# Nayab Abbasi Girls Degree College v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 5 ILRA 2043
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-05-10
- **Bench:** Manoj Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nayab-abbasi-girls-degree-college-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43917
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

C.S.C., Vivek Varma

Issue for consideration - whether a minority institution is entitled to admit students of other communities
in B.Ed. Course under the minority quota

Held:- unaided minority institutions can admit non-minority students under management quota for unfilled
seats after prioritizing minority candidates on merit, without violating Article 30, provided the minority
character is maintained and admissions follow merit from common entrance tests, relying on Supreme Court
precedents like P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra and Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka.

Refusal to permit students to appear in examination - Validity.
Where minority institution admitted a majority of minority students and only a few seats were filled by nonminority candidates on the basis of merit in the common entrance test, refusal by the University to issue
admit cards was unjustified

The court directed the university to validate the admissions and declare results for the 9 students

IN Result: Writ petition Allowed

List of Cases cited:
P.A. Inamdar vs. State of Maharashtra(2005) 6 SCC 537
In Re: Kerala Education Bill, 1957AIR 1958 SC 956
St. Stephen's College vs. University of DelhiAIR 1992 SC 1630
T.M.A. Pai Foundation vs. State of Karnataka(2002) 8 SCC 481Islamic Academy of Education vs. State of
KarnatakaAIR 2003 SC 3724
2044 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

## Text

5 All. Nayab Abbasi Girls Degree College Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.

2043
the case be registered against the applicants and be investigated is absolutely illegal and liable to be
quashed, which is accordingly, quashed.

13. Accordingly, the application under section 482 Cr.P.C. stands allowed.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Writ C No.- 35328 Of 2015

Nayab Abbasi Girls Degree College ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rohit Pandey, Neeraj Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Vivek Varma

Issue for consideration - whether a minority institution is entitled to admit students of other communities
in B.Ed. Course under the minority quota

Held:- unaided minority institutions can admit non-minority students under management quota for unfilled
seats after prioritizing minority candidates on merit, without violating Article 30, provided the minority
character is maintained and admissions follow merit from common entrance tests, relying on Supreme Court
precedents like P.A. Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra and Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka.

Refusal to permit students to appear in examination - Validity.
Where minority institution admitted a majority of minority students and only a few seats were filled by nonminority candidates on the basis of merit in the common entrance test, refusal by the University to issue
admit cards was unjustified

The court directed the university to validate the admissions and declare results for the 9 students

IN Result: Writ petition Allowed

List of Cases cited:
P.A. Inamdar vs. State of Maharashtra(2005) 6 SCC 537
In Re: Kerala Education Bill, 1957AIR 1958 SC 956
St. Stephen's College vs. University of DelhiAIR 1992 SC 1630
T.M.A. Pai Foundation vs. State of Karnataka(2002) 8 SCC 481Islamic Academy of Education vs. State of
KarnatakaAIR 2003 SC 3724
2044 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

1. The sole issue for consideration is whether a minority institution is entitled to admit
students of other communities in B.Ed. Course under the minority quota. The State Government
had issued various government orders from time to time whereunder during the academic session
2014-15 fifty percent of the seats in a minority institution were required to be filled up on the
recommendation of the counselling university, based on merit at a common entrance test. The
remaining fifty percent of the seats (hereinafter referred to as ''the management quota') were left
open to be filled by the management of unaided minority institutions from students of their choice,
based on their interse merit, determined through the same common entrance test. In other words,
fifty percent of the seats were to be filled up by selecting students of all communities strictly in
accordance with merit based on the result of common entrance test. The remaining fifty percent of
the seats were left open for being filled up from students of minority community, regard being had
to the minority character of the educational institution. However, while making such admissions,
their interse merit is to be the guiding factor. The government orders are silent on the point as to
whether the management quota was to be filled up only by admitting students of minority
community or it is permissible to admit students of other communities as well.

2. Brief background facts giving rise to the above controversy may be noted. The petitioner
is a self-financed minority institution imparting education in Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.). It has
due recognition from the National Council for Teacher Education and is duly affiliated to M.J.P.
Rohilkhand University, Bareilly (the third respondent). By an order dated 9 December 2004, the
State Government recognised the minority status of the petitioner institution. There is also no
dispute between the parties about the minority character of the petitioner. During the academic
session 2014-15, a Joint Entrance Test for admission to B. Ed. course was conducted by the fourth
respondent (Bundelkhand University, Jhansi). As per the Government Orders occupying the field,
fifty percent of the seats were required to be filled up from students recommended by the fourth
respondent based on their interse merit in the Joint Entrance Test. The petitioner's institution which
has an approved intake of 100 students thus admitted 50 students as per the recommendation made
by the fourth respondent. The remaining fifty percent of the seats under the management quota
were filled up by the petitioner institution of its own by admitting 41 minority students and 9
students from other communities.

3. According to the petitioner, the total strength of minority students admitted in the
institution is 51 as 41 students were admitted by it from its own sources and 10 students of minority
community came to be admitted as a result of recommendation made by the fourth respondent. The
petitioner furnished details of the admissions made against 100 seats in the institution to the third
respondent by letter dated 9 January 2015. The third respondent by communication dated 25 March
2015, requested the Principal Secretary, Higher Education, Anubhag-3, U.P. Government,
Lucknow to clarify about the right of a minority institution to admit students of the other
communities under the management quota. However, it seems that no clarification was given in
that regard by the State Government. The petitioner institution completed all the formalities to
entitle its students to appear in the University Examination. However, the third respondent declined
5 All. Nayab Abbasi Girls Degree College Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.

2045
to issue admit card to the 9 non-minority students admitted under the management quota. The
petitioner institution made representation to the University and to the State Government reminding
them of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of P.A. Inamdar vs. State of
Maharashtra1 and requested for issuance of the admit card of those students as well. However,
when the University still did not issue admit card to these students, the petitioner institution
preferred the instant writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the second and the third
respondent to issue examination forms and admit card and conduct examination of the students of
non-minority community admitted by the petitioner institution under the management quota during
the academic session 2014-15.

4. At the time when the writ petition was entertained, an interim order dated 19 June 2015
was passed directing the third respondent to permit those students to appear in the examination
provisionally. In pursuance of the said direction, the students of the non-minority community, nine
in number, had appeared in the examination but their results have not been declared as permission
granted to them was on provisional basis only.

5. The stand taken by the second and the third respondents in the counter affidavit is that
the petitioner had illegally admitted students of the other communities under the minority quota and
it is for the said reason that they were not being permitted to appear in the examination. According
to them, the petitioner which has been conferred with the right to fill up fifty percent of the seats
from students of its choice in recognition of its minority character can admit students of minority
community only under the said quota and not students from other communities. It is urged that in
case the same is allowed, it will defeat the object with which fifty percent seats are reserved for
being filled up by the management. On the other hand, the contention of the petitioner is that after
admitting 41 students of the minority community under the management quota, 9 seats remained
vacant and the petitioner institution was compelled to offer those 9 seats to students of other
communities instead of leaving such seats unfilled. In this regard reliance has been placed on
various decisions of the Supreme Court, which shall be referred to hereinafter.

6. In a Presidential reference under Article 143(1) of the Constitution relating to the
validity of the Kerala Education Bill, 1957 In Re : Kerala Education Bill, 19572 one of the issues
considered by the Supreme Court was whether a minority educational institution loses its character
as such in case it admits even a single member of non-minority community. The contention of the
Government that for availing benefit of Article 30(1), an educational institution must be established
for the members of his or their own community alone and as a necessary concomitant thereof only
students of the minority community could be admitted to such institutions was repelled by holding
as under :-

22....... As to the third condition mentioned above, the argument carried to its logical
conclusion comes to this that if a single member of any other community is admitted into a school
established for the members of a particular minority community, then the educational institution
ceases to be an educational institution established by the particular minority community. The
argument is sought to be reinforced by a reference to Art. 29(2). It is said that an educational
2046 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
institution established by a minority community which does not seek any aid from the funds of the
State need not admit a single scholar belonging to a community other than that for whose benefit it
was established but that as soon as such an educational institution seeks and gets aid from the
State coffers Art. 29(2) will preclude it from denying admission to members of the other
communities on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them and consequently it
will cease to be an educational institution of the choice of the minority community which
established it. This argument does not appear to us to be warranted by the language of the Article
itself. There is no such limitation in Art. 30(1) and to accept this limitation will necessarily involve
the addition of the words "for their own community" in the Article which is ordinarily not
permissible according to well established rules of interpretation. Nor is it reasonable to assume
that the purpose of Art. 29(2) was to deprive minority educational institutions of the aid they
receive from the State. To say that an institution which receives aid on account of its being a
minority educational institution must not refuse to admit any member of any other community only
on the grounds therein mentioned and then to say that as soon as such institution admits such an
outsider it will cease to be a minority institution is tantamount to saying that minority institutions
will not, as minority institutions, be entitled to any aid. The real import of Art. 29(2) and Art. 30(1)
seems to us to be that they clearly contemplate a minority institution with a sprinkling of outsiders
admitted into it. By admitting a non-member into it the minority institution does not shed its
character and cease to be a minority institution. Indeed the object of conservation of the distinct
language, script and culture of a minority may be better served by propagating the same amongst
non-members of the particular minority community. In our opinion, it is not possible to read this
condition into Art.30(1) of the Constitution."

(emphasis supplied)

7. In St. Stephen's College vs. University of Delhi3, a Constitutional Bench of the
Supreme Court while considering the interplay between Article 29(2) and Article 30 held that an
aided minority educational institution cannot claim right to admit students of its community alone.
Infact, the same is held to be impermissible. It would undermine the secular democracy and would
be inconsistent with the concept of equality embedded in the constitution. It is held that there
should be proper mix of students of different communities. The decision concluded by holding that
a minority aided educational institution is entitled to prefer their community candidates to maintain
the minority character of the institution but in no case such intake should exceed fifty percent each
of the annual admission. A minority institution is required to make available at least fifty percent of
the annual admission to members of other community to be done purely on the basis of merit.
Relevant observations made in this regard are reproduced below for convenience of reference.

"80. Indeed, we should steer clear of the two extreme arguments urged for the
institutions. Counsel for the institutions contended that the preference given to minority candidates
in their own educational institution is not violative of Article 29(2). Such preference is not solely on
the basis of religion but on the ground that the candidate belongs to a minority community. It was
also urged that the minorities in the exercise of their right in Article 30(1) are entitled to establish
and administer educational institutions for the exclusive advantage of their own community
5 All. Nayab Abbasi Girls Degree College Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.

2047
candidates. So far as the first point is concerned, it may be noted that the institutional preference to
minority candidates based on religion is apparently an institutional discrimination on the
forbidden ground of religion. It operates to stigmatise or single out candidates from non-minority
communities on the ground only of religion. If an educational institution says "yes" to one
candidate but says "no" to another candidate on ground of religion, it amounts to discrimination
on ground of religion. The mandate of Article 29(2) is that there shall not be any such
discrimination.

81. Equally, it would be difficult to accept the second submission that the minorities
are entitled to establish and administer educational institutions for their exclusive benefit. The
choice of institutions provided in Article 30(1) does not mean that the minorities could establish
educational institution for the benefit of their own community people. Indeed, they cannot. It was
pointed out in Re: Kerala Education Bill that the minorities cannot establish educational institution
only for the benefit of their community. If such was the aim, Article 30(1) would have been
differently worded and it would have contained the words "for their own community". In the
absence of such words it is legally impermissible to construe the Article as conferring the right on
the minorities to establish educational institution for their own benefit.

82. Even in practice, such claims are likely to be met with considerable hostility. It
may not be conducive to have relatively a homogeneous society. It may lead to religions bigotry
which is the bane of mankind. In the nation building with with secular character sectarian schools
or colleges; segregated faculties or universities for imparting general secular education are
undesirable and they may undermine secular democracy. They would be inconsistent with the
central concept of secularism and equality embedded in the constitution. Every educational
institution irrespective of community to which it belongs is a 'melting-pot' in our national life. The
students and teachers are the critical ingredients. It is there they develop respect for, and tolerance
of, the cultural and beliefs of others. It is essential therefore, that there should be proper mix of
students of different communities in all educational institutions.

102. In the light of all these principles and factors, and in view of the importance
which the Constitution attaches to protective measures to minorities under Art. 30(1), the minority
aided educational institutions are entitled to prefer their community candidates to maintain the
minority character of the institutions subject of course in conformity with the University standard.
The State may regulate the intake in this category with due regard to the need of the community in
the area which the institution is intended to serve. But in no case such intake shall exceed fifty per
cent of the annual admission. The minority institutions shall make available at least fifty per cent of
the annual admission to members of communities other than the minority community. The
admission of other community candidates shall be done purely on the basis of merit."

(emphasis supplied)

8. The correctness of the law laid down in St. Stephen's was doubted by a subsequent
bench and it led to Eleven Judge Constitution Bench judgement in the case of T. M. A. Pai
2048 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Foundation vs. State of Karnataka4. Hon'ble Kripal, C.J.I., who rendered a majority judgement
while answering the fifth question as regard the procedure to be followed by a minority institution
in admitting students, had split up question no. 5 in three parts. While answering question no.5(a),
it is held that a minority institution may have its own procedure and method of admission as well as
selection of student, but such procedure must be fair and transparent and the selection of students in
professional and higher education colleges should be on the basis of merit. The procedure adopted
or selection made, should not tantamount to maladministration. Even an unaided minority
institution, ought not to ignore the merit of the students for admission, while exercising its right to
admit student to the colleges aforesaid, as in that case, the institution will fail to achieve excellence.
While answering question no. 5(b) as regard the procedure and method of admission where the
institution is receiving aid, it is held that it would be permissible for the authority giving aid to
prescribe by Rules and Regulations, the conditions on the basis of which admission will be granted
to different aided colleges by virtue of merit, coupled with the reservation policy of the State qua
non-minority students. The merit may be determined either through common entrance test
conducted by the concerned University or the Government followed by counselling, or on the basis
of an entrance test conducted by the individual institutions - the method to be followed is for the
University or the Government to decide.

9. The judgement of the Constitution Bench in the case of T.M.A. Pai (supra) was
understood in different perspectives leading to a lot of litigation. The task of ironing out the creases
and of resolving issues post the judgement in T.M.A. Pai was taken up by a Bench of Five Judges
in Islamic Academy of Education and another vs. State of Karnataka5. The Supreme Court
clarified that common entrance test contemplated by the Constitution Bench judgement in the case
of T. M. A. Pai (supra) means that each institute cannot hold a separate test. The management
would select students of their quota either on the basis of common entrance test conducted by the
State or on the basis of a common entrance test to be conducted by an association of all colleges of
a particular type in that State. Common entrance test, if held by the institution themselves should be
for admission to all colleges of that particular type in the State and such an option is to be exercised
before issuance of prospectus and after due intimation to the University and the State Government.

10. The second issue which was clarified in that judgement is that a distinction is to be
made between the minority and non-minority professional colleges. In case of non-minority
professional colleges a certain percentage of seats are reserved for admission by the management
and rest is to be filled up on the basis of counselling by the State agencies. The prescription of
percentage has to be done by the Government according to local needs. However, in respect of
unaided minority institution, a different percentage can be prescribed. The same yardstick cannot
be applied to both minority and non-minority professional colleges. In fixing percentage for
unaided minority professional colleges, the State has to keep in mind, apart from local need, the
interest and the need of that community in the State.

11. One other clarification made in the said judgement and which is relevant for
controversy on hand is that a minority professional college can admit students from members of
other communities as well, if certain seats are left unfilled after admitting members of their own
5 All. Nayab Abbasi Girls Degree College Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.

2049
community. However, again it is held that while making such admission, interse merit of the
students cannot be ignored. In this regard, it has been held as under :-

"14. It must be clarified that a minority professional college can admit, in their
management quota, a student of their own community/ language in preference to a student of
another community even though that other student is more meritorious. However, whilst
selecting/admitting students of their community/ language the inter-se merit of those students
cannot be ignored. In other words whilst selecting/admitting students of their own
community/language they cannot ignore the inter-se merit amongst students of their
community/language. Admission, even of members of their community/language, must strictly be on
the basis of merit except that in case of their own students it has to be merit inter-se those students
only. Further if the seats cannot be filled up from members of their community/language, then the
other students can be admitted only on the basis of merit based on a common entrance test
conducted by government agencies".

(emphasis supplied)

12. The judgement lays down that a minority institution can (i) admit student of their own
community in preference to a student of another community even though that other student is more
meritorious; (ii) however, while admitting students of their community, the interse merit of those
students cannot be ignored; (iii) the admission of the minority students under the management
quota is to be made on the basis of common entrance test conducted by the State or on the basis of
a common entrance test to be conducted by an association of all colleges of that particular type in
the entire State; (iv) further if the seats cannot be filled up from members of their community, then
the students of other communities can be admitted; and (v) the admissions of such students is again
to be merit based. Thus, the Supreme Court has clearly laid down that there is no embargo in
admitting students of other communities against unfilled seats under the management quota. It shall
however be merit based.

13. The judgement in the case of Islamic Academy of Education (supra) led to yet
another judgment in P.A. Inamdar (supra) as some of the issues still remained unsettled. The
Court while discussing the inter relation between Article 19 (1)(g), 29(2) and 30(1) held that a
minority educational institution has a right to admit students of its own choice. It can, as a matter of
its own freewill, admit students of non-minority community. However, non-minority students
cannot be forced upon it. The only restriction on the freewill of the minority educational institution
admitting students belonging to a non-minority community is, as spell out by Article 30 itself, the
manner and number of such admission should not be violative of the minority character of the
institution. Meaning thereby that a major chunk of the students admitted to such institution should
be from minority community, lest it may be denuded of its minority character. While answering
question no.1 as to the extent to which the State can regulate admission made by an unaided
(minority or non-minority) educational institution and can the State enforce its policy of
reservation, it was held as under :-
2050 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"132. Our answer to the first question is that neither the policy of reservation can be
enforced by the State nor any quota or percentage of admissions can be carved out to be
appropriated by the State in a minority or non-minority unaided educational institution. Minority
institutions are free to admit students of their own choice including students of non-minority
community as also members of their own community from other States, both to a limited extent only
and not in a manner and to such an extent that their minority educational institution status is lost.
If they do so, they lose the protection of Article 30(1).

(emphasis supplied)

14. It can thus be culled out from the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court that there is
no prohibition in admitting students belonging to the other communities under the minority quota
but it should not be to such extent that its minority character is lost. In the instant case, the specific
case of the petitioner is that it had admitted 41 student belonging to minority community under the
management quota and another 10 student of the minority community on the basis of the
recommendation made by the counselling university and thus, the total number of minority students
admitted is 51 out of 100. This, in the opinion of the Court, is sufficient to retain the minority
character of the petitioner institution and thus, it cannot be said that the admissions of nine students
of other communities under the management quota was in the manner contrary to the constitutional
scheme or the law enunciated by the Supreme Court in various judgements referred to above.

15. Learned counsel for the respondent-university placed much emphasis on a Full Bench
decision of this Court in the case of Tuples Educational Society and another vs. State of U.P.
and others. In the aforesaid judgement, the Full Bench answered six issues in the following
manner :-

46. In the circumstances, we answer these issues as follows:-

1. Whether the admissions to private unaided (minority and non-minority) colleges
imparting education for Bachelor of Education Courses recognized by NCTE and affiliated to the
University can be made by any method other than by holding a common entrance test either by the
State/Universities or by all the colleges of the State coming together as provided in P.A. Inamdar's
case?

Ans. No

2. Whether the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge on 14.12.2006 in Writ
Petition No.5674 (M/S) of 2006: U.P. Management Association of Self Finance Teachers Training
Colleges Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. has correctly appreciated the TMA Pai, Islamic Academy and
P.A. Inamdar's case and has laid down correct law?

Ans. Yes
5 All. Nayab Abbasi Girls Degree College Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.

2051

3. Whether in the absence of any common entrance test held by all the colleges
coming together or a common entrance test conducted by the State Government or all the
Universities in the State the admissions can be made through the entrance examination held by
individual universities providing list of students through counselling to these colleges?

Ans. Yes

4. Whether the entire process of admissions to these colleges must be left to the
supervision of the Justice H.N. Tilhari (Retd.) Committee constituted by the State Government in
terms of the decisions issued in P.A. Inamdar's case?

Ans. Yes

5. Whether for the session 2005-06 the students admitted to the management of the
private unaided colleges imparting education for B.Ed. recognized by NCTE and affiliated to Veer
Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur on the basis of their procedure of admission can be
said to be properly and legally admitted students and entitled for the study examination and the
declaration of the result.

Ans. No

6. Whether the decision of the Division Bench of Lucknow in Special Appeal No.263
of 2007: Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Agra Vs. S.S. College, Barbarpur, Sikandara, Agra
and another lays down the correct law and covers the issues involved in the present writ petition.

Ans. No

16. The aforesaid questions were raised in the context of validity of a circular dated 13
June 2007 issued by Chaudhary Charan Singh University being challenged; the circular provided
that the admission to B.Ed. during the academic session 2006-07 will be effected through
counselling by the said University. Tuples Society sought mandamus restraining the University
from interfering in its right to admit the students of its choice. The Full Bench, having regard to the
fact that during the relevant year, the State had not conducted any common entrance test and
keeping in mind the provisions of NCTE Act and the Regulations framed under the said Act, held
that it was permissible for the University to hold an entrance examination for admitting students to
the colleges affiliated to it and admissions being made on the basis of merit list of the entrance
examinations conducted by the University; both in respect of fifty percent seats available for being
filled up on the basis of open competition from all categories as well as students under the
management quota.

17. In the instant case, however, there is no dispute that fifty percent admissions under
open category were made on the recommendation of the counselling university based on the merit
determined through common entrance test. There is also no dispute that 41 admissions of minority
2052 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
students under the management quota were made by the petitioner on the basis of the merit list of
the common entrance test. In relation to the nine students belonging to other communities, who
were admitted under the management quota, specific stand of the petitioner is that even those
students were selected on basis of their interse merit in the common entrance test. It has been
specifically averred that all of them had passed common entrance test and the merit at such
entrance test was the criteria for making such admissions. There is no denial to the same in the
counter affidavit which has been filed, though at the time of hearing, a suggestion is sought to be
made before the Court that there is no material on record to establish that such admissions were
made strictly in accordance with their interse merit. It is noticeable that in the counter affidavit, the
only stand of the respondent University was that the petitioner institution was not entitled to make
admission of non-minority students under the minority quota and there was no plea that any more
meritorious student of non-minority community seeking admission to the petitioner institution was
denied such admission. In the absence of any such plea being raised in the pleadings, this Court
refuses to go into such question nor considers it proper to nonsuit the petitioner on such ground.

18. As a consequence and in view of the discussion made above, the admission of the nine
students of non-minority community under the management quota is not found to be in breach of
any provision of law and accordingly, this Court directs the respondent-University to treat such
admission to be legal and valid and declare their results forthwith. Accordingly, the writ petition
succeeds and is allowed.

19. No order as to costs.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE V. K. SHUKLA, J.
THE HON'BLE PRABHAT CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.

Writ - C No. - 61449 Of 2009
&
Connected With Other Cases

Smt. Madhuri Srivastava ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ranjit Saxena

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Ramendra P. Singh