# Soni Verma & Ors v. U.O.I. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 1424
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-04-22
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 3075 of 2024
- **Bench:** Shree Prakash Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/soni-verma-ors-v-u-o-i-ors-51695
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A.S.G.I.,
C.S.C.,
Dhirendra
Pratap
Singh,
Sudhanshu Chauhan, Umesh Singh

Examination-'Nemo
Alterius
Facto
Pragravari Debet' Petitioners are selected
candidates-
through
the
valid
counselling
process -allocated the respondent institutionalso are studying over there-dispute arose when
it came into the knowledge of the petitioners
that their names are not uploaded on the portal
of NIC/NCISM -and they are being deprived of
to appear in the examination-aggrieved - instant
petition- no fault on the part of the petitioners-
as they are duly selected and have persuaded
their courses -due to some technical fault- their
names could not be uploaded on the portalmaxim 'Nemo Alterius Facto Pragravari Debet'
says
that
no
one
should
be
responsible/burdened by the act of another-for
the fault of institution or any authority- the
petitioners/students cannot be thrown to sufferdirections issued.

Writ Petition allowed. (E-9)

## Text

1424 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
36. The writ petition is allowed
accordingly.

37. However, the liberty is given to
the
CBSE
to
proceed
while
serving/supplying the copy of the report
upon the petitioners' Institution, if it so
desires.

38. No order as to costs.

39. Consigned to the records.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 1424
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.04.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Writ-C No. 3075 of 2024

Soni Verma & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sudeep Kumar, Avdhesh Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I.,
C.S.C.,
Dhirendra
Pratap
Singh,
Sudhanshu Chauhan, Umesh Singh

Examination-'Nemo
Alterius
Facto
Pragravari Debet' Petitioners are selected
candidates-
through
the
valid
counselling
process -allocated the respondent institutionalso are studying over there-dispute arose when
it came into the knowledge of the petitioners
that their names are not uploaded on the portal
of NIC/NCISM -and they are being deprived of
to appear in the examination-aggrieved - instant
petition- no fault on the part of the petitioners-
as they are duly selected and have persuaded
their courses -due to some technical fault- their
names could not be uploaded on the portalmaxim 'Nemo Alterius Facto Pragravari Debet'
says
that
no
one
should
be
responsible/burdened by the act of another-for
the fault of institution or any authority- the
petitioners/students cannot be thrown to sufferdirections issued.

Writ Petition allowed. (E-9)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shree Prakash
Singh, J.)

1. At the very outset, counsel for the
petitioners submits that he may be allowed
to implead the Senior Director (I.T.),
National Informatics Centre, U.P. State
Centre, 3rd floor Yojna Bhawan, 9- Sarojini
Naidu Marg, Lucknow.

2. Counsels appearing for opposite
parties have no objection to the contention
aforesaid.

3. In view of the above counsel for
the petitioners is permitted to implead the
Senior Director (I.T.), National Informatics
Centre, U.P. State Centre, 3rd floor Yojna
Bhawan, 9- Sarojini Naidu Marg, Lucknow
as opposite party no. 9 in the array of
opposite parties, during course of the day.

4. Heard Ms Radhika Verma,
advocate, holding brief of Sri Sudeep Kumar,
Sri A.K. Pandey, Sri Shivendra Singh and Sri
Sreesh
Srivastava,
counsels
for
the
petitioners, Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh,
learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State
and Sri Vivek Shukla, additional chief
standing counsel for the State, Sri Umesh
Singh, counsel for opposite party no. 1 and 9,
Sri Devak Vardhan, counsel for opposite
party no. 4, Sri D.P. Singh for opposite party
no. 7 and Sri Jai Prakash Mishra, advocate,
holding brief of Sri Sudhanshu Chauhan,
counsel for opposite party no. 8

5. The present petition is preferred
seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari
4 All. Soni Verma & Ors. Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1425
quashing the decision if any, taken by
National Commission for Indian System of
Medicine for not updating the detail/data of
the petitioners on the official website of
National Commission for Indian System of
Medicine or Uttar Pradesh Ayush UnderGraduate
Counseling
Board,
while
summoning the records and further writ of
mandamus is also sought commanding the
respondent nos. 4 and 6 to update the
details and data of the petitioners on the
official website of respondent nos. 4 and 6.

6. The factual matrix of the case is
that in year 2020, the Central Government
promulgated the National Commission for
Indian
System
Medical
Act,
2020
(hereinafter referred to as 'Act 2020') for
improving the access to the students and
thereafter, on 06.02.2023, the National
Commission
for
Indian
System
of
Medicine(hereinafter
referred
to
as
'NCISM') vide certificate dated 06.02.2023,
granted the permission to the respondent
no. 8 institution for establishing new
Ayurveda Medical College, named as RGS
Medical College and Research Centre at
village Karaundi Post- Itaunja District
Lucknow and for the academic session
2022-2023, the institution was permitted to
run 100 seats in undergraduate (BAMS)
course
and
thereafter,
the
institution
approached for inclusion of its name in the
under graduate counseling, under section
14 of the Act, 2020.

7. All the petitioners said to be
appeared in the National Eligibility cum
Entrance Test conducted by NCISM
through the allotment letters issued by the
Member Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Ayush
Undergraduate
Counseling
Board
(hereinafter referred to as 'Board') and the
petitioners have been allotted the institution
in question under the mop-up round.
Thereafter, the petitioners pursued their
course for the academic session 2022-2023,
but allegedly due to some technical fault,
the names of the petitioners could not be
uploaded on the official website of NCISM
thereafter, the respondent institution wrote
letter on 19.10.2023, while approaching the
Director/Member Secretary of the Board
for uploading the details of 7 students,
including the petitioners, but nothing was
done. Subsequently, on 19.01.2024, the
Director/Member Secretary Homeopathy,
U.P. wrote a letter to respondent no. 2,
while transcribing therein, the names of 15
candidates/students, including the present
petitioners, but no decision is taken by the
State, rather on 14.03.2024, the State
Government intimated to the Director
Homeopathy, U.P. that since as per the
Government
Order
10.12.2022,
no
proceeding is required to be done by the
State and therefore, the matter was again
remitted back to the Director Homeopathy
to take decision on its own.

8. In the meantime, the petitioners
were kept on writing to the different
authorities for uploading their names, but
that was of no avail, even the letter has also
been written to NIC on 04.10.2023, but the
request was declined on the ground that
since, counseling of 2023-2024 is started
and therefore, it is not possible to upload
the names of the students/petitioners.
Under
the
aforesaid
exigencies,
the
petitioners have approached this Court
while preferring the instant petition.

9. The contention of counsel for
the petitioners is that the petitioners are
validly selected candidates through the
National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test
conducted by NCISM and thereafter, they
are entitled to pursue course without any
interruption. He next added that it is
1426 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
undisputed that the petitioners are inducted
properly through the Board, adopting due
course, and they have also started their
study with respondent institution i.e.
opposite party no. 8, but it seems that due
to some negligence on the part of the
institution, the names of petitioners could
not be uploaded on the portal and therefore,
it was left to be uploaded by the NIC as
well and therefore, the data could not reach
to the office of NCISM.

10. He argued that there is no fault
on the part of the petitioners as they are
duly selected through 'Board 2022' and it is
nobody's case that the petitioners are not
duly inducted/selected. He also added that
the petitioners being the students are
suffering hard and their academic carrier is
on stake therefore, submission is that the
appropriate authority may be directed to
upload the names of the petitioners on the
portal/website of NCISM and the NCISM
may further be directed to proceed
accordingly.

11. On the other hand, Sri Devak
Vardhan, counsel appearing for the NCISM
has submitted that only the name of three
candidates are found which are different
than the actual students/candidates who are
claiming themselves to be the student of the
institution. He added that NCISM has no
objection, if any technical fault is corrected
by appropriate authority.

