of moving the
application.
 The writ petition is disposed of
with liberty above so granted."

4. It is also the case of the
appellant-writ petitioner that the answer
sheets of the appellant writ petitioner was
re-evaluated and with respect to paper No.
146 the marks stood enhanced from 36 to
42. As per the appellant-writ petitioner
though he was entitled to appear in the
second semester viva voce examination
which was scheduled on 24.01.2021 but he
was not allowed to appear. The same led to
filing of representation on 24.01.2021 and
25.01.2021 and thereafter, Writ-C No. 5242
of 2021 which was entertained by this
Court while seeking response from the
respondents herein. Thereafter, a counter
affidavit came to be filed by the University
coming up with a stand that consequent to
the holding of the inquiry by a committee
constituted by the University by order
dated 20.12.2020 a report came to be
submitted on 01.01.2021 holding that the
admissions
accorded
to
55
students
including the appellant-writ petitioner was
illegal since the writ petitioner along with
the 54 others were not eligible to be
accorded admission as according to the
brochure for P.G. Entrance examination2019 (academic session 2019-20) a student
in order to be eligible should possess the
graduation degree relatable to the academic
session 2016 or thereafter and since the
appellant-writ petitioner did its graduation
in the year 2008, thus, he was not eligible
to be accorded admission. Thereafter, on
the basis of the report of the committee
dated 01.01.2021 the University took a
decision to cancel the admission of the
appellant-writ petitioner along with 54
candidates on 04.01.2021.

5. Questioning the said orders, the
appellant-writ petitioner preferred Writ-C
222 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
No. 33767 of 2022 (Ajay Kumar Pandey
Vs. State of U.P. & Others) which post
exchange
of
affidavits
came
to
be
dismissed on 28.08.2024 while observing
as under:-

 "12. In view of the above, as the
Rules for admission for LLB is not
challenged, so this Court would rely upon
the same and there is no illegality in the
order passed by the authorities cancelling
the admission of the petitioner. Hence the
writ petition is devoid of merit and is
accordingly dismissed.

 13. At this stage, learned counsel
for the petitioner has submitted that for the
fault of the college that the respondent
No.4 who had given admission to the
petitioner against the rules and wasted an
year of the petitioner who shall be liable for
the same.

 14. The learned counsel for the
respondent no.4 has submitted that it is the
petitioner who is responsible as he had
shown himself to have graduated in the
year 2015 whereas it was in the year
2008. So it was the petitioner who
mislead the college for taking admission
in the LLB course. None the less, the
college i.e. respondent No.4 would also
be accountable to have granted admission
to
the
petitioner
even
though
the
petitioner had placed the mark-sheet of
having graduated on the record. The
college should have also taken note of the
same. In such circumstances the equity
demands that the petitioner may not
financially suffered, therefore, the college
is directed to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- to
the petitioner which includes the amount
of Rs.6000/- deposited as fee by the
petitioner within a period of four weeks
from today."
6. Assailing the order of the
learned Single Judge, the present appeal
has been preferred.

7. Km. Anjana, learned counsel for
the appellant has sought to argue that the
judgment and order of the learned Single
Judge cannot be sustained for a single
moment as the learned Single Judge has
misconstrued the entire controversy and has
adopted an incorrect approach. Elaborating
the said submission, it has been argued that
it was only on account of the fault of the
Law College which created such a
situation, as the appellant-writ petitioner
had completed all the formalities as
prescribed therein and also submitted the
entire documents with the Law College and
as per the admission procedure, it is the
Law College which corresponded with the
University in question and not only this the
appellant-writ petitioner was accorded
admission in LLB first year for the
academic session 2019-20 and he also was
declared successful in LLB in the first
semester examination in LLB course.
However, owing to awarding of less marks,
a writ petition also came to be preferred by
the appellant-writ petitioner, Writ-C No.
20136 of 2020 which came to be disposed
of on 08.11.2020 requiring the University
to do the needful and thereafter marks
stood re-evaluated to the betterment of the
appellant-writ petitioner while enhancing
them from 36 to 42 in paper No. 146.

8. Submission is that though as per
clause 5 of the brochure published by the
University for the grant of admissions for
the academic session 2019-20, a student
was required to possess graduation degree
of the year 2016 or onwards but mere
possession of graduation degree of the year
2008 would not be of any detriment
particularly
when
the
appellant-writ
10 All. Ajay Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
223
petitioner was allowed to pursue the first
semester of LLB three years programme.

9. In a nutshell the submission is
that on account of the fault of the Law
College the entire academic career of the
appellant-writ
petitioner
has
been
jeopardized and looking into the fact that
the
appellant-writ
petitioner
is
a
meritorious student and there is nothing
adverse against him, the learned Single
Judge erred in not allowing the writ petition
while setting aside the orders impugned
before it. It is, thus, prayed that the order of
the learned Single Judge as well as the
decision of the University be set aside and
the writ petitioner be permitted to pursue
the second semester of the LLB three years
programme.

10. Countering the submission of
the learned counsel for appellant-writ
petitioner, Sri Nitin Chandra Mishra who
appears for the respondent University and
Sri Grijesh Tiwari who appears for the Law
College have submitted that the order of the
learned Single Judge needs no interference
in the present proceedings. It is contended
that the appellant-writ petitioner right from
the very inception was conversant with the
terms and conditions specified in the
Brochure for the admissions of the LLB
three
years
course
which
required
possession of the degree of graduation for
the year 2016 or onwards for the academic
session 2019-20 but, the appellant-writ
petitioner
made
interpolations
and
projected that he had obtained graduation
in the year 2015 despite the fact that he was
a graduate of the year 2008 and procured
an admission. Submission is that the
conduct of the appellant-writ petitioner
disentitles him of any relief particularly
when on account of the fault of the
appellant-writ petitioner neither the Law
College nor the university can be said to be
at any fault.

11. Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel has
adopted the submission of the learned
counsel for the University and the Law
College.

12. We have heard the learned
counsel for the parties and perused the
record.

13. Facts are not in issue. It is not
in issue that the University issued a
notification on 15.10.2019 for submitting
online examination form for admission in
three years LLB programme for the
academic
session
2019-20,
last
date
whereof was 23.10.2019. It is also not in
dispute that the Brochure came to be
published by the University setting out the
modalities
according
to
which
the
admissions are to be accorded of the LLB
three years course for the academic session
2019-20. Parties are in agreement that
clause 5 of the brochure in question
stipulated that with regard to eligibility for
being accorded admission in the LLB three
years course for the academic year 2019-20
a students should have a graduation degree
of the year 2016 or onwards. Apparently,
the appellant-writ petitioner possesses
graduation degree of the year 2008 though
he has projected in his application form that
the same was of the year 2015.

14. The bone of contention
between the parties is as to who is at fault.
On a pointed query being raised to the
learned counsel for the Law College, Sri
Grijesh Tiwari has made a statement that as
per the procedure set out therein the entire
documents including the testimonials are to
be submitted by a student to the Law
224 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
College and thereafter the records are
transmitted to the University. It has also
come on record that as many as 55 students'
admissions stood cancelled. Interestingly,
in the present case in hand the appellantwrit petitioner was accorded admission in
the first semester of the LLB three year
course, however, he was not allowed to
appear
in
the
LLB
second
year
examination. Records further reveal that
the University had constituted a committee
with regard to the illegalities committed in
the admission of the students in the Law
College relatable to LLB three years course
of
the
academic
session
2019-20
whereafter, it revealed that not only the
appellant-writ petitioner but also other
students
were
illegally
accorded
admissions. Learned Single Judge on a
challenge raised to the decision of the
University in the writ petition proceeded to
pass a detailed order on 29.04.2024 which
reads as under:-

 "1.
Heard
learned
counsel
appearing
for
the
petitioner,
learned
Standing
Counsel
appearing
for
the
Respondent No. 1, Mr. Nitin Chandra
Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the
Respondents No. 2 & 3 and Mr. V.K. Singh
leaned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.
Grijesh Tiwari, learned counsel appearing
for the Respondent No. 4.

 2. It has been contended on
behalf of the petitioner that 120 students
were allowed admission in L.L.B. three
year course for the academic session 201920 in Prabha Devi Bhagwati Prasad, Vidhi
Mahavidyalaya, Anantpur, Gorakhpur. The
students continued to pursue their studies,
they appeared in the examinations of the
first semester and later on they were given
admission in the second semester course
but before the examinations of the second
semester, Examination Controller of the
University wrote a letter on 01.10.2020
whereby principal of the institution was
directed to take decision in respect of
admissions of 55 students as University has
found that the said admissions are against
the provisions made in the brochure issued
for the purposes of admission. After the
aforesaid
letter
was
issued
by
the
University, Respondent No. 4 issued notice
to the 55 students and thereafter has
cancelled admissions of 52 students.

 3. This court finds that brochure
issued by the University for admission in
L.L.B. course categorically provided that
only those students will be given admission
in L.L.B. three year course who have
passed out their graduation examination
after 2015. The Respondent No. 4, out of
the total 120 students, allowed admissions
of 55 students who have completed their
graduation prior to the year 2015.

 4. Learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner has argued that a bare perusal
of the provisions made in the brochure for
admission, it is patently manifest that there
is categorical provision that students will
be given admission in L.L.B. three year
course only after due verification of their
original testimonials.

 5. Prima facie this court is of the
view that such a large number of illegal
admissions could not have been made by
the
college
authorities
without
their
involved. It also appears to the court that
University had just done the formality and
once the college authorities have cancelled
the admissions no further action has been
taken by the University in the matter. Even
this is also apparent from the record that no
serious inquiry on the part of the University
was conducted in the matter to ascertain, as
10 All. Ajay Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
225
to what was the role of the college
authorities in grant of illegal admissions to
55 students out of the total 120 students.

 6. Since it is the matter of career
of the students, it cannot be handled with
reluctance rather it is obligatory on the
University to hold a full fledged inquiry in
the matter and to ascertain, as to who was
responsible for these 55 illegal admissions.

