# Registrar Mahatma Jyotibha Phule Rohilkhand University, Bareilly & Anr v. Firoz Ahmad & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 3 ILRA 293
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-03-12
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 996 of 2024
- **Bench:** Arun Bhansali, C.J. Kshitij Shailendra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/registrar-mahatma-jyotibha-phule-rohilkhand-university-bareilly-anr-v-firoz-53058
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Civil Law - Allahabad High Court Rules,
1952 - Chapter VIII - Rule 5 - U.P. St.
University Act, 1973 - Chapter IV -
Sections 13(1)(e), 16(4) & 51- Mahatma
294 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Jyotiba
Phule
Rohilkhand
University
Ordinance - Ordinance 7(c)(3): - Intra court
Appeal - against order of writ court -
respondent took admission in three years LLB
course - said course is comprised in six
semesters - respondent appeared in semester
examinations conducted from time to time - the
university refused to issue a mark sheet and
degree to a student - writ petition - plea taken by
the University that the respondent was ineligible
due to exceeding the time limit for the course,
despite being allowed to appear for the back-paper
exam and passing it - writ court allowed the writ
petition - with direction to the university to issue
the mark sheet and degree - special appeal - court
finds that, University failed to scrutinize the
respondent's eligibility before issuing the admit
card and conducting the exam, - and the
respondent had passed the concerned examination
and completed the LL.B. course - held, the
University being a statutory body, is not supposed
to play with the career of a student as per its own
convenience - Consequently, the appeal fails and
is accordingly, dismissed. (Para -18, 20, 22, 23,
25)

Appeal Dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

3 All. Registrar Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Rohilkhand University, Bareilly & Anr. Vs. Firoz Ahmad
 & Ors.
293
May, 2018, the respondents have rightly
given up the aforesaid proposition."

11. Learned counsel for the petitionerrespondent states that even if that argument
had not been given up, definitely the
advertisement was made on 23.5.2018 and
it was much before the date "31.10.2019"
that the selection process was initiated. He
also submitted that an administrative
government
order
could
only
be
prospectively
applied
unless
it
was
specifically made retrospective. In this
case, learned counsel for the petitionerrespondent submitted that the Government
Order
was
issued
much
after
the
advertisement and, therefore, under no
circumstance was the Government Order
applicable in the instant case.

12. Having heard the learned counsel
for the appellants and the learned counsel
for the respondent-petitioners, we are
definitely of the view that when the
advertisement was published on 23.5.2018
then the Government Order issued on
31.10.2019 could not have any effect on the
appointment process. What is more, we
find that the State had when the Writ A No.
404 of 2022 was being argued surrendered
this argument of theirs. So far as the
question with regard to there being three
names in the list which had to be sent by
the Selection Committee as per the Rule 10
of the Rules of 1978 was there, suffice it to
say that on the relevant date of interview,
out of 7 candidates who had been called
only two had appeared and, therefore,
nobody
under
any
law
could
have
compelled the Selection Committee to do
an impossible thing and that was to include
a 3rd name. The maxim "lex non cogit ad
impossibilia" and "Nemo Tenetur ad
Impossibilia" applied on all fours in the
instant case. Also, we are of the view that
when the proposition of law as had been
laid down in the judgment and order
dated11.7.2022 in Writ - A No. 404 of
2022 had not been assailed in any court of
law then that proposition could not be
challenged in this Special Appeal. We,
therefore, categorically hold that the instant
special appeal was not maintainable at all.

13. We also hold that it was
impossible
for
the
Committee
of
Management to have sent the names of
more than 3 candidates as only one
candidate had turned up for the interview.
That being the case, we are definitely of the
view that there is no merit in the special
appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. No
interference is warranted in the order dated
10.1.2022 and it is accordingly upheld.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 293
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, C.J.
THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Special Appeal No. 996 of 2024

Registrar
Mahatma
Jyotibha
Phule
Rohilkhand University, Bareilly & Anr.
 ...Appellants
Versus
Firoz Ahmad & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Shambhavi Tiwari for Rohit Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Vijeta Singh, Alok Shukla, C.S.C.

Civil Law - Allahabad High Court Rules,
1952 - Chapter VIII - Rule 5 - U.P. St.
University Act, 1973 - Chapter IV -
Sections 13(1)(e), 16(4) & 51- Mahatma
294 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Jyotiba
Phule
Rohilkhand
University
Ordinance - Ordinance 7(c)(3): - Intra court
Appeal - against order of writ court -
respondent took admission in three years LLB
course - said course is comprised in six
semesters - respondent appeared in semester
examinations conducted from time to time - the
university refused to issue a mark sheet and
degree to a student - writ petition - plea taken by
the University that the respondent was ineligible
due to exceeding the time limit for the course,
despite being allowed to appear for the back-paper
exam and passing it - writ court allowed the writ
petition - with direction to the university to issue
the mark sheet and degree - special appeal - court
finds that, University failed to scrutinize the
respondent's eligibility before issuing the admit
card and conducting the exam, - and the
respondent had passed the concerned examination
and completed the LL.B. course - held, the
University being a statutory body, is not supposed
to play with the career of a student as per its own
convenience - Consequently, the appeal fails and
is accordingly, dismissed. (Para -18, 20, 22, 23,
25)

Appeal Dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Shri Krishnan Vs The Kurukshetra University,
Kurukshetra, (1976) 1 SCC 311,

2. Special Appeal (Defective) No.313/2024 - Mr.
Iqtadaruddin Vs 3 St. of U.P. & ors.- Decided on
03.05.2024,

3. Vandana Srivastava Vs Principal, M.L.N.
Medical College, 1986 AWC 165 ALL,

4. A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society &
ors.Vs Govt. of Andhra Pradesh & ors., (1986) 2
SCC 667,

5. Kedar Lal Verma Vs The Secretary, Board of
High School & Intermediate Education & ors.,
AIR 1980 All 32,

6. Sanatan Gauda Vs Berhampur University &
ors., (1990) 3 SCC 23,

7. Ashok Chand Singhvi Vs University of Jodhpur
& ors., (1989) 1 SCC 399,
8. Guru Nanak Dev University Vs Sanjay Kumar
Katwal & ors., (2009) 1 SCC 610,

9. Shri Krishnan Vs Kurukshetra University,
Kurukshetra, (1976) 1 SCC 311,

10. Mithilesh Kumar Chaudhary Vs St. of U.P. &
ors., 2024 (5) AWC 4206 ALL,

11. Sukhpal Singh Sharma Vs Vice Chancellor,
Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur, 1982 ALL LJ
1021.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.)

1. Heard Ms. Shambhavi Tiwari,
Advocate holding brief of Shri Rohit
Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants,
Ms. Vijeta Singh, learned counsel for
respondent No.1 (writ petitioner) and
learned standing counsel for Respondent
No. 2 and perused the record.

THE CHALLENGE

2. The instant intra-court appeal
assails
validity
of
the
order
dated
30.09.2024 whereby the learned Single
Judge has allowed Writ-C No.36854 of
2023 (Firoj Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and 3
others) and has directed the University to
issue requisite mark-sheet to the petitioner
therein and also a degree if the petitioner is
otherwise eligible for the same.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The respondent No.1 (writ
petitioner) (hereinafter referred to as 'the
respondent') took admission in three years'
LL.B. course in academic session 2016-17
in Classic College of Law, Bareilly
affiliated
to
Mahatma
Jyotiba
Phule
Rohilkhand University, Bareilly. The said
course is comprised in six semesters. The
respondent
appeared
in
semester
examinations conducted from time to time
3 All. Registrar Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Rohilkhand University, Bareilly & Anr. Vs. Firoz Ahmad
 & Ors.
295
and the dispute in the present appeal is as
regards the back paper concerning sixth
semester. The respondent appeared in the
said back paper examination and even as
per the assertions made on affidavit filed in
support of stay application in the instant
appeal, the respondent passed the same but
his result was not declared on the ground
that he had already completed maximum
duration of the course, i.e., six years.
Admittedly, the marks of the respondent
were uploaded on the website of the
University but mark-sheet was not issued to
him and, therefore, the aforesaid petition
was filed seeking a writ of mandamus
commanding the authorities of University
to issue mark-sheet.

ORDER OF THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE

4. Learned Single Judge, apart
from placing reliance upon judgement of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shri Krishnan
vs.
The
Kurukshetra
University,
Kurukshetra, (1976) 1 SCC 311 which was
further considered in a recent Division Bench
decision of this Court pronounced on
03.05.2024 in Special Appeal (Defective)
No.313 of 2024 (Mr. Iqtadaruddin vs. State
of U.P. and others), considered the
submission of the University based upon
Ordinance 7(c)(3) whereby a student was
required to pass three years' LL.B course
within a maximum period of six years.
Learned Single Judge held that since the
University, after the academic session 20212022 was over, permitted the respondent to
appear in the back paper in sixth semester in
the year 2023 even after expiry of six years
period, it was not justified in withholding the
result.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF
OF THE APPELLANTS
5.
Learned
counsel
for
the
appellants has vehemently argued that
Ordinance 7(c)(3) governing the field
clearly prescribes that in case a candidate
fails to pass the course during the
maximum period of six years, he will be
deemed to have abandoned the course and
shall
not
be
re-admitted.
Further
submission has been made that the
provisional admit card issued to the
respondent clearly indicated that the result
would be declared subject to eligibility of
the candidate and, therefore, when the
University examined the candidature of the
respondent, it found him 'not eligible' to
appear in sixth semester back paper and,
consequently, result was rightly detained,
inasmuch as, six years maximum period
from the date of his admission had expired
in academic session 2021-2022 and back
paper was held in year 2023. Further
submission is that judgement of Mr.
Iqtadaruddin (supra) was a follow up of
the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Shri Krishnan (supra), which was
clearly distinguishable on facts, inasmuch
as, in that case, the concerned Ordinance
contained
a
requirement
to
issue
a
certificate signed by the Principal of the
College/Head of the Department concerned
certifying that the candidate has attended a
regular course of study for the prescribed
number
of
academic
years,
which
certification would be provisional and
could be withdrawn at any time before the
examination. Submission is that in the
present case, no such requirement is found
in
the
Ordinance
governing
the
examinations conducted by the University
and a plain and simple reading of
Ordinance 7(c)(3) would make it clear that
after expiry of maximum period of six
years, a candidate would be disqualified to
go ahead with the course and, further, since
provisional admit card issued to the
296 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
respondent contained a clear stipulation
regarding declaration of result subject to
his eligibility, the respondent has no case
and, therefore, learned Single Judge has
erred in issuing mandamus which would
run contrary to the Ordinance. In support of
her submissions, reliance has been placed
on following decisions:-

 (i). Vandana Srivastava vs.
Principal, M.L.N. Medical College, 1986
AWC 165 ALL;

 (ii). A.P. Christians Medical
Educational Society and others vs.
Government of Andhra Pradesh and
others, (1986) 2 SCC 667;

 (iii). Kedar Lal Verma vs. The
Secretary, Board of High School and
Intermediate Education and others, AIR
1980 All 32.

 SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF
OF
THE
RESPONDENT
(WRIT
PETITIONER)

6. On the other hand, learned
counsel for the respondent submitted that
dates for filling up forms for concerned
examinations were notified as w.e.f.
26.05.2023 to 11.06.2023; the respondent
filled up form on 28.05.2023; provisional
admit card was
issued to him on
26.06.2023, concerned examination was
held on 01.07.2023 and result was declared
on 30.09.2023. Therefore, the Universityauthorities had ample time to verify the
eligibility of the respondent qua his
appearance in the concerned paper and
once they accepted the form, got fees
deposited and permitted him to appear in
the back paper in which he also became
successful, the appellants cannot withhold
result on the pretext that the respondent
was later on found ineligible. Explaining
the stipulations indicated in the provisional
admit
card
(Annexure
SA-3
to
the
Supplementary Affidavit dated 09.01.2025
filed in the appeal), it is urged that the
clause-4 regarding declaration of result
subject to eligibility of the candidate has to
be read alongwith other clauses which
speak of any fabrication made by the
candidate and since it is not the case of the
appellants that the respondent fabricated
anything, withholding of result is not
justified. In support of her submissions,
reliance has been placed upon following
decisions:-

 (i).
Sanatan
Gauda
vs.
Berhampur
University
and
others,
(1990) 3 SCC 23;
 (ii). Ashok Chand Singhvi vs.
University of Jodhpur and others, (1989)
1 SCC 399;
 (iii).
Guru
Nanak
Dev
University vs. Sanjay Kumar Katwal
and others, (2009) 1 SCC 610;
 (iv). Shri Krishnan vs. The
Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra,
(1976) 1 SCC 311;
 (v).
Mithilesh
Kumar
Chaudhary vs. State of U.P. and others,
2024 (5) AWC 4206 ALL;

SUBMISSIONS
OF
APPELLANTS IN REJOINDER

7.
Learned
counsel
for
the
appellants submits that forms are filled up
through online process and it is the College
concerned which forwards the same to the
University and if the College wrongly
forwarded the respondent's form to the
University, the same would not supersede
Ordinance
7(c)(3),
inasmuch
as,
the
University
had
not
granted
direct
permission to the petitioner to appear in the
3 All. Registrar Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Rohilkhand University, Bareilly & Anr. Vs. Firoz Ahmad
 & Ors.
297
examination,
rather
it
was
granted
provisionally on the basis of verification
done by the College at its level. It is further
urged with reference to paragraphs 29 and
34 of the affidavit filed in the instant appeal
that mistake committed at the end of the
College would not create any right in
favour of the respondent to further pursue
the course and that mere permission
granted to the respondent to appear in the
examination, would not operate as estoppel
against the University.

DISCUSSION, ANALYSIS AND
FINDINGS

8. Admittedly, the University is
governed by the provisions of Uttar
Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973 (Act,
1973) and has to function as per the
provisions contained therein. Chapter IV of
the Act, 1973 describes various officers of
the
University
including
the
Vice
Chancellor and, as per Section 13(1)(e)
thereof, he shall be responsible for holding
and
conducting
the
University
examinations properly and at due time and
for
ensuring
that
results
of
such
examinations are published expeditiously.
For a ready reference, Section 13(1)(e) is
reproduced as under :-

 "13. Powers and duties of the
Vice-Chancellor.- The Vice-Chancellor
shall be the principal executive and
academic officer of the University and
shall-

 ..................

 (e). be responsible for holding
and
conducting
the
University
examinations properly and at due time and
for ensuring that the results of such
examinations are published expeditiously
and that the academic session of the
University starts and ends on proper dates."

9. Similarly, Section 16(4) of the
Act, 1973 indicates duties of the Registrar
of the University and is quoted hereunder:-

 "16.
The
Registrar.-
......................

 .............................

 (4).
The
Registrar
shall
be
responsible for the due custody of the
records and the common seal of the
University. He shall be ex officio Secretary
of the Executive Council, the Court, the
Academic Council and the Admissions
Committee
and
of
every
Selection
Committee for appointment of teachers of
the University, and shall be bound to place
before
these
authorities
all
such
information as may be necessary for the
transaction of their business. He shall also
perform such other duties as may be
prescribed by the Statutes and Ordinances
are required, from time to time, by the
Executive Council or the Vice-Chancellor
but he shall not, by virtue of this subsection, be entitled to vote."

10. It is, therefore, apparent that the
officers of the University are under
statutory obligation to discharge duties and
perform functions as per the provisions
contained in the Act of 1973. Such
functions and duties are prescribed under
the Statutes and Ordinances framed under
the Act. Ordinances are framed under
Section 51 of the Act, relevant sub-Sections
whereof are reproduced, as under:-

 "51. Ordinances.- (1) Subject to
the provisions of this Act and the Statutes,
the Ordinances may provide for any matter
298 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
which by this Act or the Statutes is to be or
may be provided for by the Ordinances.

 (2). Without prejudice to the
generality of the provisions of sub-section
(1), the Ordinances shall provide for the
following matters, namely-

 .....................

 (c) the conditions under which
students
shall
be
admitted
to
the
examinations, degrees and diplomas of the
University and shall be eligible for the
award of such degrees and diplomas;

 ...........

 (m) the conduct of examination; "

11. The concerned Ordinances
of the University are titled as "LL.B.
Three years (Six Semester) (Applicable
from
the
academic
year
2009-10
onwards); (Ordinance; General Rules,
Examination Regulations and Course
of
Study
with
Amendments)."Ordinance 7(c)(3), as
pressed into service by the University,
reads as under:-

 "7. (c) Ex-Student

 ...............

 (3)
A
candidate
shall
be
allowed to appear as ex-student/back
paper for not more than three attempts
in that paper subject to the condition
that he will have to clear the LL.B. in
maximum of Six Years. If he fails to
pass
the
examination
during
this
period, he will be deemed to have
abandoned the course and shall not be
readmitted."
12. During the course of hearing,
an order was passed on 04.12.2024
granting time to the appellants' counsel to
indicate the date on which provisional
admit card was issued to the respondent
and the dates on which examinations were
held. Pursuant thereto, a supplementary
affidavit
was
filed
stating
that
the
concerned examination forms were filled
up from 26.05.2023 to 11.06.2023 and,
thereafter, from 14.06.2023 to 15.06.2023;
the respondent filled up examination form
on
28.05.2023;
the
examinations
commenced
from
01.07.2023
prior
whereto, provisional admit cards were
issued to all candidates including the
respondent.
Thereafter,
by
second
supplementary affidavit, date of issuance of
provisional admit card was indicated as
26.06.2023.

13. Therefore, even if, for a while,
the stand of appellants as regards erroneous
or wrongful acceptance of respondent's
examination form by the College and its
forwarding to the University after expiry of
maximum period of six years is accepted as
correct, the same, in our opinion, would not
create a ground for the appellants to
withhold the result of the respondent taking
aid of the indication made in the
provisional admit card, i.e., declaration of
result subject to eligibility of the candidate.
The relevant indications made in the
provisional admit card are reproduced as
under :-

 "(1). Note:-आपके द्वारा परीक्षा फॉमज में ददए
गए अहजता दववरण में िदवष्य में कोई अदनयदमतता या कूटरदचत
तथ्य पाए जाने पर आपका परीक्षाफल दनरस्त कर ददया जायेगा।

 (2). Students failing to bring this
Admit Card alongwith a valid Government
issued photo identity proof shall not be
allowed to appear in the examination.
3 All. Registrar Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Rohilkhand University, Bareilly & Anr. Vs. Firoz Ahmad
 & Ors.
299
 (3).
This
Admit
Card
is
provisional.

 (4). The result shall be declared
subject to eligibility of the candidate."

14. Though the admit card has been
described as provisional, on a pointed
query made by the Court from the learned
counsel for the appellants as to whether any
Rules etc. framed by the University provide
for issuance of provisional admit card, she
answered in negative. Therefore, we
proceed to examine the implication of
issuance of a provisional admit card and
test the stand of the University to withhold
result.

15. A composite reading of all the
aforesaid indications/stipulations made in
the provisional admit card would infer that
in case any irregularity or fabrication is
found to have been made by the candidate
as regards his eligibility while submitting
the form, his result would be cancelled. The
sequence of dates qua the back paper
examination in question reflects that after
the petitioner submitted the form on
28.05.2023 through online mode, may it be
lying with the concerned college or was
forwarded to the University, both had
sufficient time to scrutinise or adjudge the
respondent's eligibility to appear in the
back paper. Apparently, provisional admit
card was issued after four weeks from the
date of submission of the form. If, during
the said period of time, the College or the
University failed to scrutinise the eligibility
of the respondent and proceeded to issue a
provisional admit card, the University
cannot take a defence out of such inaction
qua scrutiny as might be warranted. Not
only this, even after issuance of provisional
admit card on 26.06.2023, there was a gap
of about one week before commencement
of examinations and this period could also
be utilized for scrutinising as to whether the
respondent should or should not have been
allowed to appear in the examination.

16. When the Court raised a
pointed query to the learned counsel for the
appellants as to what had prevented the
University to scrutinize the respondent's
eligibility qua concerned examination with
reference
to
the
maximum
period
prescribed under Ordinance 7(c)(3), the
answer was that there being large number
of
candidates
appearing
in
the
examinations, it is not possible for the
University to scrutinise the candidature and
once the examinations are over, the said
exercise is undertaken and, then, as per the
indication made in the provisional admit
card, decision is taken to declare or not to
declare the result of the concerned
candidate.

17. Further, the instructions dated
25.02.2025 issued from the office of
Examination Controller/Senior Assistant
were placed before the Court indicating
therein that the respondent's form had been
filled up through online mode and since the
candidates in the LL.B. Course are regular
candidates, it is the duty of the College to
forward examination forms of only eligible
candidates. The instructions further reveal
that there is no column in the examination
form
indicating
ineligibility
of
the
candidate.
The
stand
taken
in
the
instructions, when read with the statements
on oath made in various affidavits filed on
behalf of the appellants, would show that
the University is putting a blame on the
College in forwarding respondent's form
terming the same to be a wrong committed
by the College and justifying their decision
only by taking shelter of the Note No.4
mentioned in the provisional admit card.
300 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
18. We are not impressed by the
submissions advanced on behalf of the
appellants.
The
University,
being
a
statutory body, is not supposed to play with
the career of a student as per its own
convenience. When application forms are
admittedly filled up through 'online mode',
it was very convenient, rather necessary for
the University or the College, as the case
may be, to make a provision for a
window/box/space on the online form itself
or otherwise to check eligibility of a
candidate at that very stage so as to either
go ahead with the process of examination
for a particular candidate or close the
chapter to avoid future complications, as
have arisen in the present case. If the
University or the College took their task so
casually and, by all means, allowed the
respondent to appear in the back paper
examination, they cannot get a defence
arising out of their own action/ inaction.
Further, admittedly, the petitioner has
passed the concerned examination and has
completed the entire LL.B. Course.

19. Now coming to the decisions
cited on behalf of the appellants, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Vandana
Srivastava (supra) referred to a previous
decision in Sukhpal Singh Sharma vs.
Vice Chancellor, Gorakhpur University,
Gorakhpur, 1982 ALL LJ 1021 so as to
observe that there could not be any estoppel
against law and that the University could
not be compelled by a direction of the
Court to declare result of the students
whose admissions were unlawful. The
judgement does not come to the aid of the
appellants,
inasmuch
as,
Vandana
Srivastava (supra) was a case where the
concerned candidate had received a letter
from the Medical College intimating her
selection for admission to first year MBBS
Course and calling upon her to appear on
03.09.1985 for examining her physical
fitness and, soon thereafter on 11.09.1985
itself, a telegram was sent by the Under
Secretary of the State of Uttar Pradesh to
the Principal of the concerned Medical
College intimating that the candidate's
result had been wrongly declared treating
her as a Scheduled Caste candidate and,
therefore, her selection for admission in
MBBS first year was cancelled. It was the
said order which was assailed by the
candidate Vandana Srivastava through writ
petition and this Court dismissed the same
by observing that she did not belong to
Scheduled Caste category but to a higher
caste and, hence, her admission was
mistakenly made. The facts of the present
case are entirely different and revolve
around Ordinance 7(c)(3) read with all
attending circumstances, i.e. acceptance of
examination form qua the back paper held
in last semester at the verge of course,
issuance
of
provisional
admit
card,
permitting the respondent to appear in the
examination and then, despite the fact that
he has been successful in the concerned
paper, result has been detained taking aid
of 4th note contained in the provisional
admit card.

20. In A.P. Christians Medical
Educational Society (supra), it was held
that the Court cannot direct the University
to disobey the Statute to which it owes its
existence and the Regulations made by the
University itself. It is further observed
therein that the students who have been
admitted, have not only lost money which
they must have spent to gain admission,
have also lost one or two years of precious
time virtually jeopardising their future
career but they themselves are responsible
for the said situation as they sought and
obtained admission in the College despite
the warnings issued by the University from
3 All. Registrar Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Rohilkhand University, Bareilly & Anr. Vs. Firoz Ahmad
 & Ors.
301
time to time. The facts of the instant case
are entirely different, inasmuch as, the
controversy before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court had arisen from a situation where the
Government of Andhra Pradesh had
refused
to
grant
permission
to
the
concerned Society to start a medical
college and the writ petition challenging
the decision of the Government had been
dismissed
on
the
ground
that
no
circumstances existed to justify compelling
the Government to grant permission to the
Society in view of the restrictions placed by
an Expert Body like Medical Council of
India that no further Medical College
should be started. In the said case, students
of a Medical College established by DaruSalaam Educational Trust were permitted
to
appear
in
the
examination
notwithstanding the fact that affiliation had
not been granted to the University. In such
background of facts, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court had dismissed the appeal filed by the
Society and also writ petitions filed by the
students. The factual background of the
instant case being altogether different
where no restriction in running the College
or the course or any of the like nature
exists, rather the issue before us is as to
whether the University or its affiliated
college is justified to withhold the result of
the petitioner for the reasons stated above.

21. Kedar Lal Verma (supra) is
also clearly distinguishable on facts. There, a
learned Single Judge of this Court was seized
of the matter where the concerned candidate
had been declared "passed" in the High
School mark-sheet given to him on the basis
whereof he got admission in an Intermediate
College. Later on, when his original marksheet was lost, he applied for duplicate one
which, when issued, declared him as 'failed'
in
the
High
School
Examination.
Consequently, the writ petition was filed in
which the U.P. Board of High School and
Intermediate Education took a defence that
previously issued mark-sheet contained a
clerical mistake and as per the regulations, a
student offering Science subject was required
to secure 33% marks, both in practical and
theory and since the petitioner had obtained
only 19 marks in theory as against required
24 marks, he was rightly declared as "failed".
Considering the argument based upon
estoppel as raised on behalf of the concerned
candidate, the learned Single Judge came to
the conclusion that mistake committed by the
Authorities would not confer any benefit
upon the candidate.

22. The instant case arises out of
altogether a different situation where the
University is taking a stand that on scrutiny
made after the petitioner had passed
examination, it stood revealed that his form
had been wrongly forwarded by the College
after expiry of the maximum period of
completion of the course. The Court has
already dealt with various stages of issuance
of examination form, provisional admit card,
conduct
of
examination,
respondent's
appearance
in
the
examination,
the
respondent having passed the entire course
vis-a-vis the duty and responsibility of the
University and/or College to scrutinize the
candidature of the respondent prior to
permitting him to appear in the examination.
Once they did not perform obligation cast on
them, they cannot detain result of the
respondent merely on the pretext that the
provisional
admit
card
contained
an
indication regarding declaration of result
subject to eligibility. The concerned 4th Note
cannot be read in isolation but alongwith
other attending circumstances as noted above.

23.
In
Guru
Nanak
Dev
University (supra), relied upon by the
respondent, the Supreme Court dealt with a
302 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
case where the candidate took admission
through the Common Entrance Test during
2004-2005, he was permitted to appear in
the first semester examination, he was not
found guilty of any suppression or
misrepresentation of facts and though he
was informed about his ineligibility after he
took admission in the first semester
examination, he was permitted to continue
course and completed the same in 2007.
The University had earlier cancelled the
admission of the candidate which was
challenged before the High Court. The writ
petition was allowed by the Punjab and
Haryana High Court and the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, after placing reliance upon
Shri Krishnan (supra) and Sanatan
Gauda (supra) found the action of the
University withholding the result on
account of candidate's ineligibility as
unjust and, accordingly, disposed of the
matter in favour of the candidate.

24. In Sanatan Gauda (supra), the
candidate was admitted in the law college,
he was pursuing his studies for two years
and was permitted to appear in the
concerned examinations and it was only at
the stage of declaration of his result that the
University raised an objection qua his socalled ineligibility to be admitted to the
course. The matter was decided by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in favour of the
candidate and against the University and
even a direction was issued to the
University authorities to frame rules in
clear terms so as to avoid multiple
interpretations of a rule which may entail
cost in terms of several years of life of a
student. Ashok Chand Singhvi (supra) is
also an authority of the Supreme Court on
the same lines.

25.
In
view
of
the
above
discussion, we do not find any error in the
order
of
the
learned
Single
Judge.
Consequently, the appeal fails and is,
accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 302
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Writ - A No. 6586 of 2024

Shafique Ahmed ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Gaurav
Gautam,
Krishna
Kant
Vishwakarma, Rajesh Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Pranav Mishra

(A) Service Law - Non-government aided
minority Institution - Education - U.P.
Non-Government
Arabic
and
Persian
Madarsa
Recognition
Rules,
1987
(amended 2016) - Rule 8 of Government
Order dated 29.01.1996 (creation of posts
requiring State approval) - Validity of
withdrawal
of
financial
approval
for
appointment/promotion of a teacher in a
Madarsa - Approval granted 30 years ago
cannot be withdrawn on the ground that
the
post
was
not
created
by
the
Competent Authority.(Para -23)

Petitioner served as Assistant Teacher Tahtania
since 1988 - receiving salary from State
Exchequer since 1995 - Promoted to Assistant
Teacher Fauquania in 2021 - financial approval
granted but salary withheld - Respondent No. 2
withdrew
financial
approval
citing
nonsanctioned
post
creation
without
State
Government permission. (Para - 4 to14)
HELD:
-
Petitioner
was
entitled
to
all
consequential benefits. Approval had been
granted 30 years ago and could not be