# Sanjay Kumar Verma v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2006) 1 ILRA 437
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-09-29
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 51275 of 2004
- **Bench:** Vineet Saran
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sanjay-kumar-verma-v-state-of-u-p-40863
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art. 226-Writ
jurisdiction-Petition govt. selected for
Special
B.T.C.-based
on
forged
and
fabricated document-after verification-it
was found that such marks sheet was
never issued from university argument
even on the basis of correct mark sheet
admission can not be denied-held-not to
be accepted-Teacher a noble professionunder
writ
jurisdiction-apart
from
discretion-equity must be in feavor of
petitioner.

Held: Para 7

As such, in the aforesaid circumstances
the petitioner would not be entitled to
any indulgence by this Court, specially in
its
discretionary
jurisdiction
under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
For a petitioner to be entitled to the
relief under this jurisdiction, she is not
only expected to show that law is in her
favour but that equity is also in her
favour. In the present case, may be the
petitioner would be entitled to admission
on the basis of her correct marksheet but
in the present case, equity being totally
against
her,
as
she
had
initially
approached the authorities for admission
on the basis of forged and fabricated
marksheet and giving wrong declaration,
she would not be entitled to any relief.

## Text

1 All] Sanjay Kumar Verma V. State of U.P.
437
the N.D.P.S. Act both the contrabands are
separately defined and both are not the
same. Therefore, without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case the
applicant is entitled for bail.

7. Let the applicant Sanjay Kumar
Verma involved in case crime no. 64 of
2003, under Sections 8/21/ N.D.P.S. Act,
P.S. Jaspura, District Banda be released
on bail on his furnishing a personal bond
and two sureties each in the like amount
to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
Application Allowed
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.09.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 51275 of 2004

Seema Mourya

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashok Khare
Sri S.D. Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ajit Kumar Singh
S.C.

Constitution of India, Art. 226-Writ
jurisdiction-Petition govt. selected for
Special
B.T.C.-based
on
forged
and
fabricated document-after verification-it
was found that such marks sheet was
never issued from university argument
even on the basis of correct mark sheet
admission can not be denied-held-not to
be accepted-Teacher a noble professionunder
writ
jurisdiction-apart
from
discretion-equity must be in feavor of
petitioner.

Held: Para 7

As such, in the aforesaid circumstances
the petitioner would not be entitled to
any indulgence by this Court, specially in
its
discretionary
jurisdiction
under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
For a petitioner to be entitled to the
relief under this jurisdiction, she is not
only expected to show that law is in her
favour but that equity is also in her
favour. In the present case, may be the
petitioner would be entitled to admission
on the basis of her correct marksheet but
in the present case, equity being totally
against
her,
as
she
had
initially
approached the authorities for admission
on the basis of forged and fabricated
marksheet and giving wrong declaration,
she would not be entitled to any relief.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.)

1. By means of this writ petition the
petitioner has challenged the order dated
11.11.2004 passed Principal, District
Institute
of
Education
&
Training,
Robertsganj,
District
Sonbhaddra,
Respondent no.3, by which the admission
of the petitioner in the institute for
undergoing the course of B.T.C. has been
cancelled. A further prayer has been made
for a direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents to permit
the petitioner to pursue her studies in the
second year B.T.C. training course and to
appear in the final examination.

2. The main ground for cancellation
of the admission of the petitioner as set
out in the impugned order is that in the
admission
form,
the
petitioner
had
declared that she had obtained 1143/1800
marks in B.A. examination which she
438 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2006
claims to have passed from Veer Bahadur
Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur.
After selection, the marksheet submitted
by her was also to the effect that she had
obtained 1143/1800 marks and on such
basis she had got admission. However, on
verification of the said marksheet from
the respondent-University it was found to
be forged and fabricated. After issuing
notice to the petitioner on 29.10.2004, to
which the petitioner submitted her reply
on 2.11.2004 and on consideration of the
same, the impugned order has been
passed.

3. I have heard Sri Ashok Khare,
learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri
S.D.Shukla, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner as well as learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the Respondent
nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Ajit Kumar Singh,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of
Respondent no.4. Counter and rejoinder
affidavits have been exchanged and with
the consent of the learned counsel for the
parties this writ petition is being disposed
of at the admission stage itself.

4. Nowhere in the writ petition has it
been stated that in the form submitted by
the petitioner filled up by her at the time
of seeking admission she had not declared
that she had obtained 1143/1800 marks
although that was the specific ground for
canceling her admission. It has also not
been stated in the writ petition that she
had not produced the mark sheet showing
that she had obtained 1143/1800 marks on
the basis of which she had got admission.
In paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit
filed by the State-respondents it has been
specifically averred that the petitioner
herself filled up the data sheet in her own
hand-writing and made the declaration
that she had secured 1143 marks out of
1800 marks. There is no specific denial of
the said assertion of the respondents.

5. The case of the petitioner now is
that she had passed the B.A. Examination
from Rajkiya Snatkottar Mahavidyalay
Obra,
Sonbhadra
affiliated
to Veer
Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University,
Jaunpur and had obtained 809 out of 1800
marks and even if such marks are taken
into account, she would be selected for
undergoing the B.T.C. course and as such
there is no justification for canceling her
admission. In the counter affidavit filed
by the respondent-University, although it
is accepted that the petitioner has passed
B.A. with 809/1800 marks but it is
categorically stated that the marksheet
which had been submitted by the
petitioner and had been sent to the
University for verification was forged and
fabricated as no such marksheet had ever
been issued by the University.

6.
The
petitioner is seeking
admission in a course after which she
would be appointed as a teacher, which is
a noble profession. It being not denied
anywhere in the writ petition that she had
filled up the form stating that she had
obtained 1143/18000 marks and had
submitted a marksheet supporting the
same, which was ultimately found to be
forged and fabricated, such person should
not be allowed to undergo teacher's
training. When the very foundation of
seeking admission is on the basis of
forgery, even if such a candidate is
eligible for admission on the basis of her
correct marksheet, the same should not be
permitted. It appears that the petitioner
had submitted the forged marksheet
showing that she had obtained very high
marks only in order to ensure and
guarantee her admission. She did not want
1 All] Seema Mourya V. State of U.P. and others
439
to take a chance of being denied
admission on the basis of her actual
marksheet as she had actually obtained
much lesser marks on which basis she
may or may not have been selected for
admission in the B.T.C. course but she
knew that on the basis of the fabricated
marksheet she would be assured of
admission.

7. As such, in the aforesaid
circumstances the petitioner would not be
entitled to any indulgence by this Court,
specially in its discretionary jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. For a petitioner to be entitled to the
relief under this jurisdiction, she is not
only expected to show that law is in her
favour but that equity is also in her
favour. In the present case, may be the
petitioner would be entitled to admission
on the basis of her correct marksheet but
in the present case, equity being totally
against
her,
as
she
had
initially
approached the authorities for admission
on the basis of forged and fabricated
marksheet and giving wrong declaration,
she would not be entitled to any relief.

Accordingly, this writ petition is
dismissed. No order as to cost.
Petition dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.01.2006

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE V.M. SAHAI, J.
THE HON'BLE SABHAJEET YADAV, J.

Civil Misc. Contempt Appeal No.25 of
2004

Shiv Lal ...Respondent No.3/Applicant
Versus
Ram Babu Dwivedi
...Opposite party

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Umesh Narain Sharma
Sri Anil Kumar Bajpai

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Sri D.S. Srivastava
Sri H.R. Misra
A.G.A.

(A) Contempt of Courts Act-1972-Section
12-Civil Contempt-willful disobedience of
interim Orders-about reinstatement and
the arrears of salary-delay caused due to
Transfer and posting of the executive
officer
of
the
concerned
Nagar
Panchayat-held-can not be said to be
willful defiance-unconditional apology
can not be refused.

Held: Para 30

Thus in given facts and circumstances of
the case, we are of the considered
opinion that the delayed compliance of
order passed by writ court as well as
contempt court referred earlier cannot
be said to be wilful defiance and
disobedience of the interim order either
passed by writ court or order dated
18.9.2004 passed by contempt court and
the appellant cannot be held guilty of
committing any contempt punishable
under the provisions of Contempt of
Court Act. Besides this, in the affidavit
filed in the appeal, the appellant has also
tendered his unconditional apology as it
was tendered before the learned Single
Judge
dealing
with
the
contempt
application.
In
given
facts
and
circumstances of the case we do not find
any justification to reject the same
accordingly the unconditional apology
tendered by the appellant is hereby
accepted.

(B) Constitution of India Art. 141Binding
precedence-longer
Bench
of
Supreme Court in Mohd. Yakoob Khan's