# Ram Prasad Kushwaha v. Vice Chancellor Bundelkhand University, Jhansi and others

- **Citation:** (2007) 1 ILRA 291
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2006-09-14
- **Bench:** Pradeep Kant
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-prasad-kushwaha-v-vice-chancellor-bundelkhand-university-jhansi-and-others-40871
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Art.
226Cancellation of admission-admission to
persue the B.Ed. course-on the basis of
mark sheet of graduation from Bhartiya
Kshiksha Parishad-refusal to participate
in examination alongwith candidatureheld proper-but omission on the part of
university
resulted
wasting
precious
time of petition-direction to refused fee
of
Rs.5000/-
alongwith
damage
of
Rs.5000/- within one month.

Held: Para 11

For the lapse on the part of the
University
which
has
resulted
into
wasting of one year precious time of-his
-youth-in pursuing the course of study as
it was the duty of the University to deny
admission to the petitioner at the very
outset and in fact his form for admission
should not have been entertained, makes
the petitioner entitled to the refund of
fee viz., Rs.5000/- from the University.
Besides the aforesaid amount of fee, the
petitioner
is
also
entitled
to
the
damages, for compensating him for the
loss that he suffered, by pursing a
course, to which he was not entitled,
because of the mistake on the part of the
University in admitting him and allowing
him to carry on the studies for one year I
assess these damages, to the tune of
Rs.5000/-.

## Text

1 All] Mohan Lal and other V. U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board and others
291

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.09.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KANT, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 30150 of 2000

Ram Prasad Kushwaha
...Petitioner
Versus
Vice Chancellor Bundelkhand University,
Jhansi and others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.S. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Prakash Padia
Sri R.P. Tiwari

Constitution
of
India,
Art.
226Cancellation of admission-admission to
persue the B.Ed. course-on the basis of
mark sheet of graduation from Bhartiya
Kshiksha Parishad-refusal to participate
in examination alongwith candidatureheld proper-but omission on the part of
university
resulted
wasting
precious
time of petition-direction to refused fee
of
Rs.5000/-
alongwith
damage
of
Rs.5000/- within one month.

Held: Para 11

For the lapse on the part of the
University
which
has
resulted
into
wasting of one year precious time of-his
-youth-in pursuing the course of study as
it was the duty of the University to deny
admission to the petitioner at the very
outset and in fact his form for admission
should not have been entertained, makes
the petitioner entitled to the refund of
fee viz., Rs.5000/- from the University.
Besides the aforesaid amount of fee, the
petitioner
is
also
entitled
to
the
damages, for compensating him for the
loss that he suffered, by pursing a
course, to which he was not entitled,
because of the mistake on the part of the
University in admitting him and allowing
him to carry on the studies for one year I
assess these damages, to the tune of
Rs.5000/-.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pradeep Kant, J.)

1. By this petition Ram Prasad
Kushwaha claims recognition of the
degree of Bachelor of Programme (B.A.),
(one sitting), of the Bhartiya Shiksha
Parishad U.P. and consequently also the
prayer for declaration of the result of the
B.Ed. Examination conducted by the
Bundelkhand University for the academic
session 1997-98. It appears that the
petitioner swayed by the scheme of the
Govt. of India for providing Education
from Open Universities, applied for
admission in the aforesaid examination of
B.A. to the Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad
Uttar Pradesh which is a registered body
under
the
provisions
of
Societies
Registration Act, 1860 for providing
education under the Open University
System. The petitioner completed his one
year course which is known as one sitting
course of Bachelor of Programme (B.A.)
in August, 1995. He was issued a mark
sheet which shows that Bhartiya Shiksha
Parishad U.P. conducted examination
under Open University System, the name
of which is Bachelor of Programme
(B.A.) in one sitting. The petitioner
succeeded in that examination.

2. After clearing the aforesaid
examination the petitioner applied for
admission in the B.Ed. Course of the
Bundelkhand
University
wherein
he
became successful in the test and was
required to deposit Rs.5000/- on 11.7.97
292 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
under the special Scheme for entrance.
The petitioner was issued admission card
in B.Ed. Special scheme on 12.7.97;
accordingly the petitioner was given
admission in Atarra College Atarra
District Banda. The petitioner got himself
admitted in the aforesaid college and as
per his case after one year study he
appeared in the examination in the year
1998 with Roll No. 97252. However, the
Bundelkhand University did not declare
the result and on contacted by the
petitioner he was informed that his B.A.
(Bachelor of Programme) examination
conducted by the Bhartiya Shiksha
Parishad was neither a recognised degree
nor was a degree of the minimum
duration of 3 years which is the usual
duration of graduate degree, the minimum
basic educational qualification required
for pursuing B.Ed course. The petitioner
therefore has approached this Court for
the relief's aforesaid.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed
by the University specifically stating
therein that B.A. Examination which has
been cleared by the petitioner is not a
recognised degree and that in the absence
of
the
minimum
basic
educational
qualification, the petitioner could not have
been admitted in the B.Ed. Course nor he
could be allowed to appear in
the
examination
but
since
due
to
inadvertence this fact could not be noticed
by the University at the time of admission
therefore admission was wrongly given,
but this fact in itself could not give any
right to the petitioner to get the result
declared of B.Ed. Examination. A plea
regarding the duration of the course of the
graduate degree to be of 3 years as against
the B.A. Degree of one year has also been
taken by the learned counsel for the
respondents.

4. Sri Ram Swaroop Singh learned
counsel for the petitioner could not satisfy
the court and rather admitted that unless
the petitioner was possessed of the basic
educational qualification, the minimum
qualification which was necessary for
making him eligible for taking admission
in B.Ed. Course, the petitioner could not
have been given admission in the B.Ed.
Course, but he qualified the aforesaid
argument by arguing that the petitioner is
not at fault when he took admission with
the Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, little
knowing that the degree which is to be
given by the Parishad under the Open
University Scheme would not be a
recognised degree and that further when
he was duly admitted by the University
wherein he had not concealed any
material fact regarding his educational
qualification, he has a right to get his
result declared.

5. I have considered the pleas raised
from both the sides and I find that it is a
hard case for the petitioner which
deserves sympathy but the Court would
not be issuing any mandamus for
declaration of the result where the
petitioner inherently lacks the basic
educational
qualification
for
being
admitted in the B.Ed. Course.

6. The plea that since the admission
has been made and therefore the result be
declared can also not be sustained for the
simple reason that if the petitioner is not
eligible for being admitted and/or it was
by inadvertence or otherwise he was
admitted, it could not give any right to
him for pursuing the B.Ed. Course or
seeking declaration of the result.
1 All] Ram Prasad Kushwaha V. Vice Chancelor, Bundelkhand University and others
293
7. A dispute has also been raised by
the standing counsel that the Bundelkhand
University stopped the B.Ed. Examination
right from 1996-97 and therefore the plea
raised that the petitioner appeared in the
examination in the year 1998 is not
correct. However, I do not find it
necessary to deal with this question as in
my opinion no relief can be granted to the
petitioner, even otherwise.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner
lastly urged that since the petitioner had
applied for admission in the B.Ed.
Examination in Bundelkhand University
on the same result of Bhartiya Shiksha
Parishad U.P. annexing the mark sheet
and other relevant papers etc., and the
University had allowed the petitioner
admission in the B.Ed. Special scheme,
for which he was also required to deposit
Rs.5000/- as fee and was also admitted in
one of the named college namely Atarra
College Atarra District Banda where he
had studied one year therefore the
University be directed to return the fee
which was deposited by the petitioner.
His further argument is that since the
petitioner has been dealt with unfairly
resulting into loss of precious time, he is
entitled for appropriate damages from the
University
and
also
from
Bhartiya
Shiksha Parishad.

9. Sri Prakash Padia appearing for
the University in response had stated that
since the petitioner had studied for one
year therefore there was no question for
returning the fee or award of damages.

10. From the facts available on
record and, the admitted position on
behalf of the University that the petitioner
did not conceal his basic educational
qualification at the time of admission and
has provided the necessary certificate
including the mark sheet showing that he
had cleared the aforesaid examination
from Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, the
action of the University giving him
admission even of its own with the
aforesaid material may be by oversight,
cannot run against the petitioner or
against his interest. One cannot lose sight
of the fact that the petitioner could have
pursued some other course, and the
University not admitted him in B.Ed.
course,
which
virtually
wasted
his
complete one year under the mistaken
belief that he is pursuing a professional
qualification. There is no fault of the
petitioner
in
taking
admission
and
pursuing the course for one year and for
the delayed action on the part of the
University in cancelling his admission or
informing about his ineligibility.

11. For the lapse on the part of the
University
which
has
resulted
into
wasting of one year precious time of-his -
youth-in pursuing the course of study as it
was the duty of the University to deny
admission to the petitioner at the very
outset and in fact his form for admission
should not have been entertained, makes
the petitioner entitled to the refund of fee
viz., Rs.5000/- from the University.
Besides the aforesaid amount of fee, the
petitioner is also entitled to the damages,
for compensating him for the loss that he
suffered, by pursing a course, to which he
was not entitled, because of the mistake
on the part of the University in admitting
him and allowing him to carry on the
studies for one year I assess these
damages, to the tune of Rs.5000/-.

12. The plea that the petitioner is
liable to be compensated by Bhartiya
Shiksha Parishad also, as they did not
294 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
disclose that B.A. Program was a course
which was not recognised, however,
cannot be accepted, as firstly, the Parishad
has not been impleaded as a party and
secondly, it is not the case of the
petitioner that the Parishad had made any
such representation which misled the
petitioner. The plea is thus rejected.

13. For the aforesaid reasons, though
I hold that the petitioner is not entitled to
any relief as claimed, and dismiss the writ
petition, but direct that the petitioner shall
be paid a total sum of Rs.10,000/- only
within a maximum period of one month
from the date of receipt of a certified copy
of this order by the University. As
requested by the learned counsel for the
parties, the said amount be sent at the
address of the petitioner by means of a
Demand Draft or Banker's cheque under
Registered cover.

Subject to the above direction, the
petition is dismissed. Costs easy.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.11.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13886 of 2003

Pooran Chandra Jain

...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U. P. & others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri K.K. Dubey

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Civil
Services
Regulations-Regulation
470 (b) and 351-A-Reduction of Family
pension 40%-petitioner found guilty of
grave
misconduct-causing
loss
to
government-proceeding initiated after
retirement
without
permission
of
governor-the
punishing
authority-
nowhere-mentioned
regarding
unsatisfactory
service-held-impugned
order
unsustainable-impugned
order
quashed with all consequential benefit.

Held: Para 12

A perusal of the entire order impugned in
the
writ
petition
shows
that
the
appointing
authority
nowhere
has
mentioned
its
satisfaction
that
the
service
of
the
petitioner
was
not
thoroughly satisfactory. Therefore, it is
evident
from
the
entire
facts,
circumstances and perusal of the record
that though the appointing authority has
mentioned and referred to Article 470(b)
of CSR in order to pass the impugned
order but in fact has sought to exercise
powers under Article 351-A without
conforming to the conditions of those
provisions. The orders impugned in the
writ
petition
are
thus
ex-facie
unsustainable
either
under
Article
470(b) or 351-A of CSR.
Case law discussed:
1976 L & C 1 cases-1734
1993 (1) UPLBEC-251

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal. J.)

1. Heard Sri K.K. Dubey, learned
counsel for the petitioner and learned
Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. This writ petition is directed
against the orders dated 10.10.2002
passed by the District Magistrate, Lalitpur
holding
petitioner
guilty
of
grave
misconduct
causing
loss
to
the
Government and therefore reducing his
family pension to 40%, and, dated
22.11.2002 whereby the order dated
10.10.2002 has been partly modified by