# Smt. Rinki v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2019) 2 ILRA 1330
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-10-18
- **Case number:** Misc. Single No. 35387 of 2018
- **Bench:** Anil Kumar, Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Abdul Moin
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-rinki-v-state-of-u-p-ors-44588
- **Pages:** 16

## Headnote

A. Code of Civil Procedure - Reference
made - instructions of S.G- not disclosing full
and complete facts including the order passed
by Hon'ble Supreme Court on the interlocutory
application moved by State of U.P. itself-the
said instructions could not be acted upon,
however, in absence of any specific instruction
to learned State counsel to submit before this
Court that State did not have any objection if
result of those admitted students is declared
by the University, the contempt proceedings
against officers of the State may not be
initiated/instituted.

List of Cases Cited: -

## Text

_Characters 0–39,809 of 52,387. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39809 for what follows._

1330 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Union of
India) (under challenge in FAFOD No. 95
of 2018); and the order dated 17.03.2017
passed in Case No. OR0200031 (Bharat
Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Union of
India) (under challenge in FAFOD No. 93
of 2018) by the Railway Claims Tribunal,
Lucknow Bench, Lucknow are hereby set
aside. The appeals stand allowed. All the
three matters are remanded back to the
Tribunal to decide the same in accordance
with law.

41. Costs made easy.
----------

(2019)10ILR A 1330

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.10.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA KUMAR
UPADHYAYA, J.
THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

Misc. Single No. 35387 of 2018

Smt. Rinki ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Satya Prakash Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Subhas Bisaria, Sri W.U.
Ahmad

A. Code of Civil Procedure - Reference
made - instructions of S.G- not disclosing full
and complete facts including the order passed
by Hon'ble Supreme Court on the interlocutory
application moved by State of U.P. itself-the
said instructions could not be acted upon,
however, in absence of any specific instruction
to learned State counsel to submit before this
Court that State did not have any objection if
result of those admitted students is declared
by the University, the contempt proceedings
against officers of the State may not be
initiated/instituted.

List of Cases Cited: -

1. College of Professional Education and others
vs. State of U.P. and others 2013 (2) SCC 721

2. Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya vs.
State of U.P. and others (2013) 2 SCC 617

3. Bharat Builder Pvt Ltd and others vs. Parijat
Flat Owners Coop. Housing Society Ltd. (1999)
5 SCC 622

4. Assistant Collector of Central Excise,
Chandan Nagar, West Bengal vs. Dunlop India
Ltd and others (1985) 1 SCC 260

5. Cassel and Co. Ltd. v. Broome

(Delivered by Hon'ble Devendra Kumar
Upadhyaya, J.)

1. This case concerns itself with the
sanctity of admissions made by certain
colleges in B.Ed course in the academic
session 2013-2014 after 16.09.2013 and
holding of examination of such students
and declaration of their results. Hon'ble
Single Judge in this case finding himself
unable to agree with the judgment
rendered on 03.12.2018 in a bunch of writ
petitions, leading writ petition being
Ankit Kumar and others vs. State of U.P.
and others (hereinafter referred to as
'Ankit
Kumar'),
vide
order
dated
17.12.2018 has referred the following two
questions for consideration by a larger
bench.

"(i). Whether it was open for the
State Government or this Court to have
relaxed the time schedule fixed under the
orders of the Apex Court in College of
2 All. Smt. Rinki Vs State of U.P. & Ors.
1331
Professional Education (Supra), as reiterated
and re-inforced in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila
Mahavidyalaya (Supra), as also the order
dated 25.11.2013 passed in I.A. No. 109 and
110 of 2013 in College of Professional
Education, fixing 16th September, 2013, by
permitting/directing declaration of results of
students admitted in B.Ed Course in the
Academic Session 2013-14 after 16.09.2013?

(ii). Whether the instructions of the
State Government dated 28th November,
2018 could be acted upon or that it amounts
to an act in disobedience/derogation of the
orders of the Apex Court, referred to above,
rendering the responsible officers of the State
liable to be proceeded with under contempt
jurisdiction, in view of the observations
contained in para 90.2 of the Supreme Court
judgment in Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila
Mahavidyalaya (supra)."

2. This larger bench has thus
assembled to consider the aforesaid
reference.

3. This petition by Smt Rinki has
been filed with the prayer to issue a
direction to the authorities of Chaudhary
Charan Singh University, Meerut to
declare her result of B.Ed examination for
the academic session 2013-2014 in light
of her admission made to the aforesaid
course in pursuance of Government
Orders dated 26.09.2013 and 08.10.2013.

4. Before dealing with the issues
involved in this reference, the facts and
circumstances
which
led
the
State
Government to issue Government Orders
dated 26.09.2013 and 08.10.2013, are
necessary to be noticed.

5. For making admissions to B.Ed
course in various Universities and the
Colleges affiliated/associated with them
in the State of U.P. for the academic
session 2013-2014, a ''Joint Entrance
Examination B.Ed 2013' was held by
Deen
Dayal
Upadhyaya
Gorakhpur
University,
Gorakhpur
which
was
nominated as the Nodal University. On
the
basis
of
said
Joint
Entrance
Examination, counselling of successful
candidates for being given admission in
various institutions was held between
01.06.2013 to 27.06.2013. After this
counselling, a pooled counselling was
held, however, even after the pooled
counselling,
around
50,000
seats
remained vacant and accordingly to fill up
these
50,000
seats,
another
pooled
counselling was held between 04.08.2013
to 29.08.2013. Even after second pooled
counselling, 34294 seats remained vacant.
The State Government thus considered
the situation which arose on account of
34924 seats remaining vacant and for the
said purpose, a high level meeting chaired
by the Principal Secretary of the State
Government in the Department of Higher
Education was held on 25.09.2013 which
was attended to by the Special Secretary,
Department
of
Higher
Education,
Registrar of the Nodal University i.e. the
Gorakhpur University, Deputy Registrar
and the State Nodal Officer, Joint
Entrance Examination B.Ed-2013, Deen
Dayal Upadhyaya Gorakhpur University,
Gorakhpur. The order dated 26.09.2013
was thus issued by the State Government
on the basis of deliberations held and
decisions taken in the said meeting. As a
matter of fact, the said order dated
26.09.2013
issued
by
the
State
Government is the minutes of meeting
held on 25.09.2013.

6. Perusal of the said Government
Order dated 26.09.2013 reveals that while
taking decision to meet the exigency
1332 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
which arose on account of unfilled 34294
seats, the Committee referred to the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court,
dated 22.07.2011 passed in Special Leave
to Appeal (Civil) No.13040 of 2010,
College of Professional Education and
others vs. State of U.P. and others,
reported in 2013 (2) SCC 721. The State
Government is thus said to have taken
note of paragraph 4 (vi) (b) of the
judgment in the case of College of
Professional
Education
and
others
(supra) and decided in the meeting held
on 25.09.2013 that a list of candidates, on
the basis of their merit who appeared in
Joint Entrance Examination and were not
admitted, be sent to all self-financed B.Ed
institutions and further that institutions
shall then admit the students from the said
list after inviting applications through
advertisement
to
be
published
in
newspapers, in accordance with the
ranking of the candidates in the merit. The
State Government also decided vide
Government Order dated 26.09.2013 that
last date for completing the process will
be 15.10.2013. Pursuant to the said
Government order dated 26.09.2013, the
State
Government
issued
another
Government Order dated 08.10.2013
directing the Nodal University that
admissions to B.Ed course shall be made
only in accordance with the merit of the
candidates as per the list to be provided
by the Nodal University to the institutions
and that the seats on which allotment of
students could not be made on the basis of
counselling, shall be treated to be vacant
and further that the seats against which
candidates do not take admission till
12.10.2013 shall also be treated to be
vacant.

7. Assertion made by the petitioner
in this case is that she was admitted on the
basis
of
the
process
decided
and
implemented by the State Government in
terms of the Government Orders dated
26.09.2013 and 08.10.2013 and thus her
admission is lawful and accordingly she is
entitled not only to take admission in
B.Ed course but also for declaration of her
result.

8. Reference made to this bench thus
revolves around the time schedule fixed
by Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment
and order dated 22.07.2011 in the case of
College of Professional Education and
others (supra). Paragraph 4 of the said
judgment contains a schedule which is
based on broad consensus regarding
procedure of admission between the
institutions and the State Government.
Paragraph 4 of the said judgment is thus
extracted hereinbelow:-

"4. In regard to admissions for
academic sessions 2012- 2013 and
subsequent
academic
years,
the
institutions and the state government have
arrived at a broad consensus regarding
the procedure, the terms of which have
been set out in the affidavit filed by Dr.
R.K.
Gupta,
Associate
Professor,
Department
of
Higher
Education,
Government P.G. College, Noida on
behalf of the state of U.P. The terms
agreed are as under:

(i) To ensure that all seats in the
colleges are filled through counseling
pursuant to Entrance Examination, the
Colleges are required to update their
websites daily and display the number of
students admitted as well as the number
of seats vacant. For this purpose, each
college shall have an official websites
giving the details of total sanctioned
seats, bank account etc. During the
course of counseling, they will update
2 All. Smt. Rinki Vs State of U.P. & Ors.
1333
their official website on day to day basis
regarding vacant seats after admissions.
The colleges shall also communicate the
said particulars on daily basis to the
Registrar
of
concerned
University
(Examination conducting body) through
e- mail/telephone/Fax.

(ii) Every college will display its
Bank Account Number and its name on its
website and also provide to the concerned
University (the examination conducting
body). Any student, who is allotted to a
particular college through counseling
after
the
B.Ed.
Joint
Entrance
Examination, will deposit his fees directly
with the CBS Branch of the said Bank
Account of the college to which he is
allotted, within three days from the day of
counseling. Subsequently, the said student
will make available the copy of the proof
of fee deposited to the concerned college
and
the
concerned
University.
The
concerned college will display the same
on its website along with the details of the
students. If any student faces any
difficulty in depositing of the fee in the
CBS account of the college to which he is
allotted, he can immediately contact the
University, the college and if required
then concerned District Magistrate.

(iii)The schedule for admission
for the academic session 2012-13 and
subsequent years, shall be as under:

1. Publication of Advertisement
01.02.2011

2. Sale of Application Forms
and
10-2-2012
to
10-3-2012
their
submission

3.
Date
of
Entrance
Examination 20.04.2012 to 25.04.2012

4.
Declaration
of
Result
25.05.2012 to 30.05.2012

5.
Commencement
and
completion of counselling 01.06.2012 to
25.06.2012

6. Last Date of Admissions after
counseling 28.06.2012

7. Commencement of Academic
session 01.07.2012

[Note : for subsequent years,
the same dates and months will apply]

(iv) From 2012-13, there will be
only one counseling, which will continue
for a period of 25 days. During the
counseling,
if
it
is
found
that
a
candidate/s allotted to any college do not
turn up to take admission, the college
shall inform the Counseling Authority and
upon receipt of such information, another
set of candidates will be sent to such
colleges after counseling. The said
counseling will be continuous to expedite
the procedure of admission till closure of
admission, without any second or third
round of counseling.

(v) As per the schedule agreed
for the year 2011-12, as per order dated
11.3.2011 of the Supreme Court, the
admission process will be completed by
31.07.2011 after the first counseling.
Subsequently,
any
vacant
seats
ascertained, will be filled up through
second phase of counseling conducted
from 03.08.2011 to 07.08.2011. Thus, the
whole process of admission to all the
seats of B.Ed. course shall be completed
by 14.08.2011.

(vi) After that date (14.08.2011)
if any seat remains vacant in a private
college then to fill up the same the
following course may be followed to
ensure filling up all the vacant seats
through counseling only:-

(a) A waiting list in the form of
pool of about 5000 candidates will be
prepared. The waiting list may be
enlarged as per the requirement to fill up
the
vacant
seats.
The
candidates
registered with the pool will have to give
an undertaking to the effect that they can
1334 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
be sent to any college having vacant seat
for admission and they will have no
objection. The candidates registered with
the pool/waiting list will be arranged as
per merit and will be allotted the colleges
having vacant seats in their subjects
according to their merit. This option will
be exercised only after the end of
counseling and be adopted only on the
request of the colleges for filling up their
remained vacant seats within three days
from the last date of admission.

In
such
circumstances,
the
concerned university will provide the
students from waiting list accordingly to
fill up the seats but the entire process will
be completed within 10 days, i.e. by
24.08.2011 for the session 2011-12 and
8th of July for the next consecutive years.

The wait listed pool candidates,
shall along with the undertaking, deposit the
fees with the University concerned and in case
the candidates fails/refuses to join the allotted
college as per his undertaking then the fee
deposited with university will be remitted to the
account of the college immediately, to which
the students has been allotted by the university
provided that the seats remained vacant during
that academic session.

(b) After the counseling is over,
the concerned University will continue to
allot the candidates from the above
mentioned waiting list against the vacant
seats till all the seats in the colleges are
filled up. It is further submitted that the
organizing
university
will
provide
students only to the existing B.Ed. College
and all those B.Ed. Colleges which will
get affiliation up to dated 07.07.2011 will
not be considered for counseling to the
year 2011-12 and for the next consecutive
years and onward the colleges which will
be get affiliated on or before 10th of May
of that year, would be considered for
counseling.

(c) The organizing University
will start online help service through
which the complaints of the candidates
will be redressed. All the colleges
concerned will also provide their helpline
separately and after receipt of the
complaints the organizing university will
forward the same to the concerned
college for redressal, failing which the
organizing
university
will
seek
the
explanation from the college concerned
and if any default or omission is found on
the part of the college, then the same
would be forwarded to the government for
necessary actions against such college.

(d) The state shall take all
endevour to ensure admissions only
through counseling after holding State
Level Entrance Examination against all
the seats sanctioned in self-financing
institutions running B.Ed. Course.

(e) That in case any unforeseen
difficulty arises regarding filling up vacant
seats in the concerned colleges despite
strictly following the procedure agreed, even
after 24.08.2011, the colleges will be entitled
to approach, for filling up their vacant seats,
to Principal Secretary/Secretary of the
Department
of
Higher
Education,
Government of UP who will arrange to
provide selected candidates from the wait-list
pool within 3 days from receipt of
application to fill up those vacant seats.

(f) The same procedure will
mutatis mutandis apply for the academic
years 2012-13 and thereafter.

(vii) The state government will
adopt similar procedure in regard to
filling of any vacant seats for the
admission for the academic year 2012-13
and subsequent years."

9. The schedule as directed to be
followed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case
of
College
of
Professional
2 All. Smt. Rinki Vs State of U.P. & Ors.
1335
Education
and
others
(supra)
was
however issued with a further direction to
the State Government that the State
Government will endeavour to formulate
the said schedule in the form of
appropriate admission and procedural
rules. The judgment further provides that
until the State Government makes such
rules, the said procedure shall be applied.
It also provides that same procedure will
mutatis mutandis apply for the academic
session 2013- 2014 and thereafter.

10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in its
subsequent judgment dated 13.12.2012 in
the case of Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila
Mahavidyalaya vs. State of U.P. and
others, reported in (2013) 2 SCC 617
reiterated the schedule mentioned in the
case
of
College
of
Professional
Education and others (supra) in relation
to admissions, recognition, affiliation and
commencement of B.Ed course. In this
case
Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
even
observed that in case of disobedience of
the said schedule or any attempt to
circumvent the judgment of Supreme
Court
and
the
directions
contained
therein, the person concerned shall
become liable for proceedings under the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and for
disciplinary action as well.

11. Paragraph 91.1 and 91.2
contained in the said judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Maa
Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya
(supra) are extracted herein below:-

"91.1. The Schedule stated in
College of Professional Education and in
this judgment in relation to admissions,
recognition,
affiliation
and
commencement of courses shall be strictly
adhered to by all concerned including
NCTE, the State Government and the
University/examining body.

91.2.
In
the
event
of
disobedience of schedule and/or any
attempt of overreach or circumvent the
judgment of this Court and the directions
contained herein, the person concerned
shall render himself or herself liable for
proceedings under the Contempt of
Courts
Act,
1971
and
even
for
departmental
disciplinary
action
in
accordance with law."

12.

Admittedly,
no
separate
procedural rules governing admission to
B.Ed course in the State of U.P. have yet
been formulated by the State Government
and accordingly there cannot be any
ambiguity that the schedule formulated by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
College of Professional Education and
others (supra) as reiterated in the case of
Maa
Vaishno
Devi
Mahila
Mahavidyalaya (supra) is binding not
only on the State Government but also on
the Nodal University which conducted the
Joint Entrance Examination and also on
the
Universities
and
the
Colleges/Institutions where admissions
for the academic session 2013-2014 were
made.

13. There cannot be any quarrel that
by operation of Article 141 of the
Constitution of India whatever is laid
down by Hon'ble Supreme Court becomes
law of the land and that its decision are
binding on all. The law laid down by
Hon'ble Supreme Court is applicable to
every person including those who are not
parties to that order.

14. Apart from the provision of
Article 141 of Constitution of India which
provides that law declared by Hon'ble
1336 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Supreme Court shall be binding on all,
there is yet another provision in the
Constitution of India in the form of
Article 144 which needs to be taken note
of at this juncture itself.

15. Article 144 declares that "All
Authorities, Civil and Judicial in the
territory of India shall act in aid of the
Supreme Court". Thus, every authority in
the country, without exception, is bound
by the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court.

16. To reflect as to whether
admissions in the B.Ed course in the
academic session 2013-2014 made after
16.09.2013 can be said to be lawful
entitling such students to appear in the
examination and seek declaration of their
result, we find it necessary to examine the
Government Orders dated 26.09.2013 and
08.10.2013
in
the
background
of
directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court
issued in the case of College of
Professional
Education
and
others
(supra) as reiterated in the case of Maa
Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya
(supra). As per schedule in the case of
College of Professional Education and
others (supra), admission on the basis of
extended second counselling could be
made only till 14.08.2013. The direction
contained in paragraph 4 (vi) (b) of the
judgment in the case of College of
Professional
Education
and
others
(supra), however permitted to fill up seats
which
remained
vacant
even
after
14.08.2013
by
following
the
course/procedure given therein. As per the
said procedure, the University was to
provide students from wait list to fill up
vacant seats but such entire process could
be completed within ten days from
14.08.2013 i.e by 24.08.2013.

17. As a matter of fact, an
interlocutory application, namely, IA No.
109-110 of 2013 was filed by an
Institution i.e. DAV College at MeerutHapur Road, District Meerut in Civil
Appeal No.5914 of 2011 (College of
Professional
Education
and
others,
decided on 22.07.2011) with the prayer
that the said institution be permitted to
admit students in B.Ed course against
vacant seats. However, Hon'ble Supreme
Court after considering the said prayer
passed an order on 25.11.2013 whereby
interlocutory application was dismissed.
The order dated 25.11.2013 passed by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in IA No.109-110
is reproduced hereunder:-

"We have not been granting
any further relief to any party in case of
admissions for the academic session
2013-2014
after
16.09.2013.
These
interlocutory
applications
are
also
dismissed.

It will however be open for the
applicant to have the concerned court
including this Court for further relief for
the academic session 2014-2015."

18. Thus, at the most, admission to
B.Ed course in the State of U.P. for the
academic session 2013-2014 could have
been made only till 16.09.2013 and any
admission made thereafter would be in
derogation of the directions issued by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment
dated 22.07.2011 in the case of College of
Professional
Education
and
others
(supra). The decision of the State
Government contained in the Government
Order dated 26.09.2013 is thus to be
considered in light of the aforesaid.

19.

While
examining
the
Government Orders dated 26.09.2013 and
2 All. Smt. Rinki Vs State of U.P. & Ors.
1337
08.10.2013, we may also record that State
of U.P. filed Miscellaneous Application
bearing IA No.1216 of 2017 in the case of
College of Professional Education and
others (supra) which was already decided
on 22.07.2011 and prayed therein to
provide that this Court shall be free to
pass appropriate orders in certain pending
writ petitions without being influenced by
the order dated 25.11.2013 passed in IA
No.109-110
of
2013.
Another
Miscellaneous Application bearing IA
No. 1243 of 2017 was filed by a
candidate-Rupam Sharma, in the case of
College of Professional Education and
others (supra) decided on 22.07.2011
where IA No.109-110 of 2017 were also
dismissed on 25.11.2013, with the prayer
that directions be issued that the order
dated 25.11.2013 was not applicable to
students
who
had
taken
admission
pursuant to the Government Order dated
08.10.2013. Both these interlocutory
applications i.e. IA No.1216 of 2017 and
1243 of 2017 were also dismissed by
Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order
dated 10.09.2018 which is quoted herein
below:-

"Upon hearing the counsel, the
Court made the following order.

The applications are dismissed.

M.A.
Nos.1216/2017
and
1243/2017 are disposed of accordingly."

20. The Government Order dated
26.09.2013 has been attempted to be
justified by learned Advocate General
appearing on behalf of State of U.P. by
referring to the directions issued by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 4
(vi) (e) of the judgment in the case of
College of Professional Education and
others
(supra).
In
support
of
his
submission, learned Advocate General
has submitted that the said paragraph in
the judgment of College of Professional
Education and others (supra) permitted
admission in B.Ed course even after
24.08.2013
in
case
any
unforeseen
difficulty would arise in filling up vacant
seats despite following the procedure.
According to learned Advocate General
the said directions issued by Hon'ble
Supreme Court provided that institutions
shall be entitled to approach the State
Government for filling up their seats who
would
arrange
to
provide
selected
candidates from the wait list pool.

21. The direction of Hon'ble
Supreme Court contained in paragraph 4
(vi) (e) in the case of College of
Professional
Education
and
others
(supra) is extracted herein below:-

"(e)
That
in
case
any
unforeseen difficulty arises regarding
filling up vacant seats in the concerned
colleges despite strictly following the
procedure agreed, even after 24.08.2011,
the colleges will be entitled to approach,
for filling up their vacant seats, to
Principal Secretary/Secretary of the
Department
of
Higher
Education,
Government of UP who will arrange to
provide selected candidates from the
wait-list pool within 3 days from receipt
of application to fill up those vacant
seats".

22. It is true that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court by the said directions
permitted
admission
even
after
24.08.2013, however it was subject to the
condition that any unforeseen difficulty
would have arisen regarding filling up
vacant seats. The said direction further
provides that in such an eventuality, the
colleges
shall
approach
the
State
1338 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Government for filling up their vacant
seats and thereafter the State Government
shall
arrange
to
provide
selected
candidates from the wait list pool, that
too, within three days from receipt of
application from the colleges to fill up the
vacant seats. There is nothing on record
which reveals, neither is it reflected from
the Government Orders dated 26.09.2013
and 08.10.2013, that colleges had made
any
such
request
to
the
Principal
Secretary/Secretary of the Department of
Higher Education, Government of U.P. as
envisaged in the directions contained in
paragraph 4 (vi) (e) in the case of College
of Professional Education and others
(supra).

23. In this view of the matter,
submission made by learned Advocate
General that the Government Order dated
26.09.2013 was issued in light of the
directions contained in paragraph 4 (vi)
(e) in the case of College of Professional
Education and others (supra), is not
acceptable; rather merits rejection.

24. The Government Order dated
26.09.2013 refers to paragraph 4 (vi) (b)
of the judgment in the case of College of
Professional
Education
and
others
(supra) which provides that even after
counselling
is
over
the
University
concerned will continue to allot the
candidates from the wait list against
vacant seats till all seats in the college are
filled up. However, the said directions, in
our opinion, could not be construed by the
State Government to make the process of
admission in B.Ed course an unending
one. The schedule as fixed in the said case
was to be followed in every circumstance
and after 24.08.2013 no admission could
have been made except by following the
procedure
as
provided
by
Hon'ble
Supreme Court in paragraph 4 (vi) (e) in
its judgment in the case of College of
Professional
Education
and
others
(supra).

25. Hon'ble Single Judge in the case
of Ankit Kumar has relied upon a
communication dated 26.11.2018 issued
by
the
Special
Secretary
in
the
Department of Higher Education and has
observed that on the basis of said
communication
learned
counsel
representing the State of U.P. submitted
that the State Government did not have
any objection in case result of the
petitioners of said case (bunch of writ
petitions leading writ petition being Ankit
Kumar and others vs. State of U.P) was
declared by the University. The judgment
dated 03.12.2018 in the case of Ankit
Kumar is based on the statement made by
learned State counsel on the basis of
communication dated 28.11.2018. The
communication dated 28.11.2018 was
issued
by
the
Special
Secretary,
Government of U.P. in the Department of
Higher Education and is addressed to the
Chief Standing Counsel who represented
the State Government in the said case.
Paragraph 2 of the said communication
makes reference of order of Hon'ble
Supreme Court dated 25.11.2013 while
dismissing
Interlocutory
Application
nos.109-110 of 2013 by observing therein
that no further relief to any party in case
of admission after 16.09.2013 had been
granted.
Paragraph
2
of
the
communication
dated
28.11.2018
is
extracted herein below:-

"ek0 loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk flfoy
vihy l0a 5914@2011 esa fnukad 25-11-2013 dks
;g fu.kZ; ikfjr fd;k x;k fd fdlh Hkh i{kdkj dks
'kSf{kd l= 2013&14 ds fy, 16-09-2013 ds ckn
dksbZ vU; vuqrks"k iznku ugha fd;k tk;sxkA ek0
2 All. Smt. Rinki Vs State of U.P. & Ors.
1339
mPpre U;k;ky; ds vkns'k fnukad 22-07-2011 ds
vuqikyu esa jkT; ljdkj }kjk ch0 ,M0 dh fjDr
lhVksa ds izos'k ds fy, vfUre frfFk 15-10-2013
fu/kkZfjr dh x;h FkhA bl fu.kZ; ds QyLo:i
fnuakd 15-10-2013 rd vusd Nk=ksa dks fofHkUu
egkfo|ky;ksa esa izos'k izkIr dj fy;k x;k FkkA
egkfo|ky;ksa esa fnuakd 16-09-2013 ,oa 15-10-2013
ds e/; izos'k ik;s Nk=ksa dh ijh{kk vk;ksftr ugh gks
ldh] ftlls {kqC/k gksdj Nk=ksa }kjk ek0 mPp
U;k;ky; esa dkQh la[;k esa fjV ;kfpdk;sa ;ksftr
dh x;h gSA bu fjV ;kfpdkvksa dh vxz.kh fjV
;kfpdk 4289 1⁄4,e0 ,l01⁄2@2014] vafdr dqekj o
vU; cuke jkT; o vU; esa foHkkx dh vksj ls 'kiFk
i= o vuqiwjd 'kiFk i= nkf[ky fd;s tk pqds gSA
bl
laca/k
esa
'kklu
ds
i=
la[;k&fjV
09@lRrj&3&2014] fnuakd 20-01-2015 ,oa i=
la[;k&fjV 19@lRrj&3&2015Мw 1⁄4351⁄2@2012
fnuakd 24-04-2015 }kjk iwoZ esa 'kklu ds i{k ls
voxr djk;k tk pqdk gSA"

26. The said communication, after
referring to the order dated 25.11.2013,
further recites that various students had
taken admission even after 16.09.2013 till
15.10.2013, however their examination
was not conducted whereupon they filed
writ petitions and that in such petitions,
including in the case of Ankit Kumar,
stand of the State had been submitted.

27.

When
we
examine
the
instructions given to the State counsel by
the Department of Higher Education,
State of U.P. vide its communication
dated 28.11.2018 what we find is that it
does not in categorical and unambiguous
terms state that the State had no objection
in case results of the petitioners of the
said petitions were declared by the
University concerned.

28. Now coming to the first question
referred to us by Hon'ble Single Judge, we
may observe that in our constitutional
scheme though Hon'ble Supreme Court
and the High Courts are both courts of
record and this Court is not a Court
subordinate to the Supreme Court, however
the provisions of constitution, especially the
appellate jurisdiction assigned to Supreme
Court, give a superior place to the Supreme
Court over High Courts in the hierarchy. So
far as the appellate jurisdiction vested in the
courts in our country is concerned, in all
matters, civil and criminal, Supreme Court is
the highest court of appeal and it is the final
interpreter of law. Under Article 141, the law
declared by the Supreme Court is final and is
binding on all courts including this Court.
Under Article 144, all authorities, civil and
judicial, which would include High Courts as
well, are to act in aid of the Supreme Court. In
the hierarchical judicial system envisaged by
our Constitution, the Supreme Court is placed
over the High Courts vertically. As a superior
forum it has the jurisdiction to annul or
modify or affirm any order or judgment which
may be rendered by this Court. The corrective
jurisdiction inherently encompasses in its fold
power to issue direction to be followed by and
is binding on the forum below. Any failure on
the part of lower forum to obey or carry out
such directions issued by higher forum may
lead to destruction of the hierarchical system
in administration of justice.

29. In this regard, we would like to
refer to a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Bharat Builder Pvt
Ltd and others vs. Parijat Flat Owners
Coop. Housing Society Ltd., reported in
(1999) 5 SCC 622. The said judgment is a
very short one. However, its reference in
this case suffices to highlight the purpose
for which makers of our constitution
made Article 144 part of the Constitution.
The judgment in the case of Bharat
Builder Pvt Ltd and others (supra) is
extracted herein below:-

"1. The respondent appears.

2. Leave granted.
1340 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

3. The order under challenge
was passed by a Division Bench of the
High Court at Bombay on a review
application
in
the
following
circumstances.

4. On 19-12-1997, on a special
leave petition [SLP (C) No. 22776 of
1997] filed by the appellant against the
respondent, the following order was
passed:

"The Division Bench of the High
Court at Bombay has, in the judgment and
order under appeal, noted that the
petitioner and the respondent had in an
earlier writ petition, jointly filed, pleaded
that the deed whose construction is
relevant here 'is a sale and not a lease'.
The High Court took the view that this
pleading was sufficient to reach the
conclusion that the deed 'is an agreement
for a sale'.

We
have
been
shown
the
relevant averments in the earlier writ
petition. It appears that the High Court
has not considered whether the admission
is of a sale or an agreement to sell. We
think that, in the circumstances, the
petitioner should move the Division
Bench of the High Court in this behalf, by
the convenient means of a review petition.

We make it clear that the High
Court shall decide, after hearing parties
on the review petition, whether the
admission is of a completed sale or of an
agreement to sell and whether, by reason
thereof, the provisions of the Maharashtra
Ownership
Flats
(Regulation
and
Promotion
of
Construction,
Sale,
Management and Transfer) Act will
apply.
Regardless
of
the
technical
limitations of the review petition, these
questions shall be addressed.

Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned
Counsel for the petitioner, states that the
review petition shall be moved within 4
weeks. Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned
Counsel for the respondent, states that,
pending the review petition, no steps shall
be taken to execute the decree that is
under challenge.

The
SLP
is
disposed
of
accordingly."

(emphasis supplied)

5. The review petition was
heard by the two learned Judges who had
passed the order which was the subjectmatter of the earlier SLP. The order on
the review petition states

"It
is
contended
that
the
Supreme Court while disposing of the
above said SLP has called upon this
Court to decide. In interpreting the
document Exh. E whether the admission
made by the parties construing the
document Exh. E in the earlier writ
petition is of a completed sale or an
agreement to sale and whether by reason
thereof the provisions of the Maharashtra
Ownership
Flats
(Regulation
and
Promotion
of
Construction,
Sale,
Management and Transfer) Act will
apply. In fact the aforesaid question was
not at all a question raised in the suit in
the trial court or before this Court. In fact
the main question that was posed in the
appeal was as to whether Exh. E was
properly construed by the lower court as
one of agreement to sell or as indenture of
lease".

The
Division
Bench
has,
therefore, come to the conclusion that

"rightly
or
wrongly
an
impression
has been
created
while
reading our judgment that we have solely
relied upon the judgment of this Court in
previous writ petition in interpreting the
document Exh. E. This misunderstanding
must have been crept in partly due to
some clerical mistake occurred in some
2 All. Smt. Rinki Vs State of U.P. & Ors.
1341
places in the judgment by using phrases
agreement for sale instead of agreement
to sell. However, the issue posed to be
examined as directed by the Supreme
Court is not the issue which was raised in
the trial court or the Appellate Court and
it is not permissible for us to go into such
a fresh issue in this review application,
first time. In view of this we do not find
any merit in the contentions of the
applicant and review application is,
therefore, liable to be rejected."

(emphasis supplied)

6. The Division Bench has not
read the order that we passed on 19-121997. We have asked the Division Bench
to consider the questions set out in the
third paragraph of the order. To enable it
to do so we have asked the appellants to
move it 'by the convenient means of a
review
petition'.
We
have
ordered:
'Regardless of the technical limitations of
the review petition these questions shall
be addressed.' Nonetheless, it has not
done so.

7. It is necessary to point out to
the High Court that the Constitution of
India, in Article 144, requires all
authorities, civil and judicial in the
territory of India to act in aid of the
Supreme Court.

8. It was imperative for the High
Court, to have decided the questions that
it was required to decide by this Court's
order dated 19-12-1997. For this reason,
very fairly, the respondents do not object
to the order under challenge being setaside the review petition being sent back
to the High Court.

9. The appeal is allowed. The
order under challenge is set aside. The
review petition is restored to the file of the
High Court to be heard and decided
afresh. In so deciding, the High Court
shall
scrupulously
follow
the
requirements of the order of this Court
dated 19-12-1997. In the circumstances
aforestated, it becomes necessary to
require that the review petition shall be
listed before learned Judges other than
those that passed the order under
challenge.

10. Pending further orders no
steps shall be taken to execute the decree.

11. No order as to costs."

30. In the said case, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court had required the High
Court to consider certain issues and
questions in review petition regardless of
the technical limitations of review,
however the High Court dismissed the
review petition by observing that, "the
issue posed to be examined as directed by
the Supreme Court is not an issue which
was raised in the trial court or the
appellate court and it is not permissible
for us to go into such a fresh issue in this
review petition, first time. In view of this,
we do not find any merit in the contention
of the applicant and review application is,
therefore, liable to be rejected".

31. Hon'ble Supreme Court when
considered the aforesaid judgment passed
by High Court in review petition, it
observed that it was imperative for the
High Court to have decided the questions
that it was required to decide by Hon'ble
Supreme Court. While setting aside the
order of the High Court, Hon'ble Supreme
Court also reminded the High Court of
Article 144 of the Constitution of India
which requires all authorities, civil and
judicial in the territory of India to act in
aid of the Supreme Court.

32. Failure to comply with the
direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court has
1342 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
always been deprecated. In this regard,
reference may be had to paragraph 9 of
the judgment in the case of Bharat Earth
Movers vs. Commissioner of Income
Tax, Karnataka, reported in (2000) 6
SCC 645, which is extracted herein
below:-

"9.