# Pallavi Soni v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 6 ILRA 880
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-05-31
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 23756 of 2021
- **Bench:** Vivek Chaudhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pallavi-soni-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50467
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

A. Education Law - Dr. Shakuntala Mishra
Rehabilitation, UP Act, 2009 - Ph.D.
Ordinance, 2014 - Authority of University
to issue Ordinance - Source of such
authority, questioned - University was
unable to place any provision of Law,
which empowers the University to issue
an ordinance - Effect - Held, as per the St.
Act No. 1 of 2009, the University possess
power only to frame statute. Thus, on the
face of it, the ordinance appears to be
without jurisdiction. (Para 8)

B. Education Law - Ph.D. course -
Discontinuation - After five years, the
petitioner was restrained from completing
the course on the ground of irregularity in
admission
-
Legality
challenged
-
Students cannot be made to suffer for the
fault of the management of the university
- Ashok Chand Singhvi's case relied upon
- Held, once, the University has granted
admission and permitted petitioner to
continue for five long years and her Ph.D.
course is on the verge of completion, it is
now not open for the University to
restrain petitioner from completing her
course
-
Even
presuming
some
irregularity did occur at the time of
admission in Ph.D. course, the same
cannot now be made the basis for
denying petitioner from completing her
course. (Para 14 and 16)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

880 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
said issue. Accordingly, the arguments of
the petitioner in this regard are rejected.

16. Lastly, it is submitted by learned
counsel for the petitioner that the matter
has been settled between the petitioner and
the respondent workman inasmuch as a full
and final settlement of the dispute has been
arrived at between the petitioner and the
respondents, hence, the writ petition
deserves to be allowed. In support of his
submissions, he relied upon the document
titled as "full and final settlement" annexed
with the writ petition. A perusal of the said
document indicates that an amount of ₹
18,763/- is due to the respondent workman,
which includes various service benefits
including conveyance allowance, house
rent allowance personal allowance etc.
there is no proof whether it has actually
been paid to the respondent workman or
not. The said documents also contains a
receipt but the same is unsigned, which
clearly indicates the same has not been
accepted by the respondent workman, or it
was never tendered by the petitioner to the
workmen. It is further noticed that in the
objections filed by the petitioner before the
labour court in paragraph No. 10 stated
that:-

"Further, as per policy of the
company if so Respondent company had
prepared applicant's full & final settlement
and given outstanding full & final amount
to the applicant ".

17. There is clearly a variation in the
stand of the petitioner before the labour
court and before this Court. Before the
labour court there was no mention that the
full and final settlement has been accepted
by the respondent workman, and in
paragraph 21 of the instant writ petition it
has been stated that the workman has
signed a voucher in due acceptance of his
dues
on
14/01/2009.
The
document
Annexed in support of the said averments
does not include any signed document by
the
respondent
rather
an
unsigned
document has been annexed. Clearly, from
the above it was not expected from the
petitioner to make false assertions before
this Court. In case the respondent had in
fact signed the said full & final settlement
the same should have been produced before
the labour Court as well as this Court.
Before the labour court it was never stated
that the workmen had accepted the full and
final settlement, and this changed stand
before this Court, clearly appears to be an
afterthought and contrary to the material on
record, and not worthy of being considered
in favour of petitioner. In absence of
acceptance of the said settlement by the
workman it cannot be considered to be an
agreement or a settlement. The arguments
of the petitioner in this regard also rejected.

18. In light of the above, the writ
petition is bereft of merits and is
accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2023) 6 ILRA 880
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 31.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J.

Writ-C No. 23756 of 2021

Pallavi Soni ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
A.Z. Siddiqui

Counsel for the Respondents:
6 All. Pallavi Soni Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
881
C.S.C., Atul Kumar Dwivedi

A. Education Law - Dr. Shakuntala Mishra
Rehabilitation, UP Act, 2009 - Ph.D.
Ordinance, 2014 - Authority of University
to issue Ordinance - Source of such
authority, questioned - University was
unable to place any provision of Law,
which empowers the University to issue
an ordinance - Effect - Held, as per the St.
Act No. 1 of 2009, the University possess
power only to frame statute. Thus, on the
face of it, the ordinance appears to be
without jurisdiction. (Para 8)

B. Education Law - Ph.D. course -
Discontinuation - After five years, the
petitioner was restrained from completing
the course on the ground of irregularity in
admission
-
Legality
challenged
-
Students cannot be made to suffer for the
fault of the management of the university
- Ashok Chand Singhvi's case relied upon
- Held, once, the University has granted
admission and permitted petitioner to
continue for five long years and her Ph.D.
course is on the verge of completion, it is
now not open for the University to
restrain petitioner from completing her
course
-
Even
presuming
some
irregularity did occur at the time of
admission in Ph.D. course, the same
cannot now be made the basis for
denying petitioner from completing her
course. (Para 14 and 16)

Writ petition allowed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. Abha George & ors. Vs All India Institute of
Medical Sciences (AIIMS) & anr.; 2022 SCC
Online Del 366

2. Javed Akhtar Vs Jamia Hamdard; 2006 SCC
Online Del 1504

3. Ashok Chand Singhvi Vs University of Jodhpur
& ors.; (1989) 1 SCC 399

4. Rajendra Prasad Mathur Vs Karnataka
University & anr.; AIR 1986 Supp. SCC 740
(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary, J.)

1. Heard Sri A.Z. Siddiqui, learned
counsel for petitioner, learned Standing
Counsel for State and Sri Sudeep Seth,
learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
Atul Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for
respondent University.

2. Petitioner who is a Ph.D. student of
Fine
Arts,
studying
in
respondent
University has approached this Court by
the present writ petition for a mandamus
claiming that respondent University is
arbitrarily restraining her from completing
her Ph.D. course in which she has already
put in five years, on the ground that there is
some irregularity in her admission.

3. Brief facts of the case are that Dr.
Shakuntala Mishra National Rehabilitation
University (For Differently Abled) Uttar
Pradesh
(hereinafter
referred
to
as
'University') was incorporated by State Act
No.1 of 2009. A notice was issued by the
University for holding admission process
for Ph.D through entrance examination on
25.08.2015. Petitioner applied for Ph.D. in
Fine Arts and participated in the selection
process.
After
the
selection
process,
petitioner stood fifth in the merit list and
since only four vacancies were available
for Ph.D. in Fine Arts, therefore, she could
not be selected. The Vice-Chancellor of the
University
meanwhile
entertained
applications
for
Ph.D.
from
NET/GATE/SLATE candidates. Petitioner
who had cleared her UGC NET (thrice
cleared NET) being qualified also applied
and
Vice-Chancellor
approved
her
admission on due recommendation made
by the selection committee finding her
qualified. Petitioner got her admission in
November,
2015
and
continued
her
research work. No objection with regard to
882 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
her admission was ever raised. It appears
that there were certain allegations with
regard to working of the then ViceChancellor of the University and, thus, he
was removed. Petitioner after completion
of five years in Ph.D. sought extension of
one year for completing her work as
prescribed by rules, however, University
declined
petitioner
to
continue
with
research work and for accepting her further
fees. University in pursuant to Academic
Council
resolution
dated
11.05.2018
constituted a three member committee on
15.03.2019 to look into the manner in
which the erstwhile Vice-Chancellor had
permitted admission in Ph.D. courses. On
30.05.2019 the committee submitted an
interim report and it appears that on the
basis of said report, petitioner and other
candidates were required to submit a
declaration and affidavit that they were
selected
through
examination
and
interview. Since, petitioner could not file
such an affidavit in the language required
by the University, she is not being
permitted to continue her research work.
Hence, petitioner has filed present writ
petition.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner
submits that there is no mistake on part of
petitioner and she was granted admission
by the University authorities in accordance
with rules. The admission was not
objected to for five years and now when
the petitioner is nearly on verge of
completing her Ph.D. she is being
unnecessarily restrained from completing
the same. He places reliance upon the
following cases:-

(i) Abha George and Ors vs. All
India
Institute
of
Medical
Sciences
(AIIMS) and Anr., [2022 SCC Online Del
366],

(ii) Javed Akhtar vs Jamia
Hamdard [2006 SCC Online Del 1504],

(iii) Ashok Chand Singhvi v.
University of Jodhpur and Ors. [(1989) 1
SCC 399] and

(iv) Rajendra Prasad Mathur v.
Karnataka University and Anr. [AIR 1986
Supp. SCC 740]

5. Learned counsel for the University
submits that as per Ph.D Ordinance of 2014
of the University, admission in Ph.D.
course could only be available for four
vacancies in Fine Arts after a written
examination and interview. Petitioner stood
fifth on merit but only four seats in Fine
Arts were available, hence, she could not
be granted admission in the said selection
process. He further submits that ViceChancellor of the University has illegally
granted admission to the petitioner in
violation of rules and therefore, petitioner
is now stopped from continuing the said
Ph.D.

6. U.G.C. by notification dated
01.06.2009 has provided procedure for
selection in M.Phil/Ph.D. Clause 9 and 10
of the same reads as:-

"9- i) leLr fo'ofo|ky;] ekfur
fo'ofo|ky;] ,oa dkyst@jk"Vah; egRo dh
laLFkk,a ,e-fQy- ,oa 'kks/k Nk=ksa dk izos'k vius
Lrj ij fo'ofo|ky;] ekfur fo'ofo|ky; ,oa
dkyst@jk"Vah; egRo dh laLFkkvksa }kjk vk;ksftr
izos'k ijh{kk }kjk gksxkA tks yksx fo-v-vk-@lh-
,l-vkbZ-vkj- 1⁄4ts-vkj-,Q-1⁄2 ijh{kk] LysV@xsV
mRRkh.kZ gSa ;k f'k{kd v/;;kfro`fRRk;ka /kkjd gSa
vkSj ftUgksaus ,e-fQYk- dk;Zdze ih-,p-Mh- izos'k
ijh{kk ds fy, mRRkh.kZ dj fy;k gS muds fy,
fo'ofo|ky; vyx ls 'krksZa dk fu/kkZj.k dj
ldrk gSA ;gh rjhdk ,e-fQy- dk;Zdze dh izos'k
ijh{kk esa viuk;k tk ldrk gSA
6 All. Pallavi Soni Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
883

ii)
blds
i'pkr~
Ldwy@foHkkx@laLFkk@fo'ofo|ky; tSlk ekeyk
gks ,d lk{kkRdkj dk vk;kstu djsxkA

iii) lk{kkRdkj ds le; 'kks/k Nk=ksa ls
vis{kk dh tkrh gS os vius 'kks/k :fp@{ks= ij
fopkj&foe'kZ djsaA

iv) igys ls lqfuf'pr dh xbZ Nk=ksa
dh la[;k ij gh Nk=ksa dks ,e-fQYk-@ih-,p-Mh-
dk;Zdze esa izos'k fn;k tk ldsxkA

10- ih-,p-Mh- dk;Zdze esa izos'k ;k rks
lh/ks ;k ,e-fQy- ek/;e ls gksxkA""

7. Learned counsel for respondent
University claims that in furtherance of the
said
guidelines
of
U.G.C.,
Ph.D.
Ordinance,
2014
is
issued
by
the
University. The said ordinance provides for
a written examination as well as interview.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent
University was asked to place the provision
of law under which the said ordinance was
issued by the University. He could not
place
any
provision
of
law
which
empowers the University to issue an
ordinance. As per State Act No.1 of 2009,
the University possess power only to frame
statute. Thus, on the face of it, the
ordinance
appears
to
be
without
jurisdiction. Even otherwise, the U.G.C.
guidelines 9(i) provides that the University
can provide for conditions for persons who
have
cleared
C.S.I.R.
examination(J.R.F.)/SLATE/GATE/M.Phil.
separately from selection to be made
through entrance examination. Therefore, it
cannot be said that even by the said
ordinance, the power of University given
by paragraph 9(i) of U.G.C. guidelines is
taken away. It is rather in furtherance of the
said power that the Academic Council of
the University in its 3rd meeting dated
03.10.2015 resolved as follows:-

"[k1⁄2 mijksDr ds vfrfjDr ;w-th-lh-
,oa
lh-,l-vkbZ-vkj-
ds
ts-vkj-
,Q@xsV@usV@LYksV@,e-fQy-
/kkjd
rFkk
lsokjr~ vf/kdkjh ,oa [;kfryC/k fo'ks"kK] ftudk
ih&,p-Mh- 'kks/k dk;Z fo'ofo|ky; ,oa lekt ds
mUu;u rFkk uhfr&fu;kstu esa mi;ksxh gks] dks
ih&,p-Mh- esa vfrfjDr lhV dk izkfo/kku dj
lh/ks izos'k iznku djus gsrq dqyifr dks vf/kd`r
fd, tkus dk ek0 fo|k ifj"kn~ }kjk fu.kZ; fy;k
x;kA"

9. By the aforesaid resolution,
Academic
Council
empowered
ViceChancellor to create extra seats for Ph.D.
and grant admission to persons who have
cleared J.R.F./GATE/NET/SLATE/M.Phil.
The said Academic Councils' resolution
was duly acted upon and in furtherance
thereof, Vice-Chancellor of the University
exercising his powers granted admission to
the
petitioner
in
November,
2015.
Therefore, submission of learned counsel
for the University that the admission
granted is in violation of U.G.C. guidelines
or the ordinance of the University does not
have any force. The Academic Council of
the University duly empowered the ViceChancellor to grant admission by creating
extra seats. The said resolution of the
Academic Council holds good till date.
Neither any authority of the University till
date has objected to the said resolution nor
the same is withdrawn as yet. Therefore,
Vice-Chancellor was empowered under the
said resolution and has granted admission
to the petitioner by creating an extra seat in
Ph.D. in Fine Arts as petitioner was fully
qualified.

10. Learned counsel for respondent
University has further drawn attention of
the Court to Section 13.1 of the State Act
884 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
No.1 of 2009 and claims that it is the
Executive Council which possess all these
powers with regard to admission etc. and
neither the Academic Council nor the ViceChancellor has any such power.

11. The relevant sections of Act No.1
of 2009 with regard to powers of concerned
authorities of the University reads:-

"13.1 The Executive Council
shall be chief executive body of the
University.

(2)
The
administration,
management and control of the University
and the income thereof shall be vested in
the Executive Council which shall control
and administer the property and funds of
the University.

20. The Academic Council shall
be the academic body of the University and
Academic Council shall, subject to the
provision of this Act and the statutes, have
power of control and general regulation of
and be responsible for, the maintenance of
standards of instructions, education and
examination of the University and shall
exercise such other powers and perform
such other functions as may be conferred
upon or assigned to, it by this Act or the
statutes, It shall have the right to advise the
Executive Council on all academic matters.

22. Subject to the provisions of
this Act or the statues, the Academic
Council shall in addition to all other
powers vested in it, have the following
powers, namely:-

(i) in report on any matter
referred to or delegated to it by the
General Council or the Executive Council;

(ii) to make recommendations to
the Executive Council with, regard to the
creation, abolition or classification of
teaching posts in the University and the
qualifications,
emoluments
and
duties
attached thereto;

(iii) to formulate and modify or
revise schemes for organisation of the
faculties and to assign to such faculties
their respective subjects and also to report
the Executive Council as to the expediency
of the abolition or subdivision of any
faculty or the combination of one faculty
with another;

(iv) to promote research within
the University and to require, from time to
time, report on such research;

(v)
to
consider
proposals
submitted by the faculties,

(vi) to lay norms and to appoint
committees for admission to the University;

(vii) to recognise diplomas and
degrees
of
other
Universities
and
Institutions
and
to
determine
their
equivalence in relation to the diplomas and
degree of the University;

(viii) to fix, subject to any
conditions
accepted
by
the
General
Council, the time, mode and conditions of
competitions for fellowship, scholarship
and other prizes and to award the same;

(ix) to make recommendations to
the Executive Council in regard to the
appointment of examiners and if necessary
their removal and the fixation of their fees,
emoluments and travelling and other
expenses;
6 All. Pallavi Soni Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
885

(x) to make arrangements for the
conduct of examinations and to fix dates for
holding them;

(xi) to declare the results of the
various
examinations
or
to
appoint
committees or officers to do so, and to
make
recommendations
regarding
the
conferment or grant of degrees, honours,
diplomas, licences, titles and marks of
honour;

(xii)
to
award
stipends,
scholarship, medals and prizes and to make
other awards in accordance with the
regulations and such other conditions as
may be attached to the awards.

(xiii) to publish list of prescribed
or recommended text books and to publish
syllabus of the prescribed courses of study.

(xiv) to prepare such forms and
registers as are, from time to time,
prescribed by statutes; and

(xv) to perform, in relation to
academic matters, all such duties and to do
all such Ordinances as may be necessary
for the proper carrying out the provisions
of this Act and the statutes.

27(11)
The
Vice
Chancellor
shall-

(a) ensure that the provisions of
this Act and the statutes are duly observed
and shall have all powers as are necessary
for that purpose;

(b) subject to the specific and
general directions of the Executive Council
the Vice Chancellor shall exercise all powers
of the Executive Council in the management
and administration of the University;

(e) convene the meetings of the
General Council, the Executive Council.
the Academic Council and shall perform all
other Acts, as may be necessary to give
effect to the provisions of this Act,

(d) have all powers relating to the
proper maintenance of discipline in the
University."

12. A perusal of the aforesaid
provisions show that though the Executive
Council is executive body of the University
and is responsible for administration,
management and control of the University
but Section 27(11)(b) provides that subject
to specific and general directions of the
Executive Council, the Vice-Chancellor
shall exercise all powers of the Executive
Council
in
the
management
and
administration of the University. Therefore,
unless there is specific or general directions
given by the Executive Council, the ViceChancellor has power to administer,
manage and control the affairs of the
University. Ph.D. Ordinance, 2014 only
provides with regard to Ph.D seats to be
filled up through selection. The same is
silent with regard to persons who have
qualified NET/GATE/SLATE etc. There is
no direction in the entire ordinance with
regard to such persons who are permitted
by U.G.C. Regulation 2009 to be admitted
by the University as per procedure
prescribed by the University. Thus, since
there is no specific or general direction
given by the Executive Council with regard
to such persons it was open for the ViceChancellor to take a decision. The
Academic Council by its 3rd resolution had
proposed that such persons may be
admitted
by
the
Vice-Chancellor
by
creating extra seat and Vice-Chancellor has
exercised such power. Since the year 2015
till date the Executive Council has not
886 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
reversed the said decision of Academic
Council and Vice-Chancellor. Petitioner
continued to pursue her Ph.D. in the
University for five long years. Executive
Council never objected to the same. Thus,
it can safely be understood that Executive
Council
permitted
continuation
of
petitioner in her Ph.D. course. From the
above it is clear that there is no illegality
found
in
the
admission
process
of
petitioner.
Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent University could not point any
provision of law under which admission of
petitioner could be held to be illegal.

13. Now coming to the judgments
referred to by counsel for petitioner, in the
case of Rajendra Prasad Mathur (supra)
the
dispute
was
of
cancellation
of
admission to the B.E. Course. The High
Court allowed the writ petition and the
Supreme Court while dismissing the
appeals held that:

"8. We accordingly endorse the
view taken by the learned Judge and
affirmed by the Division Bench of the High
Court. But the question still remains
whether we should allow the appellants to
continue their studies in the respective
engineering colleges in which they were
admitted. It was strenuously pressed upon
us on behalf of the appellants that under
the orders initially of the learned Judge
and thereafter of this Court they have been
pursuing their course of study in the
respective engineering colleges and their
admissions should not now be disturbed
because if they are now thrown out after a
period of almost four years since their
admission their whole future will be
blighted. Now it is true that the appellants
were not eligible for admission to the
engineering degree course and they had no
legitimate claim to such admission. But it
must be noted that the blame for their
wrongful admission must lie more upon
the engineering colleges which granted
admission than upon the appellants. It is
quite possible that the appellants did not
know that neither the Higher Secondary
Examination of the Secondary Education
Board, Rajasthan nor the first year BSc
examination
of
the
Rajasthan
and
Udaipur Universities was recognised as
equivalent
to
the
Pre-University
Examination
of
the
Pre-University
Education
Board,
Bangalore.
The
appellants being young students from
Rajasthan might have presumed that since
they had passed the first year BSc
examination of the Rajasthan or Udaipur
University or in any event the Higher
Secondary Examination of the Secondary
Education Board, Rajasthan they were
eligible for admission. The fault lies with
the engineering colleges which admitted
the appellants because the Principals of
these engineering colleges must have
known that the appellants were not
eligible for admission and yet for the sake
of capitation fee in some of the cases they
granted admission to the appellants. We
do not see why the appellants should
suffer for the sins of the managements of
these engineering colleges. We would
therefore, notwithstanding the view taken
by us in this Judgment, allow the
appellants to continue their studies in the
respective engineering colleges in which
they were granted admission. But we do
feel that against the erring engineering
colleges the Karnataka University should
take appropriate action because the
managements
of
these
engineering
colleges have not only admitted students
ineligible for admission but thereby
deprived an equal number of eligible
students from getting admission to the
engineering degree course. We also
6 All. Pallavi Soni Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
887
endorse the directions given by the learned
Judge in the penultimate paragraph of his
Judgment with a view to preventing
admission
of
ineligible
students."
(emphasis added)

14. Further, in the case of Ashok
Chand Singhvi (supra), where the facts
were similar to the current case, the Court
observed that students cannot be made to
suffer for the fault of the management of
the university. The relevant paragraphs of
the judgment are as follows:

"14. It is urged by Mr Mehrotra,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents, that the appellant could not be
admitted and his admission was illegal.
There may be some force in the contention
of the learned Counsel, but when all facts
were before the University and nothing
was suppressed by the appellant, would it
be proper to penalise the appellant for no
fault of his? The admission of the
appellant
was
not
made
through
inadvertence
or
mistake,
but
after
considering even all objections to the
same, as raised by the said Officer-inCharge, Admissions, in his note. The
appellant was communicated with the
decision of the Dean as approved by the
Vice-Chancellor admitting him to the
Second Year BE course. The appellant
deposited the requisite fees and started
attending classes when he was told that his
admission was directed to be put in
abeyance until further orders without
disclosing to him any reason whatsoever.

15. It is curious that although
the admission to the BE degree course of
the University is governed by statutes of
the University and admission rules, the
said resolution of the Syndicate dated 1312-1970 has also been kept alive. Neither
the Dean nor the Vice-Chancellor was
aware of the true position, namely, as to
whether the said resolution had become
infructuous in view of the statutes and the
admission rules. A teacher candidate is
likely to be misled by the said resolution. It
is the duty of the University to see that its
statutes, rules and resolutions are clear
and unambiguous and do not mislead
bona fide candidates. The University
should have revoked the said resolution in
order to obviate any ambiguity in the
matter of admission or included the same
in the statutes as part of the admission
rules.

16. When the appellant made the
application beyond the last date, his
application
should
not
have
been
entertained. But the application was
entertained, presumably on the basis of the
said resolution of the Syndicate. The
appellant also brought to the notice of the
Dean the said resolution and also the
implementation of the same by admitting
seven teacher candidates.

17. It is submitted on behalf of the
University that it was through mistake that
the appellant was admitted. We are unable
to accept the contention. It has been
already noticed that both the Dean and the
Vice-Chancellor considered the objections
raised
by
the
Officer-in-Charge,
Admissions, and thereafter direction for
admitting the appellant was made. When
after
considering
all
facts
and
circumstances and also the objections by
the office to the admission of a candidate,
the Vice-Chancellor directs the admission
of such a candidate such admission could
not be said to have been made through
mistake. Assuming that the appellant was
admitted through mistake, the appellant
not being at fault, it is difficult to sustain
888 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the order withholding the admission of the
appellant. In this connection, we may refer
to a decision of this Court in Rajendra
Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University
[1986 Supp SCC 740] . In that case, the
appellants were admitted to certain private
engineering colleges for the BE degree
course, although they were not eligible for
admission. In that case, this Court
dismissed the appeals preferred by the
students
whose
admissions
were
subsequently cancelled and the order of
cancellation was upheld by the High Court.
At the same time, this Court took the view
that the fault lay with the engineering
colleges which admitted the appellants and
that there was no reason why the
appellants should suffer for the sins of the
management of these engineering colleges.
Accordingly,
this
Court
allowed
the
appellants to continue their studies in the
respective engineering colleges in which
they were granted admission. The same
principle which weighed with this Court in
that case should also be applied in the
instant case. The appellant was not at fault
and we do not see why he should suffer for
the mistake committed by the ViceChancellor and the Dean of the Faculty of
Engineering." (emphasis added)

15. The said judgments are followed
and a similar approach is adopted by the
Delhi High Court in the case of Abha
George (supra), the Delhi High Court was
of the opinion that:

"18. In Javed Akhtar case [Javed
Akhtar v. Jamia Hamdard, 2006 SCC
OnLine Del 1504] , a Coordinate Bench of
this Court considered a case where the
petitioners' candidature was accepted for
appearing in the entrance examinations,
and they were admitted to the institution
concerned.
Their
admissions
were
cancelled after they had attended the
classes for one month. The facts of the case
are very similar to the present case. The
question framed by the court was in the
following terms:

"21. ... This is not disputed that
the
petitioners
filled
the
forms
for
appearing in the entrance examination and
gave their correct date of birth. The forms
of the petitioners were considered and they
were allowed to appear in the examination.
After their names appeared, they were
called for counselling and after verifying
the documents and certificates of the
petitioners, they were given admission. The
petitioners were issued identity cards after
accepting the fees for the course from them
and the petitioners were allowed to attend
classes for a month and thereafter by
communication
dated
8-8-2006
the
admission of the petitioners have been
cancelled. Whether Respondent 1 can be
allowed to cancel the admission midterm
in the facts and circumstances, when the
petitioners have not concealed any thing
nor produced any documents to mislead
Respondent 1? Whether Respondent 1 will
be estopped from cancelling the admission
of the petitioners in the facts and
circumstances?" [ Emphasis supplied]

19. The court answered the
question thus:

"38. Therefore, while granting
the admission if the academic body has
acted inattentively and mechanically, then
they cannot be allowed to take the plea
that the admission was never valid and
that the petitioners were ineligible from
the very inception and knowing the
ineligibility they applied for admission.
The respondents cannot be allowed to
cancel the admission at their own
6 All. Pallavi Soni Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
889
convenience at any time of the year
without considering the fact that if they
cancel the admission after the session has
started then the entire year of the
petitioners
will
be
spoiled
as
the
petitioners would not be in a position to
take
admission
in
any
other
college/university. If this fact of their
ineligibility for admission was conveyed to
them at the very start they would have
taken
admission
in
some
other
college/university.

39. In such situation, in view of
the decision in Sangeeta Shrivastava v.
U.N. Singh [Sangeeta Shrivastava v. U.N.
Singh, 1979 SCC OnLine Del 202], the
petitioners cannot be penalised for the
negligence of authorities. It is important
to appreciate that the petitioners in the
facts
and
circumstances
cannot
be
accused of making any false statement or
suppressing any relevant fact before
anybody. They clearly mentioned their date
of birth in the application form for
admission, and are not guilty of any fraud
or misrepresentation. It was the duty of the
university
to
have
scrutinised
the
application form and the certificates
thoroughly before granting admission to
the petitioners and permitting them to
attend the classes and not having done so
they
cannot
cancel
the
admission
thereafter. By accepting the application
form and subsequently granting admission
representation
was
made
by
the
respondents that the petitioners' were
eligible for admission and the petitioners'
acting upon the same took admission and
thus the petitioners' suffered a detriment.
Had the respondents not made the
representation that the application had
been approved and granted admission the
petitioners' would have applied and taken
admission else where. Therefore the
respondents are estopped from pleading
that the petitioners were not entitled to a
seat from the inception and that the
admission is void ab initio and that the
admission
without
fulfilment
of
the
eligibility criteria is a nullity.

40. In the facts and circumstances
of the case the respondents cannot be
allowed to take advantage of their own
wrong and cannot be permitted to take the
plea that under the prospectus they had
the power to cancel the admission of
ineligible student and the principle of
estoppel will operate against them. The
respondents are estopped from cancelling
the admission of the petitioners' and further
from preventing them from pursuing the
'pre tib' course in the present facts and
circumstances." [Emphasis supplied]

20. Applying these authorities in
the present case, it appears that the
petitioners' documents were accepted by
the respective centres of Aiims, despite the
fact that their qualifying examination
results were declared one week later than
stipulated in the prospectus. The petitioners
have prosecuted their studies for almost
two months prior to issuance of the
impugned OM dated 18-10-2021. There is
no allegation that the petitioners had
misrepresented
or
concealed
any
information from Aiims -indeed, there
cannot be, as the qualifying examination
was conducted by Aiims itself. Applying the
observations of the Supreme Court in
Rajendra Prasad Mathur case [Rajendra
Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University,
1986 Supp SCC 740] , in the present case
also, the blame lies more upon the
institution
than
the
petitioners.
The
candidates applied; their results were
declared by Aiims, New Delhi; those results
were submitted to the regional centres to
890 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
which they have been assigned, and they
were granted admission. Their admissions
were cancelled after they had spent almost
two months on the course. The judgment of
this Court in Javed Akhtar case [Javed
Akhtar v. Jamia Hamdard, 2006 SCC
OnLine Del 1504] , in fact, goes further to
hold that an academic institution cannot be
permitted to cancel admissions after the
course had started, at any time during the
year, due to prejudice that would be caused
to the candidates who were admitted as
they would by then be unable to take
admission in any other university to which
they may have been admitted."

16. Law is, thus, well settled on the
issue involved. Once, the University has
granted admission and permitted petitioner
to continue for five long years and her
Ph.D. course is on the verge of completion,
it is now not open for the University to
restrain petitioner from completing her
course. Even presuming some irregularity
did occur at the time of admission in Ph.D.
course, the same can not now be made the
basis
for
denying
petitioner
from
completing her course. Learned counsel for
respondent University could not show from
record that petitioner has in any manner
misrepresented
or
played
fraud
or
otherwise was maliciously involved in the
said admission process. The decision was
taken by the authorities of University in
exercise of its powers. Thus, this Court
finds that the respondent University cannot
restrain petitioner from completing her
Ph.D. course and is bound to consider her
application for extension of period by one
year as per rules.

17. This Court further finds that the
country is making its best efforts to grow
from a developing nation to a developed
one. Repeatedly it is said that to become a
developed nation huge research work is
required to be conducted within the
Country. Now, when the students are
pursuing their research work and are at the
verge of completion it is highly improper
to restrain them from completing their
research on legal technicalities. The
country is in dire need of research work.
Petitioner has put more than five years in
her Ph.D. course and is on the verge of
submitting the same. Now denial of
benefit of said research work to the nation
in itself would be a huge loss. In the said
circumstances also this Court is inclined to
exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in
favour of petitioner and against the
respondent University.

18.

In
the
given
facts
and
circumstances of the case, the writ
petition is allowed and a mandamus is
issued
to
respondent
University
to
consider the application of petitioner for
extension of one year after five years of
Ph.D. course and permit her to submit
fees in accordance with law. Such a
decision
shall
be
taken
and
communicated to the petitioner by the
respondent University within a period of
15 days and accordingly petitioner shall
be permitted to complete her Ph.D.
course in accordance with law.
----------
(2023) 6 ILRA 890
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 31.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J.

Writ-C No. 1001023 of 1999

Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents