# Suvidya Yadav and others v. State of

- **Citation:** (2011) 1 ILRA 463
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-03-03
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12754 of 2011
- **Bench:** A.P. Shahi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/suvidya-yadav-and-others-v-state-of-41885
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of India Art. 226-Petitioner
running
Private
School-un-aided
institution challenge the validity of Govt.
Order
relating
to
self-centerexamination center can not be claimed
as matter of right-apart from that no
right of manager going to be affectedcan not be allowed to challenge the
Policy-which is sole discretion of Board.

Held: Para 9

The
impugned
provisions
are
all
regulatory in nature, inasmuch as, they
advance
the
cause
of
holding
examinations and merely because the
said provisions have either been misused
or not put to use or not having been
strictly complied with, the same cannot
464 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
be
declared
to
be
ultra
vires
the
provisions
of
Article
14
of
the
Constitution of India. The independent
cases relating to such allotments can be
challenged by aggrieved persons and not
by the association. The Government
Orders, which have been issued, are in
consonance with the provisions of 1921
Act and they do not travel beyond the
scope of the powers conferred on the
Board under the aforesaid Act. The
Government Orders do not offend any
public policy. The institutions have no
right to claim that they should function
as
centres.
The
issue
relating
to
discrimination of not making some of the
institutions as centres cannot lead to the
conclusion that the action of the Board is
arbitrary.
Case law discussed:
2003 (1) ESC 347; 2002 (3) AWC 2271.

## Text

1 All V.V.P. Welfare Association V. State of U.P. and others
463
are 7 vacancies of Class-IV employee on
the regular side and there are 9 vacancies
of Class-IV employees which are reserved
for appointment of retrenched employees.
Admittedly,
as
against
7
regular
vacancies,
candidates
strictly
in
accordance with merit list have been
appointed. Petitioners are lower in merit
viz-a-viz
all
the
seven
candidates
appointed. With the appointment of 7
candidates against regular vacancies, the
select list preprepared for the purpose lost
its life. The same was rightly canceled
under the order dated 04th December,
2000. The controversy in that regard
stands settled by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Rakhi Ray and
others vs. High Court of Delhi and
others; (2010) 2 SCC 637.

9. So far as the vacancies reserved
for retrenched employees are concerned,
the petitioners can have no claim as they
do not belong to said category. With
regard to the appointments offered by way
of promotion from the post of Chowkidar
and Mali to that of Process Server to the
persons named in paragraph 12 of the writ
petition, this Court is of the opinion that
the petitioners not being employee of
judgeship
cannot
object
to
such
promotion.

10. In the facts and circumstances of
the case, no mandamus as prayed for by
the petitioners can be issued.

Counsel for the petitioners has
placed reliance upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of
Suvidya Yadav and others vs. State of
Haryana and others;.(2002) 10 SCC 269
and Sandeep Singh vs. State of Haryana
and another; (2002) 10 SCC 549.

11. The judgments relied upon by
the counsel for the petitioners are clearly
distinguishable in the facts of the case, as
it has already been recorded that all the
advertised vacancy within the category
against which the petitioners had applied,
had been filled by the candidates more
meritorious to the petitioners.

Writ petition is dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.03.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.P. SHAHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12754 of 2011

Vittavihin Vidyalaya Prabhandhak
Welfare Association

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Brij Raj

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India Art. 226-Petitioner
running
Private
School-un-aided
institution challenge the validity of Govt.
Order
relating
to
self-centerexamination center can not be claimed
as matter of right-apart from that no
right of manager going to be affectedcan not be allowed to challenge the
Policy-which is sole discretion of Board.

Held: Para 9

The
impugned
provisions
are
all
regulatory in nature, inasmuch as, they
advance
the
cause
of
holding
examinations and merely because the
said provisions have either been misused
or not put to use or not having been
strictly complied with, the same cannot
464 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
be
declared
to
be
ultra
vires
the
provisions
of
Article
14
of
the
Constitution of India. The independent
cases relating to such allotments can be
challenged by aggrieved persons and not
by the association. The Government
Orders, which have been issued, are in
consonance with the provisions of 1921
Act and they do not travel beyond the
scope of the powers conferred on the
Board under the aforesaid Act. The
Government Orders do not offend any
public policy. The institutions have no
right to claim that they should function
as
centres.
The
issue
relating
to
discrimination of not making some of the
institutions as centres cannot lead to the
conclusion that the action of the Board is
arbitrary.
Case law discussed:
2003 (1) ESC 347; 2002 (3) AWC 2271.

(Delivered by Hon'ble A.P. Sahi, J.)

1.

The
petitioner-association
claiming itself to have been formed for the
interest of the management of secondary
schools recognized under the provisions of
the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921
(hereinafter referred to as the '1921 Act')
has filed this writ petition challenging the
Government Order dated 10th September,
2010 and the amended order dated
12.11.2010 relating to the formation of
centres for holding examinations of the
Board
of
U.P.
High
School
and
Intermediate Examinations. The claim in
essence is that the State Government has
taken arbitrary decisions on the basis of the
impugned provisions of the Government
Orders which violates the right and equal
treatment to the institutions for operating
as centres.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has relied on certain decisions to advanced
his submissions and he contends that a
judicial review is permissible.

3. The dispute in essence is that the
petitioner-association has stood up for the
cause of self finance institutions and also
such
institutions,
who
want
their
institutions to function as self centres, for
the students of Class-X and Class-XII, and
conduct the examinations on behalf of the
Board. This submission is based on the
Government Orders to contend that the
respondents themselves have formulated a
policy to provide self centres particularly
to such institutions which are catering to
the
need
of
female
students.
The
respondents
have
violated
and
discriminated the provisions as against the
members of the petitioner-association by
either not allotting centres or refusing to
allot centres on arbitrary grounds.

4. Other submissions have been
raised that centres have been sent far away
at a considerable distance, which is also
causing inconvenience to the students and
hence the Government Orders deserve to
be struck down to the extent as prayed for.

5. Having heard learned counsel for
the petitioner and the learned Standing
Counsel, the Board of High School and
Intermediate
Examinations
is
an
autonomous body created under the
provisions
of
the
U.P.
Intermediate
Education Act, 1921. Section 7 of the 1921
Act empowers the Board to conduct
examinations for which it is empowered to
do all such other acts and things as may be
requisite in order to further the objects of
the Board for regulating and supervising
the examinations as the act empowers the
Board to do everything essential for the
purpose by necessary implication. It also
empowers the Board to fix examination
centres. A centre has been defined under
Section 2(aa) of 1921 Act as follows:
1 All V.V.P. Welfare Association V. State of U.P. and others
465

2
(aa).
"
"Centre"
means
an
institution or a place fixed by the Board for
the purposes of holding its examinations
and includes the entire premises attached
thereto;

6. This definition was introduced be
way of an amendment in the year 1959
itself as it was necessary to empower the
Board to hold examinations at a particular
centre by fixing the same and appointing a
superintendent for conducting the said
examinations. The power to regulate is,
therefore, implicit with regard to the
location of centres.

7. This Court in the case of
Jamiluddin,
Manager,
Managing
Committee, Saghir Fatima Mohammadia
Girls Inter College Agra Vs. Secretary
Board of High School and Intermediate
Allahabad and others reported in 2003 (1)
ESC 347 has held as follows:

"While parting with the case, I would
like to note that no Manager has any right
to challenge the selection of centres. The
Court takes judicial notice of the fact that
self
centres
are
places
of
well
manipulation and designed centres for
permitting candidates to use unfair means
by charging money and that is sole interest
of the Managers of such Institutions. U.P.
Board and District Level Committees
should be given free hand for selecting
centres and this Court should not,
particularly in exercise of its jurisdiction
under Article 226, Constitution of India,
interfere with the same as it is an
administrative decision. It goes without
saying that this Court has always
jurisdiction
to
interfere
with
the
Administrative orders in the rarest of rare
cases,
provided
petitioner
furnishes
sufficient material to show that such
decision has been taken arbitrarily or with
some ulterior motives."

8.

The
petitioner-association,
therefore, cannot contend on behalf of the
Managers of the institutions that they have
an absolute right to maintain this writ
petition for the said cause.

9. The impugned provisions are all
regulatory in nature, inasmuch as, they
advance the cause of holding examinations
and merely because the said provisions
have either been misused or not put to use
or not having been strictly complied with,
the same cannot be declared to be ultra
vires the provisions of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. The independent
cases relating to such allotments can be
challenged by aggrieved persons and not
by the association. The Government
Orders, which have been issued, are in
consonance with the provisions of 1921
Act and they do not travel beyond the
scope of the powers conferred on the
Board under the aforesaid Act. The
Government Orders do not offend any
public policy. The institutions have no
right to claim that they should function as
centres.
The
issue
relating
to
discrimination of not making some of the
institutions as centres cannot lead to the
conclusion that the action of the Board is
arbitrary.

10. Apart from this, the petition has
been filed at the verge of the moment when
the examinations are about to commence.
Any alteration as prayed for by the
petitioners
would
even
otherwise
jeopardise the entire examinations. The
operation of self centres and the menace of
centres claiming such rights were also
noticed by the Division Bench in the case
of Krishna Kumar Upadhyay Vs. State of
466 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011
U.P. and others reported in 2002 (3) AWC
2271.

11. Even otherwise, a Division Bench
of this Court in Special Appeal No. 118 of
2011 decided on 27.1.2011 has held as
follows:

"According to us, there is a difference
between right and expectation. Definitely
an institution has a right to impart
education but right to be an examination
centre can not be an available right to the
institution."

12. The challenge raised therefore is
unfounded and there is no merit in the
petition.

13. The writ petition is accordingly
dismissed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.03.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.P. SAHI, J

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.14735 of 2011

Nagina and others

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.C.Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

U.P. Imposition of Ceiling and land
Holding
Act-Section-11-A-Petitioner's
land declared surplus-while they became
Seerdars-thereafter Bhumindhar under
Z.A. & L.R. Act-during consolidation they
have been allotted Chak-and in are
possession-held-pending
disposal
of
objections-interim
protection
from
dispossession given.

Held: Para 7

Relying on the said decisions, it is urged
that even otherwise this Court has
acknowledged that recorded and even
unrecorded tenure holders are entitled
to be heard in the ceiling proceedings
and objections under Section 11 (2) have
to be disposed of before any other
remedy is availed of by a person claiming
rights. Sri R.C. Singh has invited the
attention of the Court to paragraphs 32,
33 and 34 of the decision in the case of
Virendra Deep Singh and others Vs.
District Magistrate, Rampur, and others,
2010 (10) ADJ 646 (DB), to urge that the
objections under Section 11 (2) are
obviously
subsequent
to
the
determination of surplus land which
entitles a tenure holder aggrieved to file
an objection.

(Delivered by Hon'ble A.P. Sahi, J)

1. This writ petition has been filed
by 9 tenure holders claiming themselves
to be the recorded tenure holders of the
disputed plots which is alleged to have
been declared as surplus under the
provisions of the U.P. Imposition of
Ceiling and Land Holdings Act.

2. The contention raised is that the
land in question had been settled in favour
of the petitioners by the erstwhile
Zamindars of the land and by virtue of
such settlement, they have become
Seerdars and again Bhumindhars i.e.
tenure holders in their own right under the
U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, by operation
of law.

3. The petitioners also contend that
their names were recorded in the revenue
records and for that they have relied upon
the extract of Khatauni between 1366-