# Ratna Pandey v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 6 ILRA 1161
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2017-12-06
- **Case number:** Misc. Single No. 23671 of 2017
- **Bench:** Rakesh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ratna-pandey-v-state-of-u-p-ors-44311
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 -
seeking a direction to the University of
Lucknow - to provide admission to the
petitioner in the LL.M. - averment
regarding non issuance of 'Attendance
Slip' in the rejoinder affidavit appears to
be an afterthought as the same is
conspicuously
missing
in
the
writ
petition - Vague denial is no denial.
Para-12

Petitioner appeared in the written examination
conducted by the University for admission to
the two year Master of Law (LL.M.) course -
reported for counselling - asked by some
official to wait in the side room - would be
called upon when her turn comes - kept
waiting in the side room till 2 p.m., but she
was not called for counseling - Neither in the
writ petition, nor in the rejoinder affidavit, has
the petitioner disclosed the name of the
official who had asked her to wait in the side
room. - With regard to 'Attendance Slip', the
petitioner in her rejoinder affidavit, for the first
time, has vaguely alleged that "even though
the petitioner had reached the counseling
venue in time, no attendance slip was ever
provided to her".
 Para - 3,12

HELD:- In the present case, no animus is
suggested and no malafides have been
pleaded. The petitioner is a law graduate. She
was
well
aware
about
the
counselling
procedure. The contention of the petitioner
that she reported for counseling at 9.30 a.m.
sharp and kept sitting in the side room till 2
1162 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
p.m., on the asking of some official, waiting
for her turn, and that too without obtaining an
attendance
slip,
is
too
naive
for
acceptance.Para - 13

Writ petition dismissed.(E-7)

## Text

6 All. Ratna Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1161
entry into the commissioned ranks of the
Defence Services. Thus, discipline being
the most important part of training, one
act of gross misconduct on the part of a
cadet
warrants
major
punishment,
including
rustication
from
school.
However, despite the repeated indulgence
of the petitioner in various acts of
indiscipline and his gross misconduct
with Sri N.S. Babu, the English teacher,
on 17.08.2017, the contesting respondents
have taken a lenient view and instead of
rusticating the petitioner from the school
have
decided
to
issue
''Transfer
Certificate' to him. That being so, no
interference, whatsoever, is called for.

31. Moreover, in the case at hand,
the petitioner has not approached this
Court with clean hands. He has not only
concealed
material
facts
but
has
deliberately and intentionally made a
false averment. This is highly improper.
The writ petition was liable to be
dismissed on this ground alone. The Court
has, however, considered the merits of the
case and even on merits, the petitioner has
no case.

32. For the foregoing reasons, the
writ petition deserves to be dismissed and
is accordingly dismissed.

33. This Court was inclined to
saddle the petitioner with exemplary cost
but, keeping in view the fact that the
petitioner is a student, the Court has
refrained itself from doing so.
----------
(2020)06ILR A1161
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 06.12.2017

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAKESH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Misc. Single No. 23671 of 2017

Ratna Pandey ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Tung Nath Tiwari, Ashish Kumar Singh,
Lohitaksha Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Savitra Vardhan Singh

(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 -
seeking a direction to the University of
Lucknow - to provide admission to the
petitioner in the LL.M. - averment
regarding non issuance of 'Attendance
Slip' in the rejoinder affidavit appears to
be an afterthought as the same is
conspicuously
missing
in
the
writ
petition - Vague denial is no denial.
Para-12

Petitioner appeared in the written examination
conducted by the University for admission to
the two year Master of Law (LL.M.) course -
reported for counselling - asked by some
official to wait in the side room - would be
called upon when her turn comes - kept
waiting in the side room till 2 p.m., but she
was not called for counseling - Neither in the
writ petition, nor in the rejoinder affidavit, has
the petitioner disclosed the name of the
official who had asked her to wait in the side
room. - With regard to 'Attendance Slip', the
petitioner in her rejoinder affidavit, for the first
time, has vaguely alleged that "even though
the petitioner had reached the counseling
venue in time, no attendance slip was ever
provided to her".
 Para - 3,12

HELD:- In the present case, no animus is
suggested and no malafides have been
pleaded. The petitioner is a law graduate. She
was
well
aware
about
the
counselling
procedure. The contention of the petitioner
that she reported for counseling at 9.30 a.m.
sharp and kept sitting in the side room till 2
1162 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
p.m., on the asking of some official, waiting
for her turn, and that too without obtaining an
attendance
slip,
is
too
naive
for
acceptance.Para - 13

Writ petition dismissed.(E-7)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Srivastava, J.)