 7. Accordingly, keeping this writ
petition pending, as an interim measure this
court directs the Registrar of the Deen
Dayal Upadhyay University, Gorakhpur to
hold an inquiry in the matter and to
ascertain as to who are responsible for 55
illegal admissions in L.L.B. three year
course and further what action is needed
against the erring persons.

 8. Let aforesaid inquiry be
completed within a period of six weeks
from today and report of inquiry be placed
on record of this writ petition.

 9.
List
this
matter
on
02.07.2024."

15. Though according to the learned
counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner,
since, he had been accorded admission in first
semester of LLB three years course, so he
cannot be denied permission to appear in
second semester is concerned, the same is
neither here nor there particularly when
appellant-writ petitioner was not eligible as
he had a graduation degree of the year 2008
and not of the year 2016 or onwards. Since
the conditions stipulated in clause 5 of the
brochure for admission for the academic
session 2019-20 for LLB three years course is
not under challenge, thus, we are not required
to delve into the aspect relating to the legality
of the same. Thus, the relief sought for
permitting the appellant-writ petitioner to
appear in the second semester of LLB three
years course is declined.

16. Now the next question which
arises for our consideration is whether the
appellant-writ petitioner has been adequately
compensated or not and is entitled to enhance
compensation. Interestingly, the finding of
the learned Single Judge that the Law College
was responsible in granting admission to the
appellant-writ petitioner on the face of the
fact that all the documents/testimonials was
submitted by the appellant-writ petitioner and
he is entitled to monetary compensation of
Rs. 30,000/- has not been questioned by the
Law College. We have been informed that
the Law College has not preferred an appeal
against the said findings and the directions
and the same has attained finality. Moreover,
the report of the committee dated 01.01.2021
and the decision of the University dated
04.01.2021 clearly holds that the Law
College had committed illegality in granting
admission to the students. Since it has not
been disputed before us and rather admitted
by Sri Grijesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the
Law College that the documents submitted
by the respective students to the Law College
are routed through the Law College to the
University with its recommendation, thus,
looking to the overall circumstances, it
becomes
highly
inconceivable
and
improbable that the Law College was vigilant
and not at fault. It is rather amazing that the
Law College has acted not only in a careless
and reckless manner but also exhibited a
conduct other than bona fide just in order to
enrol and admit students in order to charge
fees playing with their future. The Chapter
did not close at that juncture, however,
admission was accorded to the appellant-writ
petitioner for the academic session 2019-20
and he cleared the first semester on
26.05.2020. A decision cancelling admission
226 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the appellant-writ petitioner has been taken
in the month of January, 2021. As per the
affidavit of the appellant-writ petitioner he is
now 35 years of age.

17. Looking into the aforesaid facts
and circumstances, we expressed our mind
for enhancing the monetary compensation
from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 5,00,000/- while
giving an opportunity to Sri Grijesh Tiwari,
learned counsel for the Law College to make
his submissions in that regard.

18. Sri Grijesh Tiwari, learned
counsel for the Law College could not
dispute the fact that it was on account of the
fault of the Law College the appellant-writ
petitioner was accorded admission, however,
on
the
question
of
enhancement
of
compensation, he only requested that the
amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- to be awarded as
compensation to the appellant-writ petitioner
is excessive and the Law College is not in a
position to make the said payment. He also
apprehends that, in case, the compensation of
Rs. 5,00,000/- is awarded to the appellantwrit petitioner then the remaining 54 students
would approach this Court.

19.
We have bestowed our
consideration on the said aspect and we find
that once it is admitted to the Law College that
the appellant-writ petitioner had not practised
fraud and he submitted all the relevant
documents and was accorded admission due to
the fault of the Law College then in order to
compensate the appellant-writ petitioner for
jeopardizing his academic career the amount
of Rs. 5,00,000/- to be awarded as monetary
compensation is reasonable and not excessive.

20 . Accordingly, the order of the
learned Single Judge insofar as it seeks to
uphold the decision of the University dated
04.01.2021 negating the claim of the
appellant-writ petitioner to be permitted to
pursue second semester of the LLB three years
programme for the academic session 2019-20
needs no interference. However, we modify
the order of the learned Single Judge dated
28.08.2024 passed in Writ-C No. 33767 of
2022
while
enhancing
the
monetary
compensation from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs.
5,00,000/- which shall be paid by the Law
College to the appellant-writ petitioner within
a period of six weeks from today.

21. In the eventuality, the Law
College does not make the said payment
within the stipulated period then the same shall
be recovered as arrears of land revenue and
paid to the appellant-writ petitioner.

22. With the aforesaid observations,
the present intra-court appeal is disposed of.

23. Though we have disposed of the
appeal, however, an affidavit of compliance
shall be filed by the Law College before the
Registrar General of this High Court within six
weeks.
----------
(2024) 10 ILRA 226
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.10.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

Writ-C No. 6354 of 2022

Nagendra Sharma & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Court Of Prin. Judge Family Court Gonda &
Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Amarendra Kumar Bajpai, Tejaswini Bajpai

Counsel for the Respondents: