# Kenisha Singh Jeet v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 1 ILRA 781
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-10-26
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 17418 of 2021
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kenisha-singh-jeet-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47504
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A. Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Writ
-
Scope
of
interference
-
Examination for M.A. Course - Online
examination form uploaded and it's hard
copy was claimed to be submitted to the
College, to which the College denied -
Prayer for holding the fresh examination
sought - No document was produced to
proof that hard copy was produced to the
College - Effect - Held, no provision
known to law, has been placed before this
Court on the basis of which this Court, in
exercise of power under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, can direct the
respondent-University to conduct fresh or
special examination of M.A. Final Year of
the petitioner only, when as matter of fact
that the same is already over - However,
the High Court issued necessary direction
permitting the petitioner to appear in the
examination during next academic session
considering his bright future. (Para 16, 17
and 19)
Writ petition disposed of. (E-1)

## Text

1 All. Kenisha Singh Jeet Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
781
29.06.2019 issued by the respondent No.5Bank is beyond jurisdiction.

34. The recovery certificate dated
29.06.2019 issued by the respondent No.5-Bank
under the Uttar Pradesh Public Moneys
(Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 and the
attachment notice dated 14.01.2020 issued by the
respondent no.3 as well as consequential
proceedings are liable to be set aside and are set
aside.

35. It is open to the respondent No.5-bank
to take out the fresh recovery proceedings Uttar
Pradesh Agricultural Credit Act, 1973 read with
Uttar Agricultural Credit Rules, 1975, to recover
its outstanding dues from the petitioner.

36. The writ petition is allowed to the
extent indicate above.
----------
(2022)01ILR A781
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.10.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Writ C No. 17418 of 2021

Kenisha Singh Jeet ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Arvind Srivastava III, Sri Sanjeev Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Rohit Pandey, Sri Vindhya
Vashini Prasad Rai, Sri V.P.Rai

A. Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Writ
-
Scope
of
interference
-
Examination for M.A. Course - Online
examination form uploaded and it's hard
copy was claimed to be submitted to the
College, to which the College denied -
Prayer for holding the fresh examination
sought - No document was produced to
proof that hard copy was produced to the
College - Effect - Held, no provision
known to law, has been placed before this
Court on the basis of which this Court, in
exercise of power under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, can direct the
respondent-University to conduct fresh or
special examination of M.A. Final Year of
the petitioner only, when as matter of fact
that the same is already over - However,
the High Court issued necessary direction
permitting the petitioner to appear in the
examination during next academic session
considering his bright future. (Para 16, 17
and 19)
Writ petition disposed of. (E-1)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1.

Heard
Mr.
Arvind
Kumar
Srivastava-III, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. Asheem Mukherjee, learned
Standing Counsel for the State-respondents,
Mr. Rohit Pandey, learned counsel for the
respondent-University and Mr. V.P. Rai,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondentinstitution.

2. This writ petition has been filed by
the petitioner for a writ of mandamus
commanding the respondent nos. 5 and 6 to
rectify their mistake by verifying the
examination form of the petitioner, upload
the admit card of the petitioner on website
and permit him to appear in the final
(revised) Examination Schedule (P.G.)
M.A. (Final Year) Main Exam-2021, as per
the updated schedule dated 7th July, 2021.
782 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
He further prays for a direction upon the
respondent nos. 5 and 6 to conduct fresh
examination of the petitioner in respect of
final
(revised)
Examination
Schedule
(P.G.) M.A. (Final Year) Main Exam-2021,
as per the updated schedule dated 7th July,
2021.

3. Counter and rejoinder affidavits
have been exchanged between the parties
and they agree that this petition may be
finally decided without calling for any
further affidavit.

4. In the present petition, it is the case
of the petitioner that the petitioner is a
student of 2nd year of M.A. English of
respondent-institution,
namely,
Hindu
College,
Moradabad,
U.P.
which
is
affiliated to respondent-University, namely,
Mahatama
Jyotiba
Phule
Rohilkhand
University, Bareilly. The petitioner got
enrolled in the M.A. course in the
respondent-college in the year 2019 and
was
duly
promoted
in
the
main
examination, which was held in the year
2020 of M.A. First Year. Thereafter, the
petitioner submitted the admission form for
the academic session 2020-2021, wherein
the petitioner was allotted form no.
2100206287 and she also submitted the
examination fee of Rs. 1,000/- as well as
the other charges online on 8th March,
2021.

5. It is further case of the petitioner
that it is the procedure adopted by the
respondent-University that the entire fees
and the relevant forms are to be deposited
online through the portal of the respondentUniversity, thereafter the papers of the
candidates concerned are to be forwarded
by the respondent-college to the University
along with the hard copies of admission
forms and respective details. After the
deposit of the fees, the payment status of
the online fees of the petitioner was shown
to be successful, hence, the petitioner drew
an impression that the obligation on the
part of the petitioner, which was to be
exercised, had been diligently discharged
and the onus now has been shifted on the
college concerned i.e. respondent no.6 to
forward the relevant form as well as other
details to the respondent-University. After
the examination schedules were notified for
the academic session 2020-2021 on 8th
July, 2021, the petitioner visited the portal
of the respondent-University to find out her
admit card but she was surprised to see that
the verification status of the petitioner was
shown as Unverified i.e. "May not be
received at college (submit a copy of the
examination form in your college). Since
the first paper of the M.A.(2)-English-INineteenth Century English Poetry (11017)
was scheduled for 24th July, 2021, the
petitioner tried to download her admit card
on 20th July, 2021 but on the portal of the
respondent-University, the status of the
petitioner was shown as unverified due to
which the admit card of the petitioner could
not be downloaded on 20th July, 2021.
Immediately,
thereafter
the
petitioner
approached the college concerned on the
very same day i.e. 20th July, 2021 and the
petitioner narrated the entire facts, as stated
above, to the administration of the
respondent-college and gave the details
upon which the administration of the
respondent-college assured her that they
will
get
it
rectified.
Since
the
administration of the respondent-College
fairly accepted their fault and admitted that
they had not uploaded the petitioner's form
properly into the verified system of the
respondent-University.

6. It is further case of the petitioner
that since the respondent-college had the
1 All. Kenisha Singh Jeet Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
783
obligation to upload the form of the student
concerned in the verified system of the
respondent-University
and
once
the
petitioner had uploaded the admission form
and deposited the requisite fees online on
8th March, 2021, then it was the
responsibility of the respondent-college to
forward the same to the respondentUniversity. However, the administration of
the respondent-college failed to do its
promise and did not get the mistake
rectified by uploading the petitioner's form
on the portal of the respondent-University
and hence the petitioner could not be issued
the admit card for the examination dated
24th July, 2021 and now, the second paper
scheduled to be held on 27th July, 2021.

7. It is also the case of the petitioner
that
in
case
the
petitioner
is
not
provisionally allowed to appear in the
examination of M.A. final year, the entire
hard work of the petitioner will go in vain
and she will be made to suffer for no fault
of her own. Now one paper has already
been held on 24th July, 2021 in which the
petitioner was not permitted to appear in
absence of issuance of admit card on the
fault of the respondent-college. Petitioner
prays that if the petitioner is permitted to
appear in her examinations, which are
going to be held on 27th July, 2021, in that
case, the petitioner will have an option to
appear in back paper examination for the
subject examination, which was held on
24th July, 2021.

8. The present writ petition has been
presented before the Court on 26th July,
2021 and the petitioner has not been
granted any interim order and she has not
been
permitted
to
appear
in
the
examinations provisionally, which were
scheduled to be held on 26th July, 2021
onwards. At present, the examinations
are over.

9. Today, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner has
duly
discharged
her
obligation
and
submitted the online form and thereafter,
submitted the hard copy of the same before
respondent-college
and
from
the
subsequent checking of the status of her
form from the website of the respondentUniversity, it was revealed that the fee paid
by the petitioner was successfully received
by the respondent-University and at that
point of time, no intimation or warning
whatsoever was communicated to the
petitioner either by the University or the
respondent-college.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submits that since the petitioner had
duly submitted the online admission form
within time i.e. on 8th March, 2021 and
thereafter, on the very same day, the hard
copy was submitted before respondentcollege, it was obligatory on the part of the
respondent-college to forward it to the
University concerned and now the fact of
the matter is that without any fault on the
part of her own, the petitioner has been
denied the opportunity to appear in the final
year examination, which were scheduled
from 20th July, 2021 to 4th August, 2021,
meaning thereby that it is a loss of whole
academic year to the petitioner.

11. On the cumulative strength of the
aforesaid,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner, therefore, submits that since
there is no fault on the part of the
petitioner, seeing the precious time and
bright career of the petitioner, this Court
may
direct
respondent-University
to
conduct special or fresh examination for
784 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the petitioner, so that the petitioner may
save her precious time for the academic
session 2020-2021, otherwise the petitioner
would be forced to appear in the
examination, which will be held for the
academic session 2021-2022 and in that
circumstances the petitioner shall suffer
huge mental agony and academic loss
without any fault on her part.

12. In reply, Mr. Rohit Pandey,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondentUniversity
submits
that
as
per
the
procedure, the candidate has to submit his
online examination form and deposit the
examination fee for appearing in the
examination.
After
submitting
online
application form, the candidate is required
to download its hard copy and submit the
same to the college and the college, inturn
is required to forward the examination form
of the candidate along with other details to
the University. In the present case, the
petitioner
has
submitted
her
online
application form but her document was not
forwarded by her respondent-college. Upon
making enquiry from the respondentcollege, it was informed by the Principal of
the respondent-college that the petitioner
has not submitted her online examination
form to the respondent-college within the
prescribed time i.e. before 3rd July, 2021,
therefore, her examination form along with
other details was not forwarded to the
respondent-University. He submits that in
that regard, a communication dated 26th
July, 2021 was also sent by the Principal of
the respondent-college to the respondentUniversity.
Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent-University, therefore, submits
that since the petitioner was required to
submit her online application form to the
respondent-college, which she did not
make within time, due to which the
respondent-college did not forward the
same to the respondent-University, she
cannot be allowed to appear in the
examination
at
such
belated
stage,
inasmuch as the examination is already
over. He also submits that for only one
student, there is no provision or procedure
known to law as applicable to the
respondent-University to conduct special or
fresh examination, therefore, this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India,
cannot
direct
the
respondentUniversity to conduct fresh or special
examination of the petitioner only, which is
impossible.

13.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent-College
submits
that
the
submissions made by the learned counsel
for the petitioner cannot be accepted, as
they do not bear the truth. He further
submits that it is the procedure that the
college duly informs the students about the
steps of admission and examination form
every year. The student has to fill up the
examination form on the portal of the
University and collect the printout or hard
copy of the same to be submitted to the
college and the college thereafter forwards
the same to the University for further
proceedings.
The
college
issues
notices/directions regarding the admission
and examination forms and displays the
same on the notice board from time to time
to let the students be informed about the
necessary proceedings or steps to follow. In
the academic session 2020-2021 also, the
college followed the same procedure. The
notice regarding the examination form was
served to the students on 25th February,
2021 asking them to fill up the examination
forms on the portal of the University and
submit the hard copy of the same to the
college. Moreover, a reminder was also
issued to the students to submit the hard
copy of their examination forms in time.
1 All. Kenisha Singh Jeet Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
785
Meanwhile,
the
students
were
also
informed by the faculty members to fill up
their examination form in time to avoid any
inconvenience. As a result thereof, 109
students submitted the hard copy of the
examination forms to the college by last
date. The details of which have duly been
recorded in the register concerned. But very
surprisingly, the petitioner failed to submit
the hard copy of the examination form so
that it could be forwarded to the University.
Therefore, the plea of the petitioner that she
drew an impression that the obligation on
her part, which was to be exercised, had
been diligently discharged and now the
onus shifted to the college i.e. respondentcollege to forward the relevant form and
other details to the respondent-University,
has no force, hence the same is liable to be
rejected. On the cumulative strength of the
aforesaid,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondent-college submits that the present
writ
petition
does
not
warrant
any
interference as she is not entitled to any
relief and the same is liable to be
dismissed.

14. I have considered the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the parties
and have examined the records of the
present writ petition.

15. Two issues arise for consideration
before this Court:

1. Whether the petitioner has
submitted the hard copy of the examination
form along with other details before the
respondent-college
within
the
time
specified or not?; and

2. Can this Court, in exercise of
powers
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution of India, direct the respondentUniversity to conduct fresh or special
examination of M.A. Final year of the
petitioner only?.

16. Qua the first issue, when this
Court required the learned counsel for the
petitioner to show any record on the basis
of which it can be established that the
petitioner, after uploading the examination
form along with other details from the
portal of the University, has submitted the
same before the respondent-college within
the time specified, in reply learned counsel
for the petitioner has failed to produce or
show the same. No such documentary proof
has been produced before this Court on
behalf of the petitioner from which it is
established that the petitioner has submitted
the hard copy of the admission form along
with other details to the respondent-college
within time.

17. Qua the second issue, no
provision known to law, has been placed
before this Court on the basis of which this
Court, in exercise of power under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, can direct
the respondent-University to conduct fresh
or special examination of M.A. Final Year
of the petitioner only, when as matter of
fact that the same is already over

18.
In view of the aforesaid, this
Court is not inclined to interfere in the
present writ petition.

19. However, considering the peculiar
facts and circumstances of the case
specifically the bright future of a student
like the petitioner, this petition is disposed
of by providing that in case the petitioner
submits her examination form along with
examination fee and other details as
required, on the portal of the respondentUniversity for M.A. final year (Session
786 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2021-2022) within the time specified on the
said portal and after downloading the hard
copies of the same, she submits the same
before administration of the respondentcollege,
the
respondent-college
shall
forward the same to the respondentUniversity, in case there is no legal
impediment. On receipt of the same, the
University, after completing necessary
formalities shall issue online admit card of
the petitioner on its portal, so that the
petitioner may download the same and
appear in M.A. final year examination for
the academic session 2021-2022.
----------
(2022)01ILR A786
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.11.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

Writ C No. 21935 of 2021

Smt. Kusumlata ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ....Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rakesh Dubey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Fair price shop - Control Order, 2016
- GO dated 05.08.2019 - Clause IV, Subclause (10) - Compassionate allotment
was claimed by the married daughter -
Word 'married daughter' is excluded
from
the
word
'family'
-
Validity
challenged
-
Parity
with
the
compassionate
appointment
under
Dying-in-Harness-Rules
claimed
-
Reason to exclude the married daughter
explained - Held, purpose for excluding
the married daughter from the canopy of
family under the Control Order of 2016
is that a fair price shop runs upon a
license granted by the St. agencies in
favour of a dealer pursuant to which an
agreement is executed - Once the
daughter is married outside the village
and resides in a different matrimonial
village the dealership cannot be granted
to
her
under
the
compassionate
allotment
on
the
death
of
her
father/mother as it is not possible for
her to run the shop and distribute the
essential
commodities
to
the
card
holders residing at her paternal village -
High
Court
distinguished
the
compassionate appointment under the
Dying-in-Harness Rules. (Para 25, 27
and 28)
B. Constitution of India - Article 21 and
47 - Fundamental Right - Right to food
- Supply of food-grains - Protection -
Held, the Government as well as the
Apex Court have recognized that right to
food is part of Article 21 of the
Constitution - The dealership of fair
price shop is given by the St. for
ensuring the supply of foodgrains by the
Government of India as well as the St.
Government to the citizens fulfilling the
object of Article 47 of the Constitution
of India - In case, dealership is given to
an outsider who is unable to run the fair
price shop due to his/her unavailability
the very purpose for enacting the Act of
2013 and Control Order of 2016 would
be rendered otiose. (Para 26 and 33)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited :-
1. Writ C No. 60881 of 2015; Smt. Vimla
Srivastava Vs St. of U.P. & anr. decided on
04.12.2015
2. Writ-A No. 10928 of 2020; Manjul Srivastava
Vs St. of U.P. & ors. decided on 15.12.2020
3. K.S.Puttaswamy (Retired) & anr.(AADHAAR)
Vs U.O.I. & anr.(2019) 1 SCC 1

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan
Agarwal, J.)