1. This writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution has been filed on
03.10.2017, more than two months after
the classes of LL.M. (2017-2018) course
have started, seeking a direction to the
University of Lucknow (for short ''the
University') to provide admission to the
petitioner in the said course.

2. The learned Standing Counsel,
appearing on behalf of the Staterespondent, states that he does not wish to
file any counter affidavit. Pleadings have
been exchanged between the contesting
parties. With the consent of the counsel
for the parties the matter has been heard
and is being finally disposed of at the
admission stage itself.

3. The petitioner appeared as a general
candidate
in
the
written
examination
conducted by the University for admission to
the two year Master of Law (LL.M.) course
(2017-2018). The petitioner secured 5th Rank
in the merit list. As per the schedule,
counselling for open category for admission
to the said course was to be held on
18.07.2017,
whereas
counselling
for
OBC/SC/ST category was to be held on
19.07.2017. According to the petitioner, she
reported for counselling on 18.07.2017 at 9.30
a.m. sharp in the Commerce Faculty, New
Building where she was asked by some
official to wait in the side room and that she
would be called upon when her turn comes. It
is alleged that the petitioner kept waiting in
the side room till 2 p.m., but she was not
called for counselling. Thereafter, it is alleged,
the petitioner met the Dean Faculty of Law
and put forth her grievance. Having received
no response, the petitioner is alleged to have
made a representation to the Dean, the Vice
Chancellor and the Officer-in-charge of the
Admission Committee. The following day, it
is alleged, the father of the petitioner met the
Vice Chancellor personally, who assured him
of a favourable action. Having failed to elicit a
favourable response, the petitioner is now
before this Court.

4. In their counter affidavit, the
respondent nos. 2 and 3 have denied all the
material averments made in the writ petition.
It has been inter alia contended that the
petitioner had reported for counselling after all
the seats of her category had been filled up;
that as per the Counselling Guidelines
candidates reporting late have no claim if the
seats are filled up; that the entire admission
process was completed in the month of July,
2017 and the classes of LL.M Course started
from 01.08.2017.

5. In her rejoinder affidavit, the
petitioner has reiterated the averments made
in the writ petition.

6. Shri Lohitaksha Shukla, the
learned counsel for the petitioner has
vehemently submitted that the petitioner
had secured 5th rank in the written
examination and she had reported for
counselling in time. He submits that the
action of the University in denying
admission to the petitioner is absolutely
arbitrary.

7. Per contra, Shri Savitra Vardhan
Singh, learned counsel for respondent
nos. 2 & 3 has submitted that by the time
the petitioner reached the counselling
venue, the reporting time was over and as
6 All. Ratna Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1163
such
the
petitioner
cannot
claim
admission to the course in question.

8. The Counselling schedule of
18.07.2017 and the relevant part of the
General Counselling Guidelines to which
the attention of this Court was drawn by
Shri Savitra Vardhan Singh are extracted
below:

Counselling Schedule
July 18, 2017

List
 Open
Rank

Reporting
Time
Subcategory
DP Selected
401

9:30 AM
List
Open
Rank
From
Open Rank
To
Reporting
Time
Open
Selected
1
23
9:30 AM
List
Open
Rank
From
Open Rank
To
Reporting
Time
Subcategory
DP
Select
541623

11:30 AM
List
Open
Rank
From
Open Rank
To

Reporting
Time
Open
Waiting
12.30 PM
24
40
12:30 PM
Open
Waiting
 41
60
 2.30 PM

UNIVERSITY
OF
LUCKNOW

LUCKNOW
POST
GRADUATE ADMISSIONS 2019

General
Counselling
Guidelines

DETAILS OF STEPS PHASE

1 Reporting (In the Department)

• Candidates will be required to
report for counselling in the Department
where the course is being run on the
designated date and time slot only.

o Reporting would open for only
30 minutes from the time the rank has
been called.

o Candidates reporting late for
any reason will not be considered for
counselling during that session. However
they may be considered in the subsequent
session if seats are available.

o Since seats would be allotted
on the basis of rank of candidates who
have reported for counselling within the
stipulated time, candidates reporting late
will have no claim if seats of higher
choice are filled up.

(emphasis supplied)

GENERAL INFORMATION

• Candidates are advised to go
through the counselling
procedure and follow the guidelines
strictly.

• The cut-offs will be declared
on the basis of open rank for the OPEN
seats while for OBC, SC and ST
candidates these will be declared on the
basis of their category rank.

• Only candidates whose ranks
are within the cut-off range for which the
counselling is going on will be allowed to
enter the counselling premises. Parents
and Guardians are requested not to try to
enter the premises.

• Please follow the given time
schedule and ensure that you come
according to the time slot allotted for your
rank.

• A list regarding information
about the reporting venue (Phase1) and
fee submission venue (Phase 2) will be
released
separately.

• Candidates have to first report
at
the
reporting
venue
and
after
completing all the formalities of Phase 1
1164 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
have to go to the designated venue for
Phase 2 of the counselling. Both Phase 1
and Phase 2 have to be completed on the
same day.

• Candidates should fulfil all
eligibility conditions on the day of
counselling.

(emphasis supplied)

9. It is not in dispute that counselling
is a continuous process and the terms and
conditions of counselling are binding
upon the parties. As per the General
Guidelines, the candidates reporting late
for
counselling
could
not
claim
admission, if the 4 seats of their category
were filled up. Thus, the only question for
consideration in this case is as to whether
in the facts and circumstances of the case,
the petitioner is entitled to admission
in the course under consideration.

10. Admittedly, as per her rank in
the entrance examination, the petitioner
was
to
report
for
counselling
on
18.07.2017 at 9:30 a.m. at the counselling
venue. According to the petitioner, she
reported for counselling at 9:30 a.m.
sharp at the counselling venue where on
the asking of some official, she kept
waiting in the side room till 2 p.m. for her
name to be called for counselling. This
averment of the petitioner has been
vociferously refuted by the contesting
respondents in their counter affidavit.
Paragraph 6 and 7 of the writ petition,
paragraph 10, 11, 12, 14 and 15 of the
counter affidavit and paragraph 14 of the
rejoinder affidavit being relevant are
being extracted below:

PARA 6 AND 7 OF THE
WRIT PETITION

"6. That it is also relevant to
mention here that the Petitioner after
downloading
the
information
from
internet had gone to Lucknow University
for counseling and reported there at 9:30
a.m. sharp in Commerce Faculty New
Building and just after reporting there,
she was intimated by one of the officials
to wait in the side room and she will be
called when her turn will come.

7. That it is further relevant to
mention here that after waiting right from
9:30 till 2 p.m. on 18.07.2017 when the
name of the Petitioner was not called for
counselling, she was constrained to
approach Deen Faculty of Law and
ventilated her problems but was of no use.
Consequently, she was constrained to
submit a written application to Deen
Faculty
Of
Law,
Vice
Chancellor,
Lucknow University as well as Officer incharge of Admission Committee on
18.07.2017 itself. However, when her
counselling was not conducted, she being
disappointed had come back to her
residence and spoken to her father
explaining all the correct facts and
circumstances.
True
Photostat/Typed
Copies
of
the
Applications
dated
18.07.2017 submitted to Deen Faculty of
Law,
Vice
Chancellor,
Lucknow
University & Officer In-Charge LL.M
(2017-18) Entrance Examination are
collectively
annexed
herewith
as
ANNEXURE NO.4 to this Writ Petition."

PARAGRAPHS 10, 11, 12, 14
AND 15 OF THE COUNTER
AFFIDAVIT

"10. That it is specifically
mentioned that the petitioner reported the
counseling venue after all the seats have
been filled up as per the schedule of the
counseling.

11.
That
as
per
issued
guidelines for counseling, the candidate
was supposed to report at 9:30 AM but
the petitioner was absent at that time,
6 All. Ratna Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1165
when candidates were called inside the
counseling center for reporting and
completing
the
further
process
of
admission LL.M admission.

12. That at around 2:30 pm on
18/07/2017 someone claiming to the
brother of the petitioner came with the
problem and said that his sister was
coming from some place outside Lucknow
and her train got late so she could not
report on time. By that time all the OPEN
seats of LLM course were filled up as the,
waiting list candidates
were scheduled for 12:30 PM itself.

* * *

14. That it is also submitted that
the candidates, who have reported at the
counseling venue, Attendance Slip to the
candidate was provided, on which the
authorized
person at
the
reporting
counter put his signature, which confirms
that the candidate had reported for
counseling in time but the petitioner had
not reported in time, as per time slot
fixed, as such she did not get the
Attendance Slip, which itself proves that
she failed to report in time for the
counseling at the counseling venue, as the
Attendance Slip was given to each and
every candidate, who had reported for
counseling in time

15. That in view of above
mentioned facts and circumstances of the
case; it is evidently clear that the petitioner
failed to report at the counseling venue as
per the time slot provided for counseling to
her, she was not considered for selection the
LLM course. She had reported at the
counseling venue after all the seats have
been filled up as such you of the General
Counseling Guidelines and time scheduled
fix for PG Admissions-2017, Lucknow
University, Lucknow for LLM course,
petitioner failed to report in time as such
she has no claim. The counseling process
was completed in July, 2017 itself and the
classes were also started from 01/08/2017
itself. Therefore, no
relief can be granted to petitioner."

PARA 6 OF THE REJOINDER
AFFIDAVIT

6. That the contents of Paras 6 to
15 of the Counter Affidavit so long relate to
the
date
of
Counseling,
uploading
Counseling programme on internet and
rankwise details are not disputed. Rest
allegations thereof are denied. In reply
thereto it is submitted that the factum of
petitioner reporting late for the counseling
are denied categorically, emphatically and
specifically as being false and baseless. It is
further submitted that the Opposite Parties
have concocted a false and baseless story to
save their skin as it was only due to the
malafide
intention
of
the
answering
Opposite Parties and there mismanagement
as well as callousness, that the Petitioner
was never called for counseling even after
the reaching the venue at the scheduled
time. It is further reiterated that the
Petitioner had ventilated her grievance
before the Dean Faculty of Law, Vice
Chancellor and Admission Committee on
18.07.2017 but despite her complaint,
neither any action was taken against the
guilty, nor any remedial measures taken by
the Dean. It is also submitted that even
though the petitioner had reached the
counseling venue in time, no attendance slip
was ever provided to her.

It will not out of place to mention
here that Lucknow University is State Law
University in which the participants come
from all over India and the Counselling
programme was uploaded on internet for
LL.M. only on 16.07.2017 fixing LL.M.
Counselling on 18.07.2017 and providing
time of only 30 minutes for reporting of
entire list Candidates of Open Category.
Further more, even the waiting list
1166 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
candidates were called for Counselling on
the same date and same venue at 12.30
P.M. which establishes the malafide on the
part of the concerned authorities mainly to
adjust their choice candidates for their
vested interests and for that very purpose
they have uploaded the contradictory
Counselling programme as evident from
Annexure CA-I & CA-2 (relevant page 18
of the Counter Affidavit) wherein the venue
of counselling has been shown to be New
Commerce Building, situated in main
campus while the Annexure CA-2 mentions
that the counselling shall take place "in the
Department where the course is being run."

(emphasis supplied)

11. In the counter affidavit the
contesting respondents have categorically
averred that the petitioner had reported for
counselling after all the seats of her category
were filled up. In 7 paragraph 12 of the
counter affidavit it has been specifically stated
that around 2.30 p.m. someone claiming
himself to be the brother of the petitioner
came and informed the officials present there
that the petitioner was coming from outside
and could not report for counselling in time as
her train got delayed. Since by that time all the
seats of her category were filled up, nothing
could be done in the case of the petitioner. In
the rejoinder affidavit, except for a vague
denial, the petitioner has said nothing more. It
is settled law that a vague denial is no denial.

12. Neither in the writ petition, nor in
the rejoinder affidavit, has the petitioner
disclosed the name of the official who had
asked her to wait in the side room. It is not in
dispute that all the candidates who had
reported for counselling in time were given
'Attendance Slip'. With regard to 'Attendance
Slip', the petitioner in her rejoinder affidavit,
for the first time, has vaguely alleged that
"even though the petitioner had reached the
counseling venue in time, no attendance slip
was ever provided to her". The averment
regarding non issuance of 'Attendance Slip'
in the rejoinder affidavit appears to be an
afterthought as the same is conspicuously
missing in the writ petition.

13. In the present case, no animus is
suggested and no malafides have been
pleaded. The petitioner is a law graduate. She
was well aware about the counselling
procedure. The contention of the petitioner
that she reported for counseling at 9.30 a.m.
sharp and kept sitting in the side room till 2
p.m., on the asking of some official, waiting
for her turn, and that too without obtaining an
attendance slip, is too naive for acceptance.

14. In view of the discussion made
above, there is no merit in the writ petition.
The writ petition, accordingly, stands
dismissed.

15. No order as to cost.
----------

(2020)06ILR A1166
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.06.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

Misc. Single No. 4528 of 2010
connected with
Misc. Single No. 367 of 2012 & Ors.

C/M Motilal Memorial Society...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Dr. L.P. Mishra, Prasant Sigh Atal,
Ramesh Kr. Singh, Ramesh Pandey,
Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, Sharad Pathak,