# Nitin Katara and another v. U.P. Technical University, Institute of Engineering and technology, Lucknow and others

- **Citation:** (2008) 1 ILRA 295
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2008-02-01
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 50842 of 2007
- **Bench:** Rakesh Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/nitin-katara-and-another-v-u-p-technical-university-institute-of-engineering-41055
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of India-Art. 226-EducationPetitioner a B. Tech student-claimed
benefit of decision of academic council
dated 20.9.06-to allow him to appear in
4th year examination without clearance
of Ist year-held-no relaxation be granted
in contravention of ordinance-before
relaxation
has
to
clear
Ist
year
examination-court declined to interfere.

Held: Para 16

This being the position, this Court is not
inclined to interfere in the matter. The
counsel for the University states that as
soon as the petitioner clears all papers of
the first year, his result of third year will
be declared which has been withheld in
accordance with the Ordinance and if the
petitioner is declared passed, he will be
given admission. The petitioner may
clear
all
papers
of
the
1st
year
examination if he so desires. No student
can be permitted to be promoted in the
next semester in contravention of the
Ordinance. Once relaxation has been
granted, he should clear all papers of the
1st year examinations.
296 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008

## Text

1 All] Nitin Katara and another V. U.P. Technical University and others
295
cancellation of the allotment of lease of
such land, shall abate.

9. The above provision indicates that
allotments, made prior to 'said date' i.e.,
November 10, 1980, of land specified
under Section 132 as sirdar or bhumidhar
shall be treated to a asami year to year,
thus, the above deeming clause comes in
operation with regard to land allotted
prior to November 10, 1980. The
allotment to the petitioner in the present
case is allotment which was made with
the approval dated 14th August, 1991
subsequent
to
specified
date.
The
Legislature itself confined deeming clause
as Asami with regard to only those sirdar
or bhumidhar who were allotted land
prior to November 10, 1980. The said
legal fiction or benefit cannot be extended
to the allottees of land specified under
Section 132 .of the Act who were allotted
land after the said date, i.e., November 10,
1980. Thus, the petitioner's submission
that he became Asami of the land
specified Section 132 of the Act, cannot
be accepted. The allotment in favour of
the petitioner, being allotment of land
which was recorded as river, was illegal
and has rightly been set aside. No grounds
have been made out to interfere in the
impugned order in exercise of writ
jurisdiction by this Court.

10. The petition is dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.02.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 50842 of 2007

Nitin Katara and another ...Petitioners
Versus
U.P. Technical University, Institute of
Engineering and technology, Lucknow
and others

...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri R.C. Katara

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Neeraj Tiwari

Constitution of India-Art. 226-EducationPetitioner a B. Tech student-claimed
benefit of decision of academic council
dated 20.9.06-to allow him to appear in
4th year examination without clearance
of Ist year-held-no relaxation be granted
in contravention of ordinance-before
relaxation
has
to
clear
Ist
year
examination-court declined to interfere.

Held: Para 16

This being the position, this Court is not
inclined to interfere in the matter. The
counsel for the University states that as
soon as the petitioner clears all papers of
the first year, his result of third year will
be declared which has been withheld in
accordance with the Ordinance and if the
petitioner is declared passed, he will be
given admission. The petitioner may
clear
all
papers
of
the
1st
year
examination if he so desires. No student
can be permitted to be promoted in the
next semester in contravention of the
Ordinance. Once relaxation has been
granted, he should clear all papers of the
1st year examinations.
296 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari. J.)

1. Heard counsel for the petitioner
and Sri Neeraj Tiwari for the respondents.

2. The counsel for petitioner submits
that under U.P. Technical University
Ordinance for Bachelor of Technology
Programmes which has been approved by
academic council in its meeting dated 20th
Sep. 2006 and has been made effective
from the session 2006-07, the petitioner is
eligible for declaration of his result and
appear in 4th year without passing the
carry over papers or clearing 1st year
examinations.

3. He has also relied upon the
judgment in Pravesh Kumar Dubey Vs.
University of Kanpur and another
(1990 All. L.J.-832), wherein it has been
held that the student who have been
declared passed by inadvertence of
University authorities and appeared for
next year examination, the University is
estopped from refusing to declare his
result on the ground that he had failed in
previous examination and his result is to
be declared.

4. He has also relied Miss Sangeeta
Srivastava Vs. Prof. U.N. Singh and
others (A.I.R. 1980 Delhi 27). In this
Case the Court was considering the
question of equitable estoppel. In that
case, inaction by the University resulted
in admission to non eligible candidate. It
was held that the principle of equitable
estoppel operated and the University
could not refuse her from appearing in the
examination when the candidate had
placed all facts before the University and
had
no
committed
any
fraud
or
misrepresentation. It was further held that
the ordinance of the University permitted
grant of exemption in certain cases and
therefore non eligibility of the student
would amount to mere irregularity and
would not be ultra vires of the ordinance.
In
that
case,
ordinance
of
Delhi
University was under consideration by the
Court.

5. Counsel for the petitioner then
relied Ravinder Pal Jindal Vs. Punjabi
University. Patiala (1990 (2) Services
Law Reporter 332). In that case the
petitioner was LI.B. student, who could
not appear in the first paper of company
law of third semester on account of
illness. He sought permission from the
University
to
appear
in
the
next
examination and permission was granted
to him to appear in the said paper in the
examination to be held on 30.3.1988. The
petitioner appeared but could not succeed,
hence the petitioner was not allowed to
appear in that paper in the next
examination. Thereafter, the petitioner
was also allowed to join the future course
of law i.e. 5th and 6th semester. It was held
that the petitioner was entitled for
appearing in the said paper within a
period of five years from the date of
joining the 1st semester and the order
disallowing him to appear in the said
paper was set aside.

6. Another case which has been
relied by the counsel for petitioner is
Amiya Krishna and another Vs. Dr.
Bhem Rao Ambedkar University. Agra
and another (2007(2) ESC 1105 (Alld.).
In that case, the petitioner was not
allowed to appear in the regular second
year
examination
of
B.D.S.
course
because of delay in declaration of the
result of supplementary examination. The
Court held that delay was caused by
respondent university and the student was
1 All] Nitin Katara and another V. U.P. Technical University and others
297
not at fault. Hence the petitioner was
permitted to appear in the examination.

7. Lastly, the counsel for petitioner
has relied on Sanatan Gauda Vs.
Berhampur University and others (AIR
1990 S.C. 1075). In that case question of
estoppel was considered by the Court.
The candidate was admitted to law course
by law college. The University also
permitted him to appear in pre-law and
intermediate Law examinations. He was
also admitted to final year course. In that
context, the Court held that refusal to
declare result by the University on ground
of ineligibility to be admitted to law
course, was barred by estoppel.

8. In Kum. Bhanu Priya Vs. Union
of India and others (2007(3) ESC
1802(All), the petitioner had secured 174
marks in entrance examination conducted
for admission. Candidates securing lesser
marks than the petitioner were granted
admission by the authority. In that
circumstance, action of the University
was held to be illegal. Since the course
has
been
already
commenced,
no
direction was issued for admission or
permit her to appear in B. Com.
examination 2006-07. However, college
was directed to pay cost of Rs.25000/- to
the petitioner for spoiling one academic
year of her career.

9. The cases cited by the counsel for
the petitioner are not applicable to the
facts of the present case.

In Pravesh Kumar Dubey (supra),
student was erroneously declared passed
by
inadvertence
of
the
University
authorities, hence University estopped
from refusing to declare his subsequent
result.
Miss Sangeeta Srivastava (supra)
was also a case of inaction by the
University which is not the position in the
present case.

10. Similarly the case of Ravinder
Pal Jindal (supra) is also distinguishable
from the facts of the present case. In that
case, the University had given admission
to the petitioner in 5th and 6th semester
without his having passed earlier one
paper
in
3rd
semester.
In
those
circumstances,
the
University
was
directed to allow the petitioner to appear
in the examination in the paper he had
failed.

11. The case of Amiya Krishna
(supra) was a case of delay in declaration
of the result, which is also not applicable
in the instant case.

12. As regards the case of Kum.
Bhanu Priya (supra), in that case
students securing lesser marks than the
petitioner in the Entrance Examination
were granted admission, which is not the
controversy in the instant case.

13. In the case of Sanatan Gauda
(supra), the appellant had passed M.A.
examination in July 1981 securing more
than 40% of the total marks. In 1983 he
secured
admission
in
Ganjam
Law
College for three years Law course. At the
time of admission, he had submitted his
mark sheet alongwith his M.A. degree
certificate. The appellant completed his
first year course known as Pre Law
Course and in 1984 he was promoted to
the second year "Intermediate Law
Course". In 1985 the appellant appeared
for Pre Law and Inter Law examination
held by Berampur University to which the
Ganjam Law College is affiliated and was
298 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
admitted to the Final Law course in the
same college but his results for the Pre
Law and Inter Law examinations were not
declared. The appellant had also made
representations to the Bar Council of
India and the Administrator of Berhampur
University, who replied that since the
appellant had secured less than 39.5%
marks in his M.A. degree examination, he
was not eligible for admission to the law
Course. In was in that context that the
Apex Court had decided that once a
candidate had been admitted in Law
course and had passed Pre Law and
Intermediate law examinations, he was
entitled to declaration of result of the final
year.

14. In the instant case, it is not in
dispute that the petitioner had been
admitted in B. Tech. course of session
2004 of U.P. Technical University. It is
also not in dispute that the petitioner did
not
clear
all
papers
of
1st
year
examination i.e. 1st and 2nd semester.
Though the petitioner has given names of
some students in paragraph 12 & 13 of the
writ petition who are said to have been
promoted but the same has been denied
by the University that these students have
been promoted alongwith the petitioner
and they all have cleared their first year
examinations i.e. 1st and 2nd semester
whereas the petitioner is the only student
who has not cleared all papers of the first
year. According to the counsel for the
University, this relaxation has been given
to the petitioners under powers of
Ordinance 23 applicable at that time.

15.

Therefore,
no
case
of
discrimination has been made out by the
petitioner. Those students who have been
granted promotion by relaxation for
appearing in 2nd to 4th year, they all have
cleared first year examinations.

16. This being the position, this
Court is not inclined to interfere in the
matter. The counsel for the University
states that as soon as the petitioner clears
all papers of the first year, his result of
third year will be declared which has been
withheld
in
accordance
with
the
Ordinance and if the petitioner is declared
passed, he will be given admission. The
petitioner may clear all papers of the 1st
year examination if he so desires. No
student can be permitted to be promoted
in the next semester in contravention of
the Ordinance. Once relaxation has been
granted, he should clear all papers of the
1st year examinations.

17. The writ petition is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Petition
dismissed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.01.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.

Special Appeal No. 1070 of 1998

Rajendra Prasad Yadav ...Appellant
Versus
Chairman, Sanyukt Kshetriya Gramin
Bank, Azamgarh & others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri G.K. Singh
Sri V.K. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A.B. Saran
Sri Parmatma Rai