# Azahar Ali v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 1457
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-17
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 25278 of 2014
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/azahar-ali-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53491
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Civil Law- U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 -
Appointment of Assistant Teacher (Urdu) -
Adib-E-Kamil
qualification
from
Jamia
Urdu,
Aligarh
-
Petitioner
passed
intermediate exam in the year 1995. He
got admission in Jamia Urdu, Aligarh to
pursue Adib-E-Kamil in July, 1995, its
exam was conducted in November, 1995
i.e. within 5 months and result was
declared in July, 1996. Petitioner passed
Moallim-E-Urdu
examination
held
in
February,

## Text

5 All. Azahar Ali Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1457
proceedings.
We,
accordingly,
answer the third issue. The change of one
member of the Executive Council soon
before the holding of meeting dated
30.10.2023 is also not decisive for such
reason.

89. Coming to the last issue framed
for our consideration, it is worth noticing that
Professor
Naima
Khatoon undisputedly
possesses qualification for appointment to the
post of Vice-Chancellor. We are informed
that in the history of the University for well
over a century no women has ever been
appointed as Vice-chancellor. Appointment
of woman as Vice-Chancellor of a premier
institution of higher learning sends a message
that
the
constitutional
objective
of
advancement of cause of women is being
promoted.
In
such
circumstances,
the
question is as to whether this Court would
unseat the first woman Vice-Chancellor of
Aligarh Muslim University only because her
husband had presided over the meeting of
Executive Council and University Court,
which included her name in the panel to be
send to the Visitor?

90. The answer has to be a definite
no.
We
have
already
noticed
that
qualification of Professor Naima Khatoon to
be appointed as the Vice-Chancellor is not in
issue. Her ultimate selection is by the Visitor
against whom no allegation of bias is made.
She was erstwhile Principal of Women's
College of the University. Merely because
her husband was acting as Vice-Chancellor
and had presided and participated in the
meetings
of
Executive
Council
and
University Court which also recommended
her name, in addition to others, for
appointment as Vice-Chancellor cannot be a
ground to interfere with her appointment as
the first woman Vice-Chancellor of the
University.
91.
For
the
reasons
and
deliberations held above, we hold that
discretion exercised by the Visitor in
appointing Professor Naima Khatoon as the
first woman Vice-Chancellor of Aligarh
Muslim University from a panel of three
names recommended by the University
Court merits no interference.

92. Writ petitions are, accordingly,
dismissed. Costs made easy.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1457
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ - A No. 25278 of 2014
Connected with other cases

Azahar Ali ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri K.S. Kushwaha

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri B.P.S. Kachhawah, Sri I.R. Singh, Sri
K.Shahi, Sri Pradeep Upadhyay, Sri Sanjay
Kumar Srivastava

Civil Law- U.P. Basic Education Act, 1972 -
Appointment of Assistant Teacher (Urdu) -
Adib-E-Kamil
qualification
from
Jamia
Urdu,
Aligarh
-
Petitioner
passed
intermediate exam in the year 1995. He
got admission in Jamia Urdu, Aligarh to
pursue Adib-E-Kamil in July, 1995, its
exam was conducted in November, 1995
i.e. within 5 months and result was
declared in July, 1996. Petitioner passed
Moallim-E-Urdu
examination
held
in
February,
1997.
Appointments
were
1458 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
cancelled on the ground that Jamia Urdu
was not a recognized institution and
certificates were obtained in less than
prescribed duration. Held : Petitioner has
passed two courses (Adib-E-Kamil and
Moallim-E-Urdu) between July, 1996 and
February, 1997 i.e. in a very short period
of 8 months i.e. though duration of both
courses was 1 year. Petitioner has not
completed his studies of one year for
Adib-E-Kamil and passed two courses
within 8 months despite both courses
were of one year. Aforesaid facts establish
that Jamia Urdu, Aligarh was distributing
degrees without proper classes. Petitioner
has no right for appointment being
ineligible. Writ petition dismissed. (Para
11, 12, 13, 14, 15)

Dismissed. (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. In this bunch of writ petitions, S/Sri
K.S. Kushwaha, Indresh Dubey, Navin
Kumar Sharma, Awadh Narain Rai, A.C.
Tiwari, Ms. Bushra Maryam, Mohd.
Yaseen, Mahesh Sharma, A.K. Shukla,
Advocates
for
all
petitioners,
S/Sri
Rajeshwar Tripathi, C.S.C. along with A.K.
Nagvanshi and A.C. Srivastava, Additional
C.S.C. and Ms. Shruti Malviya, Brief
Holder for State and S/Sri Sanjay Kumar
Singh, Bhanu Pratap Singh Kachhawah, K.
Shahi, Vipin Bihari, Shivendra Singh
Bhadauria, learned advocates for Basic
Shiksha Parishad have appeared.

2. Writ petitioners in all writ
petitions of present bunch have claimed
that they have obtained Adib-E-Kamil from
an Institute namely Jamia Urdu, Aligarh,
Uttar Pradesh.

3.
All
writ
petitioners
have
declared that they had passed Intermediate
Exam from U.P. Board and thereafter they
took admission in Adib-E-Kamil, a 1 year
course (at relevant time) in Jamia Urdu,
Aligarh and after one year, they have
passed also.
4.
All
writ
petitioners
have
appeared in U.P. Teachers Eligibility Test -
2013
conducted
by
Examination
Regulatory Authority, U.P. and have
cleared also.

5. All writ petitioners have
participated in a recruitment process
initiated in pursuance of Government
Order dated 17.08.2013 for appointment
of Assistant Teacher (Urdu Language)
in Primary Schools run by U.P. Basic
Education
Board.
The
educational
qualifications
prescribed
for
appointment are mentioned hereinafter
:-

 "1- आवेदन हेिु पात्रिा

 शैतक्षक अहथिा-

 (क) भारि में तवति द्वारा थिातपि तकसी तवश्वतवद्यालय से
थनािक की उपाति या सरकार द्वारा उसके समकक्ष मान्द्यिा प्राप्त कोई
उपाति, तर्जसमें एक तवषय के रूप में उदूथ रही हो। परन्द्िु कोई अभ्यिी र्जो
उदूथ में उपयुथक्त अहथिा नहीं रखिा है, तनयुतक्त के तलये पात्र होगा, यतद
अभ्यिी उदूथ तवषय में थनािकोत्तर उपाति रखिा हो।

 (ख) सरकार द्वारा उदूथ अध्यापन के तलये प्रतशक्षण देने हेिु
लखनऊ आगरा मवाना तर्जला मेरि और सकलडीहा तर्जला चन्द्दौली में
थिआतपि तकन्द्ही प्रतशक्षण केन्द्रो में से तकसी एक केन्द्र से बेतसक
अध्यापक प्रमाण पत्र या सरकार द्वारा उसके समकक्ष मान्द्यिा प्राप्त कोई
अन्द्य प्रतशक्षण अहथिा या बेतसक अध्यापक प्रमाण पत्र (बी०टी०सी०)
तद्ववषीय बी०टी०सी०(उदूथ) और उ०प्र० सरकार या भारि सरकार द्वारा
सांचातलि अध्यापक पात्रिा परीक्षा उत्तीणथ तकया हो।

 अिवा

 अलीगढ मुतथलम तवश्वतवद्यालय से अध्यापन में तडप्लोमा
(उदूथ अध्यापन हेिु) और उत्तर प्रदेश सरकार या भारि सरकार द्वारा
सांचातलि अध्यापक पात्रिा परीक्षा उत्तीणथ तकया हो।

 अिवा
5 All. Azahar Ali Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1459
 तदनाांक 11.08.1997 के पूवथ मोअतजलम-ए-उदूथ
उपाति (उदूथ अध्यापक हेिु) और उत्तर प्रदेश सरकार या भारि सरकार द्वारा
सांचातलि अध्यापक पात्रिा परीक्षा उत्तीणथ तकया हो। "

6. All petitioners have claimed that
they were included in merit list prepared on
basis
of
quality
marks
and
have
participated
in
counselling.
Some
petitioners were granted appointment and
joined. Some were granted appointment but
schools were not allotted and others were
waiting for appointment letters.

7.
At
this
stage,
a
controversy/dispute arose that petitioners
have passed their respective Intermediate
Exam and Adib-E-Kamil degree in same
year or have passed a 1 year course of
Adib-E-Kamil in a period of less than one
year. Composite inquiry was conducted and
adverse
orders
were
passed
against
petitioners, whereby their appointments
were cancelled or they were not granted
appointment and, therefore, they are before
this Court.

8. Learned Advocates of all writ
petitioners have argued that :-

 (a) Any doubt on the institution
namely Jamia Urdu, Aligarh, that it was
not a recognized institute or it was only a
name sake institute, where there was no
teacher or class room was baseless as an
issue in regard to validity of a degree.
Moallim-E-Urdu from same Institute
(Jamia Urdu, Aligarh) was considered by
this Court (Single as well as Division
Bench) in Sartaj Ahmed and Ors. Vs.
State of U.P. and Ors. along with other
writ petitions : 2018: AHC: 14798,
wherein a judgment passed by a Division
Bench in Special Appeal (Defective) No.
315 of 2015 (C/M Sri Nageshwar Prasad
Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya vs. Nandji
Yadav and others) was also considered
and it was held that those who had taken
admission in the Moallim-E-Urdu from
Jamia Urdu, Aligarh on or before
11.08.1997,
were
entitled
to
be
consideration for appointment on the
posts of Assistant Teacher, in Urdu in
primary institutions run by Department of
Basic Education, U.P. in pursuance of a
G.O. dated 05.01.2016, therefore, same
cut-off be provided for those who have
passed
Adib-E-Kamil
from
said
Institution. Relevant part of
Sartaj
Ahmad (supra) is mentioned hereinafter
:-

 "7. The issue as to whether all
those who had taken admission in the
Moallim-E-Urdu training course on or
before 11.8.1997 are entitled to be
considered for appointment for the post in
question is no longer left res integra. The
issue in that regard stands concluded by
the Division Bench Judgment in Special
Appeal Defective No.315 of 2015, dated
8.5.2017, which is binding. This Court,
therefore, has no hesitation in holding
that all those petitioners who had taken
admission in Moallim-E-Urdu training
course on or before 11.8.1997 and have
subsequently cleared it are entitled to be
considered for appointment to the post in
question."

 (b) Petitioners were not provided
any opportunity to place their respective
case since impugned orders were passed
ex-parte.

 (c)
Learned
advocates
have
submitted that there was no bar at relevant
time
to
undergo
two
courses
simultaneously. Absolute bar was imposed
later on. They have referred a judgment
passed by Division Bench of this Court in
1460 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Basic Shiksha Adhikari vs. Lakshmi
Shakya and others, 2024:AHC:94194DB.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for
State-respondents and learned advocates
for
concerned
respondent-BSA
have
submitted that :-

 (i) Jamia Urdu, Aligarh was not
recognized
by
University
Grants
Commission.

 (ii) It was an institute, which has
distributed degrees by conducting courses
without
regular
classes
and
without
teachers.

 (iii) The certificate of Adib-EKamil of petitioners were an outcome of
fraud. Petitioners had completed one year
course in less than a year or within 6
months and in same year they have passed
Intermediate.

10. Now Court proceed to discuss
and decide individual writ petition.

 (1) Writ A No. 25278/2014
(Azahar Ali)

11.
Petitioner
has
passed
intermediate exam in the year 1995 and a
certificate was issued on 26.07.1995. As per
case of petitioner, he got admission in Jamia
Urdu, Aligarh to pursue Adib-E-Kamil in
July, 1995. Its exam was conducted in
November, 1995 i.e. within 5 months and
result was declared in July, 1996. A
certificate placed on record clearly shows that
petitioner
has
passed
Moallim-E-Urdu
examination held in February, 1997.

12. In aforesaid circumstances,
petitioner has passed two courses (Adib-EKamil and Moallim-E-Urdu) between July,
1996 and February, 1997 i.e. in a very short
period of 8 months i.e. though duration of
both courses was 1 year.

13. According to respondents if the
petitioner had given examination of AdibE-Kamil in May, 1995, he must have taken
admission a year ago i.e. July, 1994, when
admittedly he was pursuing intermediate.

14. Above referred facts are glaring
that petitioner has not completed his studies
of one year for Adib-E-Kamil in a period of
5 months and passed two courses within 8
months despite both courses were of one
year, hence, he undergone two courses in 8
months.

15. Aforesaid facts establish that
Jamia Urdu, Aligarh was distributing
degrees without proper classes. Therefore,
petitioner has no right for appointment
being ineligible.

16. Writ petition being devoid of
merit is accordingly, dismissed.

 (2) Writ A No. 57821/2014
(Mohammad Zaheer)

17.
Petitioner
has
passed
Intermediate Examination in 1993, Adib-EKamil in 1994 and Moallim-E-Urdu in
1995 and Graduation from Dr. B.R.
Ambedkar University, Agra as a private
candidate in 2001.

18. Petitioner has not disclosed
about Adib-E-Kamil (1994) in the online
form. According to online form, he has
passed graduation in the year 2001 and
before it, he had passed Moallim-E-Urdu in
1995, a course available after graduation.
He has submitted all his certificates at the
5 All. Azahar Ali Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1461
time of counselling but certificates were
examined only on basis of online form.

19. The petitioner was himself on
fault and has not submitted correct
information in online form. In view of
above, Court also takes note of reasons
assigned in Azahar Ali (supra) which are
squarely applicable to present case also.

20. Writ petition being devoid of
merit is, accordingly, dismissed.

 (3) Writ A No. 17490/2014
(Mohammad Atiq)

21. Petitioner's appointment was
cancelled on a ground that he has passed
Intermediate and Adib-E-Kamil in same
year i.e. 1995.

22. Documents annexed along with
this writ petition also show that petitioner
has passed Intermediate Exam in the year
1995 and Adib-E-Kamil also in the year
1995 and further that examination of AdibE-Kamil took place in November, 1995 i.e.
a course of 1 year was completed within
less than 6 months, therefore, reasons
assigned in Azahar Ali (supra) are squarely
applicable to present case also.

23. Writ petition being devoid of
merit is, accordingly, dismissed.

 (4) Writ A No. 14851/2014
(Uzma Anjum)

24. Candidature of petitioner was
rejected on a ground that she has passed
intermediate and Adib-E-Kamil in same
year.

25. From bare perusal of documents
annexed along with this writ petition,
petitioner has passed intermediate in the year
1994 and Adib-E-Kamil also in the year 1994
and further that its examination was held in
November 1994 i.e. a course of 1 year was
concluded within very short period i.e. less
than 6 months.

26. Therefore, reasons assigned in
Azahar Ali (supra) are equally applicable to
present case also.

27. Writ petition being devoid of
merit is, accordingly, dismissed.

 (5) Writ A No. 17728/2014 (Syed
Mohammad Swale)

28. In present case, candidature of
petitioner was cancelled on a ground that he
has passed Graduation and Moallim-E-Urdu
in same year i.e. 1996.

29. From bare perusal of documents
annexed along with this writ petition, it is
evident that petitioner has passed graduation,
a 3 years degree course from Ruhelkhand
University in the year 1996 and also passed
Moallim-E-Urdu in the same year i.e. 1996
and he further disclosed that its examination
was held in February, 1997, which means
that course of 1 year was concluded within
less than 6 months.

30. Therefore, reasons assigned in
Azahar Ali (supra) are equally applicable to
present case also.

31. Writ petition being devoid of
merit is, accordingly, dismissed.

 (6) Writ A No. 17730/2014
(Smt. Shabana Azmi)

32. In present case, appointment of
petitioner was cancelled on a ground that
1462 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
she has passed graduation and Moallim-EUrdu in same year i.e. 1996.

33. From bare perusal of documents,
aforesaid facts are correct that petitioner has
passed final year of graduation in the year
1996 and Moallim-E-Urdu in the same year.
It is further disclosed that its examination was
held in February, 1997 which is much less
than period of course of Moallim-E-Urdu i.e.
1 year.

34. Therefore, reasons assigned in
Azahar Ali (supra) are equally applicable to
present case also.

35. Writ petition being devoid of
merit is, accordingly, dismissed.

 (7) Writ A No. 17732/2014
(Smt. Nasrin Zehra Naqvi)

36. In present case, selection of
petitioner was cancelled on a ground that
she has passed graduation and Moallim-EUrdu in same year i.e. 1990.

37.
From
bare
perusal
of
documents, it appears that petitioner has
passed 3rd year of B.A. in the year 1990
which is evident from mark sheet issued on
09.08.1990 and petitioner has passed
Moallim-E-Urdu also in same year and it is
further disclosed that its examination was
held in February, 1991 i.e. a course of 1
year was concluded within 6 months
whereas admittedly course of Moallim-EUrdu is of 1 year.

38. Therefore, reasons assigned in
Azahar Ali (supra) are equally applicable to
present case also.

39. Writ petition being devoid of
merit is, accordingly, dismissed.
 (8) Writ A No. 15447/2024
(Mohammad Asif Ansari)

40. In present case, petitioner
wants to take advantage of judgment of
Sartaj Ahmad (supra) that he has taken
admission in course of Moallim-E-Urdu
before 11.08.1997, however, as referred
above, in the impugned order dated
19.04.2024, petitioner has not submitted
any document duly verified by Jamia Urdu,
Aligarh.

41.
A
certificate
issued
by
institution
Maqtab
Hidayatul
Islam,
Shikarpur, Bulandshahar that he took
admission on 26.07.1997 could not be
considered as relevant document, since it
was not verified by Jamia Urdu, Aligarh,
therefore, claim of petitioner was rightly
rejected and advantage sought by petitioner
in terms of judgment of Sartaj Ahmad
(supra) could not be extended to facts of
present case.

42. Writ petition being devoid of
merit is, accordingly, dismissed.

 (9) Writ A No. 21700/2018
(Mohd. Idrish and others)

43. This writ petition is filed by 5
petitioners viz. Mohd. Idrish, Khalida
Bano, Faujia Aslam, Ishrat Jahan and Syed
Meesam Raza.

44. All petitioners are claiming
benefit of cut-off date as mentioned in
judgment of this Court in Sartaj Ahmad
(supra) that they have taken admission in
Moallim-E-Urdu before cut off date i.e.
11.08.1997.

45.
In
the
impugned
order,
verification reports were considered and all
5 All. Azahar Ali Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1463
petitioners have declared that they have
passed course from centres outside campus
of Jamia Urdu, Aligarh and it was also
mentioned that their details were not
verified
by
Jamia
Urdu,
Aligarh.
Certificates issued from Centers situated at
other places without verifying from Jamia
Urdu, Aligarh has no relevancy.

46. Therefore, as referred above, in
terms of judgment of Sartaj Ahmad (supra),
such declaration cannot be considered to be
a valid declaration. Hence no interference
is caused.

47. Writ petition being devoid of
merit is, accordingly, dismissed.

 (10) Writ A No. 23263/2018
(Qamrul Hasan)

48. Candidature of petitioner was
cancelled by impugned order that it was not
verified that he had taken admission in
Moallim-E-Urdu before cut off date i.e.
11.08.1997 at Jamia Urdu, Aligarh as
mentioned in Sartaj Ahmad (supra).

49. Certificate in regard to date of
admission was issued by a Center situated
outside Jamia Urdu, Aligarh and said
certificate was not verified by said
institution and as observed in preceding
paragraphs, in absence of verification from
Jamia Urdu, Aligarh, said declaration
cannot be considered as a valid declaration.

50. Therefore, no interference is
required.

51. Writ petition being devoid of
merit is, accordingly, dismissed.

 (11) Writ A No. 36109/2017
(Asim Husain)
52. In present case, petitioner has
passed Intermediate Exam in 1994 with 5
subjects and with Urdu in 1995 and
thereafter has passed Adib-E-Kamil in the
year 1995 also. However, he has not
declared date and month of examination of
Adib-E-Kamil, therefore, it is a case that
petitioner has passed two courses in 1 year
and reasons assigned in Azahar Ali (supra)
are squarely applicable in present case also.

53. Writ petition being devoid of
merit is, accordingly, dismissed.

 (12) Writ A No. 14570/2024
(Sami Anwar)

54. Petitioner's claim cannot be
considered since according to instructions
placed on record, petitioner has got 51.74
marks whereas minimum cut-off was
53.20.

55. Such instructions have not been
denied by learned counsel for petitioner.

56. Otherwise also, there is no reason
to dispute such instructions, therefore, relief
sought could not be granted.

57. Accordingly, petition lacks
merit, hence, dismissed.

 (13) Writ A No. 8641/2022
(Shaista Bano)

58. Petitioner was found not
qualified for post of Teacher (Urdu) since
she has passed Moallim-E-Urdu and B.A.
in one academic session i.e. 1996.

59. Petitioner has passed a 3 years'
B.A. degree in 1996 and Moallim-E-Urdu
in 1996. Its examination was held in
February, 1997.
1464 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
60. Therefore, reasons assigned in
Azahar Ali (supra) are applicable in present
case since a course of one year was
conducted within less than 6 months,
therefore, petitioner is not qualified.

61. In view of above, this Court
does not find any ground to interfere with
impugned order, therefore, petition lacks
merit, hence, dismissed.

Conclusion

62.
All
writ
petitions
are
dismissed.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1464
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ C No. 3795 of 2025

Alpha Diagnostic Centre & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State Appropriate Authority. & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Anurag
Narain
Srivastava,
Shailendra
Kumar Misra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India, Article 226 - Preconception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques
(Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994,
Sections 17, 20, 22, 23, 30 - Pre-conception and
Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of
Sex Selection) Rules, 1996, Rule 12 - Search,
Seizure,
Suspension,
and
Cancellation
of
Registration - Petitioners challenged the orders
dated
26.03.2025
(Appellate
Authority),
13.10.2023 (cancellation of registration), and
12.05.2023 (suspension of registration) of their
ultrasound centre, alleging non-compliance with
the PCPNDT Act. The inspection on 01.05.2023,
authorized by the SDM, led to seizure and
sealing
without
the
District
Magistrate's
recorded satisfaction or proper delegation,
violating Section 30. No show cause notice was
issued before cancellation, and the Advisory
Committee's report lacked a recommendation
for
suspension/cancellation,
contravening
Sections 17(4) and 20(2). The seizure memo
was allegedly fabricated and antedated, with no
independent witnesses, violating Rule 12 and
Section 100 Cr.P.C. Respondents defended the
SDM's authority to delegate and the public
interest basis for suspension under Section
20(3). The court held that the search lacked a
recorded "reason to believe" by the Appropriate
Authority, rendering it illegal, per Ravinder
Kumar vs. St. of Haryana. The suspension order
lacked evidence of public interest, and the
cancellation order was void for absence of a
show cause notice and Advisory Committee
recommendation. No material showed violations
under Sections 22 or 23. All impugned orders
were quashed, and the writ petition was
allowed. (Paras 12-15)

Writ petition allowed.

List of Cases cited:

1. Dr. Brij Pal Singh vs. St. of U.P. & anr.,
2024:AHC:159207

2. Ravinder Kumar vs. St. of Haryana, (2024) 9
SCR 397

3. District Appropriate Authority under the
PNDT Act and Chief District Health Officer
vs. Jashmina Dilip Devda & anr., (2024) 3
SCR 60

4. Dr. Anil Bansal vs. The District Appropriate
Authority, Gurugram, 2020:PHHC:026446

5. Rajesh and Others vs. The St. of Madhya
Pradesh, MANU/SC/1040/2023

6. Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecological
Societies of India (FOGSI) vs. U.O.I.and Others,
(2019) 6 SCC 283