# Kuldeep Kumar & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 178
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-22
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 4681 of 2025
- **Bench:** Vivek Saran
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kuldeep-kumar-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54062
- **Pages:** 8

## Text

178 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
denied having received any consideration and the purchase could not prove payment of
Rs.10,00,000/- in cash on various undisclosed dates. The purchaser could not establish payment of
any amount as consideration at the time of the alleged execution of the sale deed. The requirement
of section 74 (B) of the Registration Act was not fulfilled in the present case as payment of sale
consideration is an essential ingredient for the completion of a transaction of sale.

16. In view of above, I am of the view that the petition deserves to be allowed and the order
impugned deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The judgment and order
dated 10.10.2025, passed by the District Registrar/Additional District Magistrate, Finance and
Revenue, Ambedkar Nagar in Case No.896 of 2022, under Section 72/73 of Registration Act, 1908
is hereby quashed.

17. At this stage, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 has submitted that a regular
suit for cancellation of the sale deed executed by the vendors in favor of the petitioner nos. 8, 9,
and 10 is pending consideration. Therefore, it is clarified that the observations made in this order
are for the purpose of examining the validity of the impugned order dated 10.10.2025, passed by
the Registrar only. The regular suit will be decided on its merits in accordance with law without
being influenced by any observation made in this judgment.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 178
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK SARAN, J.

Writ C No. 4681 of 2025

Kuldeep Kumar & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the migration of unfilled Scheduled Caste category seats to the open category was permissible under
law during the third round of counselling by virtue of Clause 7(4) of the admission brochure; and whether any
mandamus can be issued directing the respondents to allot SC Category seat to the petitioners.

HEADNOTE
Admission to Post Graduate Courses - U.P. Ayush P.G. Counselling 2024-25 - Clause 7(4) of the Brochure -
Migration of unfilled reserved category seats in the third round of counselling - Policy decision of the State
Government vide Government Order dated 02.09.2024 - Clause 10(V) and Clause 14(1) of Government Order
- Scope of judicial interference in policy matters relating to admission - Reservation not a fundamental right -
Articles 15 and 16 enabling provisions - No mandamus can be issued to enforce reservation - Brochure found
in accordance with Government Order - Writ petition dismissed.
HELD:
1 All. Kuldeep Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
179
Petitioners challenged Clause 7(4) of the Brochure for admission for the Academic Year 2024-25 on the
ground that migration of seats from Scheduled Caste category to open category during the third round of
counselling cannot be permitted even in absence of any suitable candidate attaining the cut off percentile at
the relevant stage, and that the said clause is arbitrary. Court held that the State Government vide its order
dated 02.09.2024 took a policy decision for U.P. Ayush P.G. Counselling-2024 and in Clause 10(V) of the
Government Order, the migration of seats which remained unfilled of the reserved category in the third round
of counselling has been provided. Clause 14(1) of the Government Order provides to offer remaining unfilled
seats to all candidates in the stray vacancy round. Clause 7(4) of the Brochure was found to be in accordance
with the Government Order dated 02.09.2024 issued by the State Government and therefore, it could not be
faulted, especially in absence of any challenge to the said Government Order dated 02.09.2024. In so far as
the applicability of Section 3 of the Act of 1994 is concerned, Court held that the same has no bearing at all as
the Act of 1994 relates to Public Services and not to admission in educational courses, and therefore, reliance
placed on the said provisions by the petitioners was wholly misconceived. Court further reiterated that the
right to claim reservation is not a fundamental right and no writ of mandamus to enforce the same is to be
issued, Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India being enabling provisions only. Writ petition
dismissed.(Paras 15-29) (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
Union of India v. Ramesh Ram and Others, (2010) 7 SCC 234;
Avika Shahi and Others v. Medical Counselling Committee and Ors., Neutral Citation: AIR 2025 Delhi
217;
Saurav Yadav and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2021) 4 SCC 542;
Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Baloji Badhavath and Others, (2009) 5 SCC1;
Bhuvnesh Pachauri v. State of U.P. and Others, 2018 (6) ADJ 22;
Amrit Yadav v. State of Jharkhand and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 280.

List of Acts
Constitution of India, 1950;
National Commission for Indian System of Medicine Act, 2020;
Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward
Classes) Act, 1994.

List of Keyword
U.P. Ayush P.G. Counselling 2024; Admission Brochure; Clause 7(4) of the Brochure; Migration of unfilled
reserved category seats; Third round of counselling; Stray vacancy round; Government Order dated
02.09.2024; Policy decision of the State Government; Cut-off merit/percentile; No mandamus to enforce
reservation; Reservation not a fundamental right; Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

CASE ARISING FROM
Challenge to Clause 7(4) of the Admission Brochure for U.P. Ayush P.G. Counselling 2024-25,
framed pursuant to Government Order dated 02.09.2024.

Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: Ravi Shekhar Sharma, Vinay Kumar Bharti
Advs For Respondents: C.S.C.
180 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Saran, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ravi Shekhar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vaibhav
Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 3.

2. The instant petition has been filed with the following reliefs:

"1. Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of certiorari to quash the Paragraph 4 of
Clause 7 of the prospectus (prospectus is annexed as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition).

2. Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to
take admission to petitioners on their reserved (SC) seats in Govt. Unani Medical College.

3. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents to decide the representation dated 12.01.2025 (annexure no.2 to this writ petition)."

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners namely, Kuldeep Kumar and Vikas
Gautam appeared in the AIAGET-2024 Post Graduate Entrance Examination in Unani Medicine
and Surgery (BUMS) subject and the petitioner no.1 scored 23.2039268 percentile (equivalent to
23.20 per cent) and petitioner no.2 scored 24.0963855 percentile (equivalent to 24.09 percent).
Both the petitioners belong to the Scheduled Caste category and their results of the examination
was declared on 31.07.2024. The result dated 31.07.2024 of both the petitioners also discloses the
all India categorywise cut off score which is as follows:

All India Category wise Rank
Category
Cut
off
Percentile
Cut
off
Score
No.
of
candidates
Category
Cut
off
Percentile
Cut
off
Score
No. of Candidate
UR/EWS
50th
Percentile
365-157
1113
UR/EWSPwD
45th
Percentile
153-152
2
OBC
40th
Percentile
155-137
112
OBCPwD
40th
Percentile
-
-
SC
40th
Percentile
154-152
2
SC-PwD
40th
Percentile
-
-
ST
40th
Percentile
150-142
2
ST-Pwd
40th
Percentile

4. The cut off for Scheduled Caste category to which the petitioner belong was 40 percentile in
the result dated 31.07.2024.

5. The Ayush Department of State of U.P. published the admission brochure for academic year
2024-25 for which admission process on the seats of P.G. courses for U.P. Ayush P.G. seats and
according to which the counselling procedure for the academic session 2024-25 was to be adopted
for the U.P. Ayush P.G. seats. The counselling was to take place in four rounds viz:(i) Pratham
Chakra, (ii) Dwitiya Chakra, (iii) Tritiya Chakra and (iv) Stray Chakra Counselling.

6. It is the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine (hereinafter referred to as
'NCISM'), which is a statutory body established under Section 3 of the National Commission for
1 All. Kuldeep Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
181
Indian System of Medicine Act, 2020 which is the body competent to determine the cut off merits
at each round of counselling.

7. The NCISM during the course of U.P. P.G. Counselling reduced the required cut off merit
and during the third round of counselling by letter dated 20.11.2024 reduced 15 percentile of the
cut off merit for each of the categories. The said fact is recited in paragraph 4 of the counter
affidavit which reads as under:

"..... It is further submitted that pursuant to the letter of NCISM dated 20.11.2024, it has
been decided by the Board that reduction of 15 percentile be provided to each categories of
candidates, as such no candidate be deprived from getting admission in view of the fact that in
their round of counselling there is a provision of converting/absorbing the seats into other
categories......"

8. Thus for the third round of U.P.P.G. Counselling the cut off percentile for admission of
Scheduled Caste category candidates became 25 percent. However, even at this time both the
petitioners could not apply as their merit was lower than the qualifying percentage. During the third
round of counselling the remaining seats reserved for SC category got migrated to the General
category by virtue of Clause 7(4) of the Brochure, this Clause 7(4) reads as under:

"तृतीय चक्र में आरक्षित सीटों का आमेलन / पररवततनः-
क्र०सं०
श्रेणी (जिनका पररवततन होना है)
श्रेणी (जिनमें पररवर्तत होगी)
1
अनुसूचचत िनिार्त-ST (PwD)
अनुसूचचत िनिार्त-ST- OP
2
अनुसूचचत िार्त-SC (PwD)
अनुसूचचत िार्त-SC-OP
3
अनारक्षित-UR (PwD)
अनारक्षित-UR-OP
4
अन्य पपछडा वगत-OBC (PwD)
अन्य पपछडा वगत-OBC-OP
5
आचथतक रूप से कमिोर वगत-EWS(PwD)
आचथतक रूप से कमिोर वगत-EWS-OP
6
अनुसूचचत िनिार्त - ST
अनुसूचचत िार्त-SC-OP
7
अनुसूचित जातत - SC
अनारक्षित-UR-OP
8
अन्य पपछडा वगत-OBC
अनारक्षित-UR-OP
9
आचथतक रूप से कमिोर वगत-EWS
अनारक्षित-UR-OP"

9. Thereafter, during the fourth round of counselling which is the stray chakra counselling, the
NCISM further reduced the cut off percentile by 5 percentile by letter dated 13.01.2025 so as to
enable the remaining unfilled seats be offered, the petitioners applied for participation in the fourth
round of counselling by making deposit of the requisite amount of Rs.2000/- on 09.01.2025. It is
however not clear from the averments made in the writ petition as to what was the outcome in the
fourth round of counselling in which the petitioners participated.

10. Now after participating in the fourth round i.e. the stray chakra counselling the petitioners
approached this Court challenging the Clause 7(4) of the Brochure.
182 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
CONTENTION OF THE PETITIONER

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Clause 7(4) of the Brochure for
admission for the Academic Year 2024-25 (hereinafter referred to as 'Brochure') is arbitrary
inasmuch as migration of seats from SC category to open category during the third round of
counselling cannot be permitted. Even in absence of any suitable candidate attaining the cut off
percentile at the relevant third round of counselling. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed
reliance on Section 3(1) and Section 3(6) of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation of
Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to
as 'the Act of 1994') and the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India
vs. Ramesh Ram and Others., Avika Shahi and Others vs. Medical Counselling Committee and Ors.
and Saurav Yadav and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others only by reference made in the
Rejoinder Affidavit.

CONTENTION OF THE RESPONDENT

12. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent/State vehemently submitted that
for the purposes of Uttar Pradesh Ayush P.G. Counselling 2024 (hereinafter referred to as U.P. P.G.
Counselling) a Government Order dated 02.09.2024 was issued which infact has not been
challenged and the Brochure has been framed in the lines of the said Government Order. He further
submits that the State Government has taken care of the reservation policy and it is for the State
Government to provide reservation and the petitioner do not have any fundamental right to claim
the same. He further submits that in absence of any challenge to the Government Order dated
02.09.2024, Clause 7(4) of the Brochure cannot be termed to be violative of any provisions of law.
Learned Standing Counsel further submitted that the counselling for the U.P. Ayush P.G.
Counselling, 2024-25 has already concluded, in support of the said submission, he has placed
reliance on Annexure-CA1 to the counter affidavit which is letter dated 10.07.2025 written b the
Director, Unani Services, U.P., Lucknow.

13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

14. The questions which falls for consideration before this Court are as follows:

(I) Whether the migration of 'unfilled Scheduled Caste category seats' to the open
category was permissible under law during the third round of counselling by virtue of Clause 7(4)
of the admission brochure?

(II) Whether any mandamus can be issued directing the respondents to allot SC Category
seat to the petitioner?

ISSUE NO.1
1 All. Kuldeep Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
183

15. The State Government vide its order dated 02.09.2024 took a policy decision for U.P.
Ayush P.G. Counselling-2024 on the basis of score obtained in AIAPGET examination. The
subject of Government Order dated 02.09.2024 reads as under:

"शैिणणक सत्र 2024-25 में प्रदेश के आयुवेददक, यूनानी एवं होम्योपैथी मेडिकल कालेिों में
एम०िी०/एम०एस० पाठ्यक्रमों में ए०आई०ए०पी०िी०ई०टी० की मेररट को अंगीकार करते हुए प्रवेश हेतु यू०पी०
आयुष पी०िी० काउंसससलंग आनलाइन कराने हेतु नीर्त र्नर्ातरण के सम्बन्र् में।"

16. In Clause 10(V) of the Government Order dated 02.09.2024, the migration of seats which
remained unfilled of the reserved category in the third round of counselling is provided. The said
clause 10(V) reads as under:

"10(V)- तृतीय चक्र की आवंटन प्रक्रक्रया के समय यदद आरक्षित श्रेणी/उपश्रेणी की सीटें ररक्त रहती
है, तो उन्हें र्नयमानुसार सम्बजन्र्त श्रेणी में आमेसलत/पररवर्तत करते हुए तृतीय चक की आवंटन प्रक्रक्रया
सम्पन्न की िायेगी।"

17. In Clause 14(1) of the Government Order provides to offer remaining unfilled seats to all
candidates. Thus the offer of seats to the petitioner in the fourth round/stray chakra was not on
account of reservation but as the remaining seats had to be offered to all. Relevant Clause 14(I) of
the Government Order reads as under:

"14. स्ट्रे वैकेंसी चक्र-

(I) ऐसे अभ्यथी जिन्होंने यू०पी० आयुष पी०िी० काउजन्ससलंग 2024 की प्रथम, द्पवतीय एवं तृतीय
चक की काउजन्ससलंग के द्वारा कोई भी सीट आवंदटत न हुई हो।"

18. Now coming to Clause 7(4) of the Brochure as referred to above, it is seen that the said
clause is in accordance with the Government Order dated 02.09.2024 issued by the State
Government.

19. With regard to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saurav
Yadav and Others (Supra), which was referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner it is to
be noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of migration of seats in
absence of any suitable candidate in a particular category had left it to the wisdom of the competent
authority to take can take a decision regarding the unfilled seats. The relevant paragraphs 49 and 59
reads as under:

"49. If there are unfilled vacancies, it is upto the authorities to act purely in terms of the
concerned statutory provisions. Neither any case for issuance of mandamus, as prayed for, has
been made out nor do we think it appropriate to pass any orders directing the concerned
authorities to absorb the petitioners against unfilled vacancies.

.........................................
184 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

59.4. If the vacancies cannot be filled by the specified categories due to shortfall of
candidates, the vacancies are to be 'carried forward' or dealt with appropriately by rules."

19. With regards to the judgment rendered in Ramesh Ram (Supra) referred to by the learned
counsel for the petitioner' is concerned, the same is not applicable in the instant case inasmuch as
the same was related to Civil Services Rules and dealt with the issue as to whether the reserved
candidate who were selected on merit and placed in the list of general category candidates could be
considered as reserved category candidates at the time of 'service allocation'.

20. With regards to the judgment rendered in Avika Shahi (Supra) referred to by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the said judgment is also not applicable in the facts and
circumstances of the instant case as the Hon'ble Court dealt with the question of horizontal
reservation.

21. In so far as the applicability of Section 3 of the Act of 1994 is concerned the same has no
bearing at all as the Act of 1994 relates to Public Services and not to the admission in the
educational courses. The statement of Act reads as under:

"Provided that the reservation under clause (c) shall not apply to the category of Other
Backward Classes of citizens specified in Schedule II: Provided further that reservation of
vacancies for all categories of persons shall not exceed in any year of recruitment fifty per cent of
the total vacancies of that year as also fifty per cent of the cadre strength of the service to which
the recruitment is to be made;"

22. Thus the reliance of the said provisions in the case of petitioner by learned counsel for the
petitioner is wholly misconceived.

23. Thus in view of the aforesaid decision, this Court is of the considerate opinion that Clause
7(4) of the Brochure in accordance with the policy decision of the State Government issued vide
Government Order dated 02.09.2024 and therefore, it cannot be faulted especially in absence of any
challenge to the said Government Order dated 02.09.2024.

ISSUE NO.2

24. It has been settled in catena of judgments that the right to claim reservation is not a
fundamental right and no writ of mandamus to enforce the same is to be issued. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Baloji Badhavath and Others
vide paragraph-18 has held as under:

"18. The Constitution of India lays down provisions both for protective discrimination as
also affirmative action. Reservation of posts for the disadvantaged class of people as also seats in
educational institutions are provided for by reason of Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of
India. Reservation made for the members of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other
Backward Classes would, however, is subject to Article 335 of the Constitution of India.
Concededly, no citizen of India can claim reservation as a matter of right. The provisions
1 All. Sanjay Kumar Pandey & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
185
contained in Articles 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India are merely enabling provisions. No writ
of or in the nature of mandamus, thus, could be issued. [See C.A. Rajendran v. Union of India &
Others, (1968) 1 SCR 721 at 731-733, Indra Sawhney and Others v. Union of India and Others
[1992 Supp (3) SCC 217, para 165 to 169, 428 to 432, 741 and 742, Ajit Singh and Others (II) v.
State of Punjab and Others (1999) 7 SCC 209, para 32 to 39, State of Punjab and Others v. Manjit
Singh and Others (2003) 11 SCC 559, para 7 and 12]."

25. The aforesaid judgment has also been followed by this Court in the case of Bhuvnesh
Pachauri v. State of U.P. and Others.

26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Yadav v. State of Jharkhand and others
reported in vide paragraph 20 has observed as under:

"20. Further, the position of law is settled that though there is no fundamental right to
claim reservation as Articles 16(4) and (4-A) of the Constitution of India are in the nature of
enabling provisions only and do not mandate the State or its instrumentalities to provide reservation
in every selection process but inspite thereof, the State's decision to not provide reservation has to
be based on some quantifiable data and valid reasoning."

27. It is the well settled law that the reservation has to be taken care of by the concerned
Government and the statutory body which in the present case is Government of U.P. and the
NCISM. The statutory authority/NCISM had determined the merit i.e. the cut off for selection at
each stage and the Government of U.P. have provided for the manner in which reservation of seats
were to be provided vide Government Order dated 02.09.2024.

28. In view of the aforesaid discussion, no mandamus as prayed for can be granted.

29. The petition lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.

29. No order as to cost.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 185
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
THE HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.

Writ C No. 37803 of 2022

Sanjay Kumar Pandey & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents