# C/M Seth M.R. Jaipuria School, Lko v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 9 ILRA 531
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-09-27
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 522 of 2022
- **Bench:** Pankaj Bhatia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/c-m-seth-m-r-jaipuria-school-lko-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49082
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

C.S.C.

A. Educational institution - CBSE Manual -
Clause 2.3.4 and 2.3.5 - Affiliation with
CBSE - Power of St.Government to issue
NOC, how can be exercised - Held, scope
of powers for grant of no objection
certificate for affiliation is only confined to
the powers of the St.for objecting only to
532 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the affiliation and nothing beyond that -
St.Government has exceeded its mandate
in rejecting the request for grant for no
objection certificate for affiliation. (Para
27 and 29)
B. Educational institution - Affiliation and
Recognition
-
Difference
-
Whereas
'affiliation' is meant to prepare and
present
the
students
for
public
examination, 'recognition' of a private
school is for other purposes mentioned in
the Act and it is only when the School is
recognised by the 'appropriate authority'
that
it
becomes
amenable
to
other
provisions of the Act. (Para 22)
C. Interpretation of Statute - Guidelines -
Relevance - Guidelines issued should have
some relevant nexus with the object
sought to be achieved. (Para 28)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-

## Text

9 All. C/M Seth M.R. Jaipuria School, Lko Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
531

21. Having narrated the aforesaid
facts in extenso, this Court is of the view
that the dispute between the parties is a
property dispute which could be well
resolved by filing a suit before the
appropriate Court. Although, the petitioner
has sought for possession of the plot in
question but this Court is of the view that in
the facts of this case such a relief cannot be
given, especially when the possession has
to be established first. The Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
in
case
of
"P.R.
Murlidharan and Others Vs. Swami
Dharamananda Theertha Padar and
others", reported in (2006) 4 SC 501 held:-

"It would be an abuse of process for a
writ petitioner to approach the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking
a writ of mandamus directing the police
authorities to protect his claimed possession
of a property without first establishing his
possession in an appropriate civil court. The
temptation to grant relief in cases of this
nature should be resisted by the High Court.
The wide jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution would remain effective and
meaningful only when it is exercised
prudently and in appropriate situations."

22. It needs no restatements at our
hands that where there is a dispute as to
whether a particular property vests or not, in
the State or in any private individual the
dispute undoubtedly is a civil dispute and
must, therefore, be resolved by a suit and not
in a proceedings under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. It is well recognized
principle of law that a regular suit is the
proper remedy for settlement of disputes
relating to property rights between parties.

23. The upshot of the above
discussion is that writ petition deserves to
be dismissed, leaving it open to the
petitioner to agitate her grievance in a suit
before the civil court of competent
jurisdiction. Since the writ petition is
dismissed not on merits but on the ground
that this Court, in proceedings under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, would not,
normally, adjudicate disputed questions of
title, it is wholly unnecessary for this Court
to examine the respondents contention and
same
are
therefore,
left
open
for
adjudication, if need be, in appropriate
proceedings.

24. The writ petition fails and is
accordingly dismissed. However, in the
circumstances without cost.

25. Interim order, if any, stands
vacated.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 531
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ-C No. 522 of 2022

C/M Seth M.R. Jaipuria School, Lko
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Salil Srivastava, Som Kartik Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Educational institution - CBSE Manual -
Clause 2.3.4 and 2.3.5 - Affiliation with
CBSE - Power of St.Government to issue
NOC, how can be exercised - Held, scope
of powers for grant of no objection
certificate for affiliation is only confined to
the powers of the St.for objecting only to
532 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the affiliation and nothing beyond that -
St.Government has exceeded its mandate
in rejecting the request for grant for no
objection certificate for affiliation. (Para
27 and 29)
B. Educational institution - Affiliation and
Recognition
-
Difference
-
Whereas
'affiliation' is meant to prepare and
present
the
students
for
public
examination, 'recognition' of a private
school is for other purposes mentioned in
the Act and it is only when the School is
recognised by the 'appropriate authority'
that
it
becomes
amenable
to
other
provisions of the Act. (Para 22)
C. Interpretation of Statute - Guidelines -
Relevance - Guidelines issued should have
some relevant nexus with the object
sought to be achieved. (Para 28)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-
1. Chintpurni Medical College & Hospital & anr.
Vs St. of Pun. & ors.; (2018) 15 SCC 1.
2. Mangilal Vs St. of M.P.; (2004) 2 SCC 447
3. Gangotri Enterprises Ltd.Vs U.O.I. & ors.;
(2016) 11 SCC 720
4. Rattan Lal Sharma Vs Managing Committee
Dr. Hari Ram (Co-Education) Higher Secondary
School & ors.; (1993) 4 SCC 10
5. A. K. Kraipak & ors. Vs U.O.I. & ors.; 1969
(2) SCC 262
6. St. of U.P. Vs Vijay Kumar Tripathi & anr.;
1995 Supp (1) SCC 552.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J.)

1. Heard Sri Prashant Chandra, Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Ansuman Singh the
counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Standing Counsel.

2. The present petition has been filed
challenging the order dated 08.10.2021
passed by the committee constituted under
the Government Order whereby the request
for grant of No Objection Certificate to the
petitioner has been rejected.

3. The facts, in brief, are that the
petitioner claims to be running a school
which is recognized up to Class 8th by the
State of U.P. and the petitioner, on account of
enhancement of the students, desirous of
obtaining affiliation with the Central Board of
Secondary Education (CBSE for short),
applied before the CBSE for grant of
affiliation.

4. It is argued that in terms of the
requirements as enumerated by the CBSE,
the petitioner possesses all requisite criterias
for grant of affiliation. As the Rules framed
by the CBSE for grant of affiliation require
the production of a NOC from the State of
U.P., the petitioner applied for grant of NOC,
which has been rejected and which is under
challenge.

5. The counsel for the petitioner argues
that in terms of the requirements of both the
CBSE and ICSE, wherein a requirement for
obtaining a NOC is specified, the State
Government has issued a Government Order
wherein, the procedure for grant of NOC,
desired by various schools, is specified. The
said GO provides for constitution of a
Committee comprising of four persons which
shall look into the issue with regard to the
application for grant of NOC and shall pass
orders thereupon. No further guidelines have
been framed as to how and in what manner
the said committee shall proceed to grant the
NOC, thus, it is left to the discretion of the
committee to either grant the NOC or to
refuse the same.

6. It is on record that in pursuance to
the application filed by the petitioner for
9 All. C/M Seth M.R. Jaipuria School, Lko Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
533
grant of NOC, one of the Members of the
Committee namely the DIOS of the district
carried out some investigation and based
upon the same submitted its report on
16.11.2019.
The
Joint
Director
of
Education, Lucknow vide his order dated
16.11.2019 itself, quoting the report as
submitted by the DIOS proceeded to reject
the application of the petitioner. The
reasoning as contained in the order of
rejection dated 16.11.2019 are quoted
herein below:

1. "शासन द्वारा भ गम िा अगधग्रहर्
गवद्यालय हेर्ु गिया िया था। इस खस्थगर् में भ गम
िा प्रयोि माध्यगमि गशक्षा पररषि, उत्तर प्रिेश
से मान्यर्ा प्राप्त गवद्यालय िे गनगमत्त ही
औगचत्यप र्त है। यगि गवद्यालय िी भ गम िो
प्रबन्धर्न्त्र द्वारा गिसी अन्य शैगक्षि प्रयोि हेर्ु
गलया जाना है र्ो उसिी औपचाररि अनुमगर्
सक्षम अगधिारी स्तर से आखस्तयों िा अपव्यय
गनवारर् अगधगनयम-1974 िी संिर् धाराओं िे
अन्तितर् प्राप्त िी जानी अगनवायत है, जो गि
गवद्यालय प्रबन्धर्न्त्र द्वारा नहीं िी ियी थी।

2. श्री योिेश्वर ऋगषिुल इण्टर िोज,
मेहन्दीिंज लिनऊ िी प्रबन्ध सगमगर् िे सगचव
श्री सुव्रर्ों मज मिार द्वारा उ०प्र० शैगक्षि संस्थायें
(आखस्तयों िे अपव्यय िा गनवारर्) अगधगनयम
1974 िा उल्लघंन िर हुए गवद्यालय िी िुल
भ गम (22 बीघा, '12 गबस्वा, 10 गवस्वांसी) िी िी
आधी भ गम लिभि 29914.77 वित मीटर मेससत
डी लोटसत गबल्डसत एवं िालोनाइजसत िो बेच िी
ियी।

3. उपाध्यक्ष लिनऊ गविास प्रागधिरर्
लिनऊ िे पत्रांि - 747 / 117/14 गिनांि
28.08.201 द्वारा गिये िये गनर्तय में स्पष्ट गिया
िया है गि गशक्षा िे उपयोिाथत श्री योिेश्वर
ऋगषिुल इण्टर िोज मेहन्दीिंज लिनऊ द्वारा
लिभि 22 बीघा, 12 गबस्वा, 10 गवस्वांसी भ गम
प्रागधिरर् योजना िे अन्तितर् अजतन से मुक्त िी
ियी थी, गजसमें से आधी से अगधि भ गम लिभि
31,918.80 वित मी० भ गम सोसाइटी िे सगचव श्री
सुव्रर्ो मज मिार द्वारा धोिाधड़ी एवं जालसाजी
िरिे िरोड़ो रूपये में गनजी लाभ हेर्ु आवासीय
एवं व्यवसागयि उपयोि िे गलये बेच िी ियी, जो
गि अवैधागनि एवं अवैध है।

4. गवद्यालय प्रधानाचायत द्वारा िाइम
संख्या0525 गिनांि 04.10.2018 द्वारा थाना
बाजार िाला, लिनऊ में श्री सुब्रर्ो मज मिार, श्री
राजीव गबसाररया एवं िेर्ा िाऊ ियाल अग्रवाल
एवं मेससत डी लोटसत गबल्डसत एवं िालोनाइजसत
िे गवरुि भारर्ीय िण्ड संगहर्ा िी धारा 420,
467, 468, 471 िे अन्ततिर् प्रथम स चना ररपोटत
िजत िरायी ियी, गजसमें श्री सुब्रर्ो मज मिार
लिभि 40-45 गिन जेल पर रहे। वर्तमान समय में
श्री मज मिार जमानर् पर ररहा हैं र्था प्रिरर्
माननीय न्यायालय में गवचाराधीन है।"

7. Aggrieved against the said order
dated 16.11.2019, the petitioner preferred a
Writ Petition before this Court being Misc.
Single No.3010 of 2021 before this Court.
It was urged that the order has been passed
by one person based upon the enquiry
report of one of the constituent of the
committee, as such, the order was bad in
law.

8. The said argument found favour
with this Court which vide its order dated
15.07.2021 proceeded to set aside the order
dated 16.11.2019 giving liberty to the
respondents to take a fresh decision in the
light of the Government Order dated
14.07.2009. In pursuance to the said liberty
granted by this Court, a fresh order has
been passed, which is contained in
Annexure no.1. The said order is similar to
the earlier order dated 16.11.2009 and is
under challenge in the present writ petition.

9.

Sri
PrashantChandra,senior
advocate, appearing on behalf of the
petitioner was called upon to address this
534 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
court with regard to the points noticed in
the report of the DIOS and as reproduced in
the impugned order as well as the order
dated 16.11.2019. In respect of the first
objection, wherein it is recorded that the
land in question was acquired by the State
for setting up a school and thus it would be
proper if the said land is used for setting up
a school, which has affiliation with the
Intermediate Education Board and not for
any other school to use the same for
academic activities. It was essential to take
permission under The U.P. Educational
Institutions (Prevention of Dissipation of
Assets) Act, 1974 (for short Act of 1974).
In response to the said observations, he
argues that the land was acquired for
setting up an academic institution and the
petitioner is exactly serving the said cause,
thus, the same has no basis.

10. The second objection recorded by
the DIOS wherein it is recorded that the
land in question after acquisition was
allotted to one Society in the name of
Baldev Vidya Peeth and the Manager of the
said institution had sold a part of the
property to one D-Lotus Builders and
Colonizers in contravention of the 'Act of
1974'.

11. The third objection records that in
terms of the letter issued by the Lucknow
Development Authority to the effect that
out of the total land acquired, a substantial
part of the said land was left out of
acquisition and was allotted to the society
in question, which has been sold by the
secretary of the society by playing fraud for
personal
benefit
for
housing
and
Commercial purposes, which was arbitrary
and illegal.

12. In response to the objection as
referred to in Clause 2 and 3 and referred in
foregoing paragraphs, Sri Chandra argues
that in respect of the property which are
owned by the societies, after amendment in
the Societies Registration Act, Section 5A(as it then was) was introduced, wherein
the District Judge is empowered to grant
sanction of any property being transferred
by the Society registered under the Act and
the approval of the Court is essential for
making any such transfer. In the light of the
said amendment as contained in Section 5A, he argues that prior to transfer in favour
of the petitioner, an application for
permission from the District Judge was
sought for in Misc. Case no.142 of 1993
filed in the Court of District Judge,
Lucknow
wherein
all
the
questions,
including scope of Section 5-A of the
Societies Registration Act was considered
and the permission for transfer was granted
by the District Judge vide an order dated
03.08.1995. He argues that the said order
was
challenged
by
the
Lucknow
Development Authority by filing a Writ
Petition No.2719 of 1995 before this court,
which too was dismissed by this court on
16.05.2005 and thus, the said order of the
District Judge has attained finality. he
argues that once there is a specific
provision under the Act, the general
provision as proposed to be relied upon by
the respondents being the 'Act of 1974'
looses significance.In any event even under
the 1974 Act the final arbiter of disputes is
the District Judge as specified under
Section 5 of the 1974 Act. Thus, the
objections mentioned in Clause 2 and 3
become irrelevant.

13. With regard to the objection
mentioned at serial no.4 in the DIOS report
and as extracted above, that a first
information report has been registered
against the secretary of the society, who
was imprisoned and was later on enlarged
9 All. C/M Seth M.R. Jaipuria School, Lko Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
535
on bail, in response to the said, Sri Chandra
argues that the correct fact is that an FIR
was registered however it will have no
affect on the decree passed by the District
Judge.

14. He also argues that in terms of the
requirement as framed by the CBSE and as
extracted herein below being paragraph
2:3:5, the requirement of a no objection
certificate from the State Government
cannot give unbridled powers to the State
Government, the said requirement has to be
interpreted
keeping
in
view
the
requirements of the site on which the
School is proposed to be established, the
likelihood of the school causing any
nuisance and that the school being
constructed in an area, which is prohibited
under any law, the requirement of NOC
cannot give unbridled powers to the State
Government to dwell on the validity and
legality and correctness of all steps of the
society in the school.

15. He further argues that the
Government Order issued by the State
Government is silent on that subject, which
is resulting in state authorities exercising
powers and entering into spheres which are
beyond their jurisdiction only on the basis
of the Government Order.

16. He argues that the NOC required
under the regulations should have some
relevant nexus to the objects sought to be
achieved in granting of affiliation and
cannot be understood to give unbridled
powers to the State Government to harass
the applicants. He further argues that the
Right
to
Education
now
being
a
fundamental right is to be promoted by the
State Government at all levels and the
manner in which the decision has been
taken, militates against the constitutional
duties imposed upon the State Government
for providing the education to the citizens.
He places reliance on the following
judgments:

i. Chintpurni Medical College and
Hospital and another vs. State of Punjab
and others; (2018) 15 SCC 1.

ii. Mangilal vs. State of M.P. (2004) 2
SCC 447;

iii. Gangotri Enterprises Limited vs.
Union of India and others (2016) 11 SCC
720.

iv. Rattan Lal Sharma vs. Managing
Committee Dr. Hari Ram (Co-Education)
Higher Secondary School and others (1993)
4 SCC 10

v. A. K. Kraipak and others vs. Union
of India and others; 1969 (2) SCC 262

vi. State of U.P. vs. Vijay Kumar
Tripathi and another; 1995 Supp (1) SCC
552.

17. The Standing Counsel on the
other hand argues that the State was well
within
its
jurisdiction
to
deny
the
permission as sought by the petitioner. He
argues that the permission granted by the
District Judge was not an unconditional
permission and the DIOS has rightly gone
into the those questions while giving the
report against the grant of NOC.

18. The State Government on Courts
directions had produced the instructions,
however there was no record produced by
the State Government to the effect that the
land granted in favour of the petitioner has
ever been cancelled or that they do not
continue to be the owners of the land as
claimed by them.

19. In view of the submissions made
at the bar, this court is to consider as to
what are the scope of the powers conferred
536 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
upon the State Government in pursuance to
clause 2:3:5 of the CBSE Manual which
prescribes for obtaining a no objection
certificate from the State Government to
the effect that the State Government has no
objection to the affiliation of the school
with the CBSE.

20. It is necessary to notice the
requirements specified by CBSE for grant
of affiliations to the schools desirous of
seeking
affiliation.The
necessary
requirements (for deciding the lis )are
specified in paragraphs 2.3.4 and 2.3.5
which are quoted herein below.

"2.3.4
:
Recognition
from
the
respective State Government.

The Schools seeking affiliation with
the Board shall submit formal prior
Recognition Certificate from concerned
State Education Department as per extant
rules and provisions contained in RTE Act
2009.

2.3.5 : No objection from the
respective State Government.

The schools mentioned under clauses
2.1.5, 2.1.6, 2.1.7 and 2.1.8 seeking
affiliation with the Board shall submit
formal prior 'No Objection Certificate' to
the effect that State Government has no
objection to the affiliation of the School
with CBSE. No Objection Certificate once
issued to any school will be considered at
par even if it prescribes a specific period
and/ or level unless it is withdrawn."

21. While paragraph 2.3.4 prescribes
recognition under Right of Children to Free
and Compulsory Education ,Act 2009 and
Rules framed there under,paragraph 2.3.5
deals with affiliation.

22.

The
difference
between
'recognition' and 'affiliation' was explained
by Supreme Court in THE PRINCIPAL
AND OTHERS vs THE PRESIDING
OFFICER AND OTHERS (1978) 1 SCC
498 wherein the Court recorded as under :

"There is a significant difference
between
'affiliation'
and
'recognition.
Whereas 'affiliation', it may be noted, is
meant to prepare and present the students
for public examination, 'recognition' of a
private school is for other purposes
mentioned in the Act and it is only when the
School is recognised by the " appropriate
authority' that it becomes amenable to
other provisions of the Act."

23. In pursuance to the said
requirement prescribing obtaining of no
objection for affiliation under paragraph
2.3.5, the State Government has issued an
extensive Government Order prescribing
the manner in which the applications
seeking no objection certificate shall be
dealt with. The Government Order dated
14.07.2009 records the requirement as
issued by the CBSE and also with the ICSE
Board and proceeded to constitute a
committee comprising of four persons who
were
conferred
with
the
power
of
inspection and were further to provide a
report in terms of the said inspection for
being granted the no objection certificate.

24. It is interesting to note that the
CBSE has issued extensive guidelines
specifying requirements by the institutions
seeking
affiliation
with
them.
The
specifications include the requirements of
Area, requirements of fullfilling essential
safety guidelines, informations regarding
staff, etc one of the requirements of CBSE
for grant of affiliation as contained in
paragraph no.2:3:5 is, that the State
Government has no objection to the
affiliation of the school with the CBSE. In
9 All. C/M Seth M.R. Jaipuria School, Lko Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
537
the garb of the said requirement, the
Government Order dated 14.07.2009 is
framed specifying the requirements for
grant of no objection certificate and in
furtherance of the said guidelines has
proceeded to pass the order impugned
which has gone into the question of manner
in which the property was acquired by the
petitioner institute and the various stages of
litigation.
It
further
goes
into
the
requirement which are prescribed for grant
of affiliation by the CBSE in the Chapter
III Rule 3.2 and Chapter II Rule 3.3 and
Chapter II Rule 3.4.

25. From the perusal of the impugned
order, it appears that the State Government
took over the role of the CBSE to find
whether the petitioner would be entitled for
the affiliation or not. The said action of
going
into
the
title
and
the other
requirements as prescribed by the CBSE
were clearly beyond the requirement as
specified in Clause 2:3:5 as well as in the
Government Order dated 14.07.2009. The
requirement as specified by CBSE is
confined to a no objection only with regard
to affiliation, thus the normal meaning that
can be deciphered from interpretation of
clause 2:3:5 is that the State Government
has to grant a no objection certificate only
to the effect that whether the State
Government has any objection to the
institutions being 'affiliated' with the
CBSE. No other requirement is to be
fulfilled by the State Government while
deciding application for grant of NOC for
affiliation.The other requirements are to be
judged by the CBSE while granting or
refusing
to
grant
affiliation.
The
Government
Order
dated
14.07.2009
clearly goes beyond the prescribed scope of
the grant of no objection certificate by the
State, it clearly infringes the right of the
petitioner's institution to run an educational
institution after getting affiliation from
CBSE which itself is a society registered
under the Societies Registration Act. The
requirement of obtaining a no objection
certificate of affiliation from the State
Government cannot confer the right on the
State Government to act like a bull in a
china shop and to carry a roving
enquiry/investigation into the manner of
acquisition of title as has been done by
means of the impugned order.

26. The scope of no objection certificate as
is required in terms of clause 2:3:5 is only
confined to the objection by the State with
regard to the grant of affiliation with
CBSE, as sought by the petitioner from the
CBSE. It cannot go into any other question.
It is inconceivable as to what the four
member committee constituted in terms of
the Government Order dated 14.07.2009 is
to oversee while granting the no objection
certificate for affiliation. It appears that the
Government Order as perceived the no
objection certificate by the State for
affiliation as the power on the State
Government to see whether the institution
fulfills
all
the
requirements
as
are
prescribed by the CBSE for grant of
affiliation. The said fact is also evident
from the manner in which the applications
have been invited and the disclosures with
regard to title etc. have been demanded and
have been supplied by the petitioner.

27. In view of the my specific view
that the scope of powers for grant of no
objection certificate for affiliation is only
confined to the powers of the State for
objecting only to the affiliation and nothing
beyond that. It appears that the requirement
as
specified
in
Clause
2:3:5
was
incorporated because a State, in exercise of
its powers can take a ground to promote
education only through its Regional Boards
538 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and not otherwise and thus the no objection
certificate as required under Clause 2:3:5 is
confined to that issue alone.

28. The Supreme Court while dealing
with some guidelines framed by the State
of Kerala for granting NOC to the
institutions applying for afffiliation with
CBSE hads held in the case of State of
Kerala vs Mythri Vidyabhavan English
Medium School (2020) 20 SCC 669 held
that the guidelines issued should have some
relevant nexus with the object sought to be
achieved.

29. In the present case, not only a
roving enquiry has been made but the
State has gone ahead in taking decisions
which it could not had taken in the garb
of requirement of grant of no objection
certificate for affiliation. Thus, I have no
hesitation in holding that the State
Government has exceeded its mandate in
rejecting the request for grant for no
objection certificate for affiliation. I am
not going into the question of validity of
the Government Order as the same is not
under challenge in the present writ
petition. As there is no bar in affiliation
of schools with Boards other than the
U.P. Board in the State of Uttar Pradesh
as various schools affiliated to both
CBSE and ICSE Boards are imparting
education in the State, there is no reason
available with the State to deny the no
objection certificate, which is required
only for grant of affiliation and nothing
more. All the other issues pertaining to
the grant of affiliation as sought by the
petitioner before the CBSE have to be
dealt with by the CBSE in accordance
with their rules which have been held to
be pragmatic by the Supreme Court in
case of State of Kerala (supra). Thus, the
order dated 08.10.2021 is quashed with
directions to the respondents to grant the
no objection certificate for affiliation as
sought by the petitioner within a period
of two months from today.

30. The writ petition is allowed in
terms of the said order.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 538
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

Writ-C No. 2756 of 2022

Dr. Anand Kumar Singh & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Ram Kumar Srivastava, Alok Srivastava, Saima
Khan

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Kshitij Mishra

A. Education - Constitution of India -
Article 14 - Right to equality - Admission
for medical course - Denial of admission -
Permissibility - Rights to put back back in
original position, restitution thereof -
Held, an admission in medical course is
very important in the professional life of a
candidate/student
and
payment
of
compensation to such candidate/ student
would not be a just and equitable relief -
A right to equal and fair treatment is
imbibed as a component of Article 14 of
the Constitution and any denial of fair
treatment to the petitioner would not only
violate his/her right under Article 14 of
the Constitution but would also seriously
jeopardize his/her right under Articles 19
& 21 of the Constitution - The petitioners
can claim restitution of their rights and