# Sarthak Choubey v. U.O.I. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 1433
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-04
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 6626 of 2023
- **Bench:** Ajay Bhanot
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sarthak-choubey-v-u-o-i-ors-50115
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

1434 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A.S.G.I., Sri Hem Pratap Singh

Admission -University-Petitioner is aggrieved
by denial of admission to B.A. (Hons.) Economic
course-in paid seats by respondent- universityhe applied in both paid seats and regular seatsthe fact that Petitioner got admitted to the B.A.
(hons.) Sociology does not mean that he had
waived his right to be admitted in B.A. (hons.)
Economics course- Petitioner satisfies the prerequisites for being allotted course of higher
preference-paid fees after the initial allotment
within prescribed deadline-vacancy was createdby virtue of merit the vacancy was liable to be
filled up by him-refusal by the University is
illegal-Petitioner entitled to the B.A. (Hons.)
Economics in the category of paid seats.

W.P. allowed. (E-9)

## Text

5 All. Sarthak Choubey Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1433
authorities on this score fully supports the
case of workman for award of back-wages
which the Labour Court has assessed to the
extent of 50% although it could be a case
where the workman was entitled for full
back-wages. However, the Court is not
inclined to enhance the back-wages as the
writ petition has not been filed by the
workman but by the employer.

33. There is no need to multiply the
authorities on the aforesaid issues or to
refer/quote more and more paragraphs of
the said authorities as it would only make
the judgment bulky and when the Court is
satisfied that the Labour Court has not
erred in making the award in the aforesaid
terms, I find that no interference is required
in the impugned award and the writ petition
is devoid of merit.

34. Accordingly, the writ petition fails
and is dismissed as such. The impugned
award is upheld.

35. Before concluding this judgment,
the Court finds that in the present case an
interim order was passed on 23.01.2017
whereby the petitioner was directed to
deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with the
Labour Court, Gorakhpur and the operation
of the impugned award was kept in
abeyance. Though, it was also provided
under the said interim order that out of the
aforesaid amount, 25% of the same would
be released in favour of the workman, I
find
that
although
the
amount
was
deposited, the said 25% of the same could
not be released despite a subsequent order
dated 03.10.2017 and the reason for not
release
was
that
the
Labour
Court
concerned was vacant, as noticed in the
order dated 30.04.2019. Thereafter, a
modification application was filed and it
was contended on behalf of the workman
that direction may be issued to the
Presiding
Officer,
Industrial
Tribunal,
Gorakhpur to act as the Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, however the said contention
was found to be misconceived and,
accordingly, the modification application
was rejected by order dated 11.07.2019.
Thereafter, there is no order by which it
could be inferred that the condition of
release of 25% amount was fulfilled or that
the workman has received the sum.

36. Therefore, while dismissing the
writ petition, it is observed that the award
of the Labour Court shall be executed as it
is and the execution proceedings shall be
completed within a period of four months
from the date a certified copy of this
judgment is produced before the court
concerned. The amount of 25% as directed
under the interim order dated 23.01.2017, if
not released in favour of the respondentworkman, shall be adjusted in the backwages to be awarded to him.

37. With the aforesaid observations,
the writ petition is dismissed.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1433
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ-C No. 6626 of 2023

Sarthak Choubey ...Petitioners
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Arjun Prasad Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
1434 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A.S.G.I., Sri Hem Pratap Singh

Admission -University-Petitioner is aggrieved
by denial of admission to B.A. (Hons.) Economic
course-in paid seats by respondent- universityhe applied in both paid seats and regular seatsthe fact that Petitioner got admitted to the B.A.
(hons.) Sociology does not mean that he had
waived his right to be admitted in B.A. (hons.)
Economics course- Petitioner satisfies the prerequisites for being allotted course of higher
preference-paid fees after the initial allotment
within prescribed deadline-vacancy was createdby virtue of merit the vacancy was liable to be
filled up by him-refusal by the University is
illegal-Petitioner entitled to the B.A. (Hons.)
Economics in the category of paid seats.

W.P. allowed. (E-9)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.)

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by
denial of admission to the B.A. (Hons.)
Economics Course in the category of paid
seats by the respondent-University. The
undisputed facts are these:

2.

The
petitioner
applied
for
admission to B.A. (Hons.) Economics
Course under the category of paid seats as
well as regular seats at D.A.V. Post
Graduate College, affiliated to Banaras
Hindu University, Varanasi. The petitioner
had secured 279.46/400 marks in CUET2022 Examination. The last candidate who
was admitted to B.A. (Hons.) Economics
Course under the paid seats category had
obtained lesser marks than the petitioner.
The case of the petitioner for admission to
the B.A. (Hons.) Economics Course in the
category of paid seats was never considered
by the University despite his application
and eligibility for admission. This fact has
been pleaded by the petitioner but not
refuted by the University in its counter
affidavit. Further, Shri Hem Pratap Singh,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondentUniversity has fairly admitted that the
University has not considered the petitioner
for admission to B.A. (Hons.) Economics
Course in the category of paid seats.

3. After these facts were established,
Sri Hem Pratap Singh, learned counsel for
the
respondent-University
placed
the
relevant Ordinances of the University
which are extracted hereunder for ease of
reference:

"(i) There is a provision of 'Paid
Seats' (supernumerary) in some courses, up
to a maximum of 15% of total seats.
Admission on Paid Seats will be done only
after the regular fee seats are full.

(ii)....

(iii) In case of UG Counseling,
Paid Seats options will be exercised by the
candidates
during
preference
entry.
Allotment of Paid Seats would be done
amongst those candidates, in order of
merits."

4. There is also a provision for
Upgradation and Locking of Admission in
the said ordinances which is reproduced
below:

"UPGRADATION
AND
LOCKING RULE:

Rearrangement in 2nd and/or
subsequent
Admission
List(s):
The
candidates have to enter their preference of
course (where choice is available) in the
preference entry form. The module has
been developed in a manner to ensure that
if the seats fall vacant on expiry of deadline
of fee payment (after declaration of any
5 All. Sarthak Choubey Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1435
Round of results due to candidates holding
higher merit do not take admission etc.),
there are chances that the candidate who
was initially allotted a course of his/her
lower
order
of
preference
may
get
upgraded to a more preferred course as per
his/her preference order. Accordingly.
based on the preference given by the
candidate at the time of counselling, there
could be change in course allocation after
its
initial
allotment.
Rearrangement
process will enable only upward mobility
of a candidate in the order of preference
filled up by him/her, vacancy being
created and his/her merit order provided
payment of admission fee has already
been done for the initial allotment within
the prescribed deadline."

(emphasis applied)

"Locking of Course Allotment:
At times, if the candidate does not want any
change in the Course allotted initially to
him/her (say after 1" or subsequent round
of result) thereby meaning that he/she
wants to be excluded from the aforesaid
rearrangement process in the subsequent
round. If he/she is satisfied with the course
allocation after any round of declaration of
admission list, in such cases candidate will
immediately
email
only
through
the
Registered email ID of candidate to the
Convener of the concerned Admission
Committee to lock his/her course allotment.
For
this
purpose
each
Admission
Committee will create a dedicated email
ID. If a candidate asks for lock option in
the manner aforesaid, he/she will be
excluded from the aforesaid rearrangement
exercise in the succeeding rounds.

NOTE:

I....

II....

III. It is advised to every
candidate to be very clear and careful while
filling up their preferences of the subject in
Preference Entry Form as after locking the
course
allotment,
the
so
allotted
combination with Honours subject by the
computerized Online Admission Module
shall
not
be
changed
under
any
circumstances during the whole course
period."

5. Petitioner was granted admission in
the B.A. (Hons) Sociology course. He
deposited the admission-fee and has been
pursuing the aforesaid ever since. The fact
that the petitioner got admitted to the B.A.
(Hons) Sociology course does not mean
that he had waived his right to be admitted
to B.A. (Hons) Economics course, nor does
it estop him from pressing his right to be
considered as a candidate for B.A. (Hons)
Economics course in the category of paid
seats.

6. The contention on behalf of the
University that once a student pays his fees and
takes admission in another course, his preferred
option cannot be exercised in view of 'Locking
Rule" is misconceived. Reference of the underlined part of the rule shows that the petitioner
was entitled to an upward mobility in the order
of preference filled by him. The rule
contemplates rearrangement in admissions.

7. The petitioner satisfies the prerequisites for being allotted course of
higher preference. He had paid the fees
after his initial allotment within the
prescribed deadline. Further, the vacancy
was created in the course and by virtue of
the petitioner?s merit the vacancy was
liable to be filled up by him.

8. Locking of rule is a completely
different concept and has no bearing in the
1436 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
instant case. The course allotment is locked
only when a candidate makes a request to
the University that he does not want any
change in the course allotted to him
initially and wants to be excluded from the
rearrangement process. Admittedly, the
candidate had not opted for locking of his
admission in B.A. (Hons.) Sociology and
hence could not be have been excluded
from the upward arrangement process.

9. The refusal of the University to
admit the petitioner in the B.A. (Hons.)
Economics Course in the category of paid
seats was arbitrary and illegal.

10. In the wake of the preceding
discussion this Court finds that the
petitioner was entitled to the B.A. (Hons.)
Economics Course in the category of paid
seats.

11. A writ in the nature of mandamus
is issued commanding the respondent
University
to
forthwith
process
his
candidature for admission to the B.A.
(Hons) Economics course.

12. In view of the fact that the
petitioner's admission to the said course
was delayed by the fault of the University,
the University shall take all measures
including extra classes, holding of special
exams and necessary support so that the
petitioner does not lose an academic year.

13. The writ petition is allowed.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1436
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

Writ-C No. 8724 of 2013

Satish Kewlani ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ved Prakash, Sri Dinesh Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article - 226, 252(2), - Urban Land
Ceiling and Regulations Act, 1976
-
Sections 8(3), 10(1), 10(3), 10(4), 10(5),
10(6) & 35 - Urban Land( Ceiling and
Regulations) Repeal Act, 1999 - Sections
3, 4 & 5(2) - Writ Petition - seeking the
mandamus commanding to opposite parties not
to disturb in the peaceful possession - earlier, in
the year 1990 - against Original Tenure holder
of the said Gata in question a Notice u/s 8(3)
was issued by the respondent authorities -
which was never responded - resulted, said
Gata was declared surplus land - notification u/s
10(3) & 10(5) was published - in year 1996 said
land was transferred to LDA u/s 10(6) of the
Act, 1976 - after death of original tenure holder,
his daughter being successor executed a saledeed in year 2000 in favour of petitioner - the
old Act, 1976 was replaced by new Act, 1999 -
court finds that, possession of tenure holder is
still continue and actual physical possession of
the land was never taken by the St., than all
proceedings under the repealed Act, 1976 and
orders therein are stood abated when the Act,
1999 was came into force - hence, petitioner is
entitled to the benefit of section 3 & 4 of the
Act, 1999 - consequently, writ petition is
allowed - direction issued, for deletion of
endorsement regarding surplus land in revenue
record and restore the name of the petitioner,
accordingly.
Para - (13, 18, 22, 23, 24)

Writ Petition Allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited: