# Yasir Ali Khan v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 9 ILRA 745
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-02-04
- **Case number:** WRIT - C No. 44309 of 2017
- **Bench:** Bala Krishna Narayana, Ravi Nath Tilhari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/yasir-ali-khan-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46074
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

C.S.C., Sri Mahendra Pratap

A.
Admission
-Medical
Education-NEET
2017-Refund of Security Money -Clause VIII
of G.O. dated 03.07.2017 provides if any
candidate fails to take admission in allotted
college or leaves the college his security
money shall not be refunded - Held - Clause
VIII cannot be read in isolation other
provisions of the said G.O are also to be read
together particularly which fixed date for
declaration of result - security amount can
be forfeited if the time schedule for
declaration of result is strictly adhered to -
But if result is not declared in time and is
delayed Clause VIII cannot be invoked to
forfeit the security money - Reading clause
VIII in isolation would confer arbitrary
powers on the authorities to forfeit the
security money even in those cases where
the fault does not lie on the part of the
candidate but lies on the authorities -
Authorities cannot take advantage of its
own wrong (Para 27)

Facts - As per Schedule of NEET 2017 result was
to be declared on 19.08.2017, candidate to take
admission on 20th & 21st August, 2017 - In fact
result published on 20.08.2017 - Petitioner could
not get reasonable time for approaching allotted
college for admission - Held - fault lies on the
part of the respondents in not adhering to the
time schedule in publication of the result -
Respondents directed to refund the amount of
security money to the petitioner (Para 27, 30, 32)

B. Education- Medical Education - Admission
-Regulations on Graduate Medical Education
-No direction can be given to take admission
in the first year MBBS Course, after 31st
August, 2017 -in view of Supreme Court
decision in the case of Ashish Ranjan vs.
Union of India, (2016)11 SCC 225 (Para 11)

Allowed in Part. (E-5)

List of Cases cited: -

## Text

9 All. Yasir Ali Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
745
that election of an elected member of Gram
Panchayat can be challenged by filing a
writ of quo-warranto.

23. From the facts and circumstances as
stated above, it is clear that in view of the
provisions contained under sub-clause (b) of
Article 243-ZG, section 6-A of the U.P.
Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 read with Rules 4, 5
and 6 of the Rules of 1994, the present writ
petition filed by the petitioner is not at all
maintainable before this Court. The only
remedy available to the petitioner to file an
election petition as provided under section 6-A
of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. Writ
petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground
of availability of alternative remedy.

24. Accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed on the ground of availability of
alternative remedy to the petitioner.
----------
(2020)09ILR A745
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, J.
THE HON'BLE RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

WRIT - C No. 44309 of 2017

Yasir Ali Khan ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Birendra Pratap Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Mahendra Pratap

A.
Admission
-Medical
Education-NEET
2017-Refund of Security Money -Clause VIII
of G.O. dated 03.07.2017 provides if any
candidate fails to take admission in allotted
college or leaves the college his security
money shall not be refunded - Held - Clause
VIII cannot be read in isolation other
provisions of the said G.O are also to be read
together particularly which fixed date for
declaration of result - security amount can
be forfeited if the time schedule for
declaration of result is strictly adhered to -
But if result is not declared in time and is
delayed Clause VIII cannot be invoked to
forfeit the security money - Reading clause
VIII in isolation would confer arbitrary
powers on the authorities to forfeit the
security money even in those cases where
the fault does not lie on the part of the
candidate but lies on the authorities -
Authorities cannot take advantage of its
own wrong (Para 27)

Facts - As per Schedule of NEET 2017 result was
to be declared on 19.08.2017, candidate to take
admission on 20th & 21st August, 2017 - In fact
result published on 20.08.2017 - Petitioner could
not get reasonable time for approaching allotted
college for admission - Held - fault lies on the
part of the respondents in not adhering to the
time schedule in publication of the result -
Respondents directed to refund the amount of
security money to the petitioner (Para 27, 30, 32)

B. Education- Medical Education - Admission
-Regulations on Graduate Medical Education
-No direction can be given to take admission
in the first year MBBS Course, after 31st
August, 2017 -in view of Supreme Court
decision in the case of Ashish Ranjan vs.
Union of India, (2016)11 SCC 225 (Para 11)

Allowed in Part. (E-5)

List of Cases cited: -

1. Ashish Ranjan Vs Union of India, (2016)11 SCC 225

2. Priya Gupta Vs St. of Chhatisgarh & ors.
(2012) 7 SCC 433

3. Mridul Dhar Vs Union of India (2005) 2 SCC 65

4. Royal Medical Trust (Regd.) & anr. Vs Union
of India & anr. (2015) 10 SCC 19
746 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
5. Kusheshwar Prasad Singh Vs St. of Bihar
(2007)11 SCC 447

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari, J)

1. Heard Sri Birendra Pratap Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Standing Counsel for respondents-1 and 3
and Sri Mahendra Pratap, learned counsel
for respondent-2.

2. The present writ petition has been
filed by the petitioner for the following
reliefs:

"a) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding and directing the respondents
to take admission in Ist year M.B.B.S.
Course 2017-18 in the allotted college of
respondent no.3 namely T.S. Mishra
Medical College and Hospital Lucknow
(Private) Co-Education which is allotted in
second counseling held by respondent no.2.

(c) Issue a writ order or direction
in the nature of mandamus for refunding
the counseling fees of Rs.2 lakh to the
petitioner deposited to the D.G.M.E. &T,
Lucknow through D/D.

b) Issue any other appropriate
writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble
Court may deems fit and proper in the
demand of justice.

c) Allow the writ petition with
cost."

3. The facts of the present case are
that the petitioner appeared in National
Eligibility cum Entrance Test Counseling2017 NEET 2017 for admission in
M.B.B.S//B.D.S. Course conducted by
C.B.S.E Board and got NEET marks 170
and NEET Rank 413792 and thereafter he
appeared in U.P. NEET U.G. counseling
and his registration no. was 1000122,
wherein the petitioner's original documents
were verified at the document verification
center S.N. Medical College Agra. The
petitioner submitted a demand draft of
Rs.2-00 lac as security money in favour of
Director, Medical Education-respondent-2.
In the second counseling, the petitioner was
allotted T.S. Mishra Medical College and
Hospital, Lucknow(Private Co-education)
by respondent-2. The total fee for the first
year, was Rs.22,01,000/-to be deposited at
the time of admission in the allotted college
and the security money of Rs.2-00 lac was
to be adjusted in it. The Director, General
Medical Education/respondent-2, who was
the Chairman of the counseling Board,
issued
a
Schedule
dated
4.8.2017(Annexure-3 to the writ petition),
for the second counseling and as per the
said schedule the documents verification
was to be done between 9th August and
12th August, 2017 (both dates inclusive)
and merit list was to be published on 13th
August,
2017.
The
candidates
were
required to fill choice on 18th August,2017
and the result was to be declared on 19th
August, 2017. The candidate was to
download the result and take admission in
the allotted institute on 20th and 21st
August, 2017.

4. Further case of the petitioner is that
the result of the counseling was not
published on 19th August, 2017 but was
published on 20th August, 2017 at 1-30
P.M. and thereafter, the petitioner acquiring
knowledge that he was allotted T.S. Mishra
Medical College and Hospital, Lucknow,
on 21.8.2017 itself contacted the allotted
college for admission and requested that
some time for deposit of admission fee be
given but the petitioner's request was
turned down. The petitioner on 21st
August, 2017 reporting about the College,
sent messages on g-mail to respondent no.2.
9 All. Yasir Ali Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
747
On 22nd August, 2017 all India banks were on
strike and after opening of the Bank on 23rd
August, 2017, the petitioner got prepared the
demand draft for Rs.8,50,000/- from Axis
Bank. The petitioner again requested the
respondent-2 on 28th August, 2017 through gmail for mop up round but no response was
received, although many students were allowed
to appear in mop up round who had already
availed the earlier counseling and college was
also allotted to them. This continued up to 31st
August, 2017. On 2nd September, 2017, the
petitioner sent a representation via g-mail to the
respondent-2 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition)
raising all the grievances therein which was
followed by representation dated 6.9.2017, but,
the respondent-2 neither permitted the petitioner
to take admission in the allotted college nor
took
any
decision
on
the
application/representations of the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that as the result was not
published on 19th August, 2017 the
scheduled date, but was published late on
20th August, 2017 at 1-30 P.M. the
petitioner could not get reasonable time, as
per the schedule, for approaching the
college for admission with complete
required formalities. If the result had been
published as per the schedule, on the
website, the petitioner would have got
sufficient time to appear for admission on
the date fixed along with requisite fee to be
deposited. Thus, there was fault on the part
of the respondents in not adhering to the
time schedule in publication of the result
and as such the authorities are bound either
to take admission of the petitioner or refund
the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- of security
money to the petitioner.

6. Sri Mahendra Pratap, learned
counsel for respondent-2 has submitted that
the second round of counseling of NEET
PG 2017 was held as per the prescribed
time schedule. On 19th August, 2017,
National
Informatics
Centre(NIC)
completed the processing of choice filling
and choice lock of the seats, at about 1-00
hrs in the mid-night of 19th August, 2017
and later on cross checking was also done.
NIC made the result available to the
students on official website on 20th
August, 2017 at 02:16:18 hours. Many
candidates
took
admission
after
downloading their allotment letters on 20th
August, 2017 and 21st August, 2017.

7. Learned counsel for respondent-2
has further submitted that there was no
change in the time schedule. He submitted
that as per the Government Order dated 3rd
July, 2017 and brochure, the petitioner was
not eligible for mop up round and as per the
Supreme Court's judgment as well as the
notifications of the Medical Council of
India(MCI), no admission was possible
after 31st August, 2017. The petitioner
himself did not complete the formalities for
admission in the allotted Medical College
in time and was rightly denied admission.

8. Learned counsel for respondent-2
has
further
submitted
that
G.O.
No.2234/71-2-17-158/2017 dated 3rd July,
2017 and 02nd August, 2017 (SCA-1 to the
counter
affidavit)
provided
for
the
procedure for depositing the security
money and the conditions under which the
security
money
was
liable
to
be
returned/refunded and as to when it would
be forfeited. In the NEET UP Counseling
2017, Brochure also, there is a specific
clause about the security money (Annexure
No. SCA-2 ) according to which, if a
candidate does not take admission in the
allotted college or after taking admission
leaves the college, his security money shall
be forfeited and cannot be refunded. His
748 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
submission is that as the petitioner did not
take admission in the allotted college, the
security money deposited by him was not
liable to be refunded/returned, in view of
the aforesaid Government Orders. He has
further submitted that there is no challenge
to
the
Government
Orders
and
the
Brochure, on the point, and as such no
relief can be granted to the petitioner for
refund of the security money, particularly,
when the condition under which it becomes
refundable does not exist.

9. Learned Standing Counsel has also
submitted that the petitioner not having
taken admission in time, is not entitled for
refund of the security money and after 31st
August, 2017, he cannot be allowed
admission.

10.

We
have
considered
the
submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the petitioner as well as learned
counsels for the respondents and have
perused the material on record.

11. We are of the considered view that
as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, in the case of Ashish Ranjan vs.
Union of India, (2016)11 SCC 225, giving
the stamp of approval to the schedule for
completion of the admission process for First
MBBS Course, in the 'Regulations on
Graduate
Medical
Education,
2015',
petitioner's prayer 'a)' for giving direction to
the respondents to take admission of the
petitioner in the first year MBBS Course,
2017, after 31st August, 2017, the last date
upto which students could be admitted/joined
against vacancies arising due to any reason, is
misconceived and liable to be rejected. No
such direction can be issued.

12. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has vehemently pressed for
prayer 'c)' for direction to the respondents
to refund security money of Rs.2,00,000/-
to the petitioner, which was deposited with
D.G.M.O. through demand draft.

13. We now proceed to consider if the
security money of Rs.2-00 lac deposited by
the petitioner can or cannot be directed to
be refunded to the petitioner.

14. The G.O. No.2234/71-2-17158/2017 dated 3rd July, 2017(Annexure
SCA-1 to the supplementary counter
affidavit) contains specific clause about the
security money. As per clause VIII, the
candidate to whom private college is
allotted, has to deposit Rs.2-00 lac as
security money which shall be refunded to
the candidates who take admission in the
allotted college but if after allotment of
college, any candidate fails to take
admission or resigns/leaves the college
after taking admission, his security money
shall not be refunded.

15. Clause VIII of the G.O. Dated
03.07.2017 reads as follows:-

" (VIII) flD;ksfjVh euh 1⁄4/kjksgj
/kujkf'k1⁄2%&

uhV ;w0th0 2017 dh vkWuykbZu
dkmaflfyax
ds
ek/;e
ls
jktdh;
esfMdy@Ms.Vy
dkystksa@fo'ofo|ky;ksa@
laLFkkuksa esa vkoaVu izkIr vH;fFkZ;ksa }kjk
20]000@& 1⁄4:i;s chl gtkj ek=1⁄2 rFkk futh
{ks= ds esfMdy@Ms.My dkysatksa] fo'ofo|ky;ksa]
vYila[;d laLFkkuksa] vYila[;d fo'ofo|ky;ksa]
MhEM fo'ofo|ky;ksa esa vkoaVu izkIr vH;fFkZ;ksa
}kjk :0 2]00]000@& 1⁄4:i;s nks yk[k ek=1⁄2 dh
/kujkf'k flD;ksfjVh euh ds :i esa ,ykWVesUV ySVj
MkmuyksM
ds
igys
vkWuykbZu
izfØ;k
1⁄4MsfcV@dzsfMV dkMZ@bUVjusV cSafdx ls gh1⁄2 ds
ek/;e ls tek djuk vfuok;Z gksxkA

ftu Nk=ksa }kjk vkoaVu ds i'pkr
lEcfU/kr dkystksa esa izos'k izkIr dj fy;k tk;sxk]
9 All. Yasir Ali Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
749
mudh flD;ksfjVh /kujkf'k okil dj nh tk;sxhA
;fn dksbZ vH;FkhZ vkoaVu ds i'pkr ikB~;Øe esa
izos'k ugha ysrk gS vFkok izos'k ysus ds i'pkr
R;kxi= ns nsrk gS 1⁄4uhV LVsV dksVk lhVksa ij
iquvkZoaVu dh fLFkfr dks NksM+dj1⁄2 rks mls mlds
}kjk tek dh x;h /kjksgj /kujkf'k okil ugha dh
tk;sxhA "

16. By subsequent Government Order
No.2823/71-217-178/2017
dated
02.08.2017 issued for NEET UG 2017
(Annexure SCA-2 to the supplementary
affidavit) the earlier G.O. dated 3.7.2017
was
modified
to
some
extent,
but
maintaining the rest of the conditions and
provisions as they were. This G.O. dated
2.8.2017
re-scheduled/modified
the
programme of second round and mop up
round counselling. The modified schedule
and the provision regarding security money
as per G.O. dated 2.8.2017 are being
reproduced as under:-

(i) "1⁄4f}rh; jkm.M@eki&vi jkm.M
dh dkmaflfyax rFkk izos'k vkfn dh dk;Zokgh
fuEufyf[kr ;Fkkla'kksf/kr f'kM~;wy ds vuqlkj
djk;h tk;%&

Ø0
l0
fooj.k
vof/k
fnol
1
iqu%
iathdj.k
fnukad
06 ls 10
vxLr
2017 rd
05
2
f}rh;
dkmaflfyax
gsrq vfHkys[kksa
dk lR;kiu
fnukad
09
vxLr
2017 ls
12
vxLr
2017 rd

04
3
esfjV
lwph fnukad
01
dk izdk'ku
13
vxLr
2017
4
f}rh; pdz
dh
PokbZl
fQfyax
18
vxLr
2017
01
5
Ikfj.kke dh
?kks"k.kk
19
vxLr
2017
01
6
vkoaVu i=
MkmuyksM
djus
rFkk
izos'k
dh
frfFk
fnukad
20
,oa
21
vxLr
2017
02
7
eki&vi
jkm.M
gsrq
iathdj.k
fnukad
23
vxLr
2017
01
8
esfjV
lwph
dk izdk'ku
24
vxLr
2017
01
9
jktdh;
lhVksa
gsrq
ekWi
vi
jkm.M
vkoaVu
dh
dk;Zokgh ,oa
izos'k
fnukad
25
vxLr
2017
01
10
futh {ks= dh
,e0ch0ch0,
l0 ikB~;dze
dh lhVksa gsrq
ekWi
vi
jkm.M
dh
dk;Zokgh ,oa
izos'k
fnukad
26
,oa
27
vxLr
2017
02
11
futh {ks= dh
ch0Mh0,l0
ikB~;dze dh
lhVksa
gsrq
ekWi
vi
Hkkjr
ljdkj
}kjk
ch0Mh0,
l0
&
750 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
jkm.M
dh
dk;Zokgh ,oa
izos'kA
ikB~;dzeksa
esa izos'k
gsrq tkjh
uohu
le;&lk
fj.kh ds
vuqlkj
vkns'k
vyx ls
fuxZr
fd;s
tk;sxsaA

(iv) flD;ksfjVh euh&

'kklukns'k
la[;k&2234@71&2&17&158@2017] fnukad 0307-2017 }kjk futh {ks= ds esfMdy@Ms.Vy
dkystksa] fo'ofo|ky;ksa] vYila[;d laLFkkuksa]
vYila[;d fo'ofo|ky;ksa] MhEM fo'ofo|ky;ksa esa
vkoaVu izkIr vH;fFkZ;ksa }kjk :0 2]00]000@&
1⁄4:i;s nks yk[k ek=1⁄2 dh /kujkf'k flD;ksfjVh euh
ds :i esa ,ykWVesUV ySVj MkmuyksM ds igys
vkWuykbu izfdz;k 1⁄4MsfcV@dzsfMV dkMZ@bUVjusV
cSafdx ls gh1⁄2 ds ek/;e ls tek fd, tkus ds
vkns'k fuxZr fd, x;s FksA

uhV ;w0th0 2017 dh izFke pdz dh
vkWuykbu dkmaflfyax esa futh {ks= ds esfMdy
dkystksa dh ,e0ch0ch0,l ikB~;dze dh dqy
2550 lhVksa ds lkis{k 2530 lhVksa ij rFkk
ch0Mh0,l0 ikB~;dze dh 2200 lhVksa ds lkis{k
2120 lhVksa ij vkoaVu dh dk;Zokgh dh x;h FkhA
,e0ch0ch0,l dh vkoafVr 2530 lhVksa ds lkis{k
153 lhVksa rFkk ch0Mh0,l0 ikB~dze dh vkoafVr
2120 lhVksa ds lkis{k 254 lhVksa ij gh vH;fFkZ;ksa
}kjk ,ykWVesaV ysVj MkmuyksM dj izos'k fy;k
x;k gSA blls Li"V gS fd vf/kdrj vH;fFkZ;ksa us
izFke pdz dh dkmaflfyax ds ek/;e ls vkoafVr
lhVksa ds lkis{k ,ykWVesaV ysVj MkmuyksM dj
izos'k ugha fy;k x;k gSa vr% izos'k gsrq bPNqd
vH;FkhZ gh lhV ykWd djs blds fy, Pokbl
ykfdax ds iwoZ gh lEcfU/kr vH;FkhZ ls flD;ksfjVh
dh /kujkf'k :0 2-00 yk[k izfdz;k 1⁄4MsfcV@dzsfMV
dkMZ@bUVjusV
cSafdax1⁄2
rFkk
cSad
}kjk
vkj0Vh0th0,l0 ds ek/;e ls tek djk;h tk;A

2& 'kkluns'k fnukad 03-07-2017 ds
fcUnq&V esa mfYyf[kr 'kSf{kd vgZrk dh rkfydk
ds dzekad&2] 3 ,oa 4 esa mfYyf[kr vuqlwfpr
tkfr@vuqlwfpr tutkfr ,oa vU; fiNM+k oxZ
gsrq Neet Percentile ds dkye es 45 ds
LFkku ij Neet Percentile 40 le>k tk;A

3& dkmaflfyax@izos'k ds lEcU/k esa
iwoZ esa fuxZr 'kklukns'k fnukad 03-07-2017 dks
mi;qZDr lhek rd la'kksf/kr le>k tk;A 'ks"k 'krsZ
,oa izfrcU/k ;Fkkor~ jgsxhA

4& egkfuns'kd fp0f'k0 }kjk mi;qZDr
vkns'kksa dk O;kid izpkj&izlkj lekpkj i=ksa ds
ek/;e ls lqfuf'pr fd;k tk;sxk rFkk futh {ks=
ds
leLr
esfMdy@Ms.Vy
dkystksa]
fo'ofo|ky;ksa] vYila[;d laLFkkuksa] vYila[;d
fo'ofo|ky;ksa] MhEM fo'ofo|ky;ksa dks iz'uxr
'kkluns'k dh izfr miyC/k djkuk lqfuf'pr fd;k
tk;sxkA
'kklukns'k
dh
izfr
osclkbV
www.updgme.in ,oa https://upneet.gov.in
ij egkfuns'kd] fpfdRlk f'k{kk ,oa izf'k{k.k]
y[kuÅ }kjk viyksM dh tk;sxhA

d`i;k mijksDrkuqlkj vxzsrj dk;Zokgh
le