12. Sri Vivek Shukla, additional
chief standing counsel for the State on the
basis of instructions submits that it is
undisputed that after counseling, the
petitioners are allocated the institution i.e.
opposite party no. 8, in mop-up round of
the counseling 2022-2023 and since, the
institution did not upload the names of the
petitioners on portal, well within time
provided by the Counseling Authority and
therefore, after completion of the time
period, the same was closed and this fact
with respect to non-uploading the names of
the petitioners came at very belated stage
and therefore, it was not possible for NIC
to upload those data as per the procedure
prescribed.
He
also
added
that
the
petitioners themselves have admitted the
fact that opposite party no. 8 i.e institution
itself has failed to upload their names on
portal.

13. Considering the submission of
counsel for the parties and after perusal of
material placed on record, it transpires that
the thing which is undisputed in between
the parties is that the petitioners are
selected candidates through the valid
counselling process by the counseling
board and they have been allocated the
respondent institution and they also are
studying over there.

14. The dispute arose when it came
into the knowledge of the petitioners that
since, their names are not uploaded on the
portal of NIC/NCISM and they are being
deprived of to appear in the examination,
therefore, being aggrieved they approached
this Court by way of filing the instant
petition.

15. Since, this borne out that there
is no fault on the part of the petitioners as
they are duly selected and have persuaded
their courses and due to some technical
fault, their names could not be uploaded on
the portal, and the maxim 'Nemo Alterius
Facto Pragravari Debet' says that no one
should be responsible/burdened by the act
of another and thus, for the fault of
institution
or
any
authority,
the
petitioners/students cannot be thrown to
suffer.
4 All. M/S Shrasty Computer Solution & Tech. Lko. Vs. Employee Provident Org. & Ors.
1427
16. This Court has also taken the
note of fact that the Director Homeopathy
has also written a letter to the State
Government mentioning the names of the
15
candidates
including
the
present
petitioners and brought the facts into the
knowledge of the State Government that
due to some technical flaw the names of
these petitioners could not be uploaded on
portal, but in response thereto, the State
Government vide letter dated 14.03.2024
has observed that as per the Government
Order dated 10.12.2021, nothing remains to
be done by the State Government and thus,
there became a deadlock.

17. In view of the above-said
submissions and discussions and to resolve
the controversy at this Stage, the opposite
party no. 9 as well as the NCISM, are
hereby directed to upload the names of the
petitioners on the portal/website meant
therefor, and further, do as needful.

18. It is further provided that the
aforesaid proceedings shall be carried out
by the NIC and NCISM, within a period of
two weeks from the date of certified copy
of this order produced before it.

19.

With
the
aforesaid
observations, the instant petition is hereby
allowed.

20. Appearance of Dr. Raj Kumar
Kasyap is hereby exempted.

21. Counsel appearing for the
opposite parties shall communicate this
order
to
the
respective
authorities
forthwith.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 1427
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.04.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ-C No. 3277 of 2024

M/S Shrasty Computer Solution & Tech.
Lko. ...Petitioner
Versus
Employee Provident Org. & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Jai Narayan Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Akhilesh Pratap Singh, C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-Employees Provident funds
and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,1952Section 7A-The petitioner challenged the
dismissal of appeal by the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal(CGIT)-
The petitioner failed to file the appeal
within the prescribed period of 60 days
which
could
only
be
extended
by
another 60 days under Rule 7(2) of the
EPF Appellate Tribuanl(Procedure)Rules,
1997-Despite a previous writ petition
allowing a 15-day extension to file the
appeal,
the
petitioner
missed
this
extended deadline as well-The appeal
was dismissed for being time-barred, as
the
tribunal
lacks
jurisdiction
to
condone delays beyond the statutory
maximum
of
120
days-The
court
observed
that
the
petitioner's
explanation (illness) for the delay was
deemed inadequate since the appeal
was
filed
even
after
recovery-the
petitioner failed to deposit 75% of the
amount due, as mandated by Rule 7(2),
a prerequisites for filing such appealsThe writ petition is dismissed as there
were no valid grounds to extend the
limitation further or to waive procedural
requirements.(Para 1 to 20)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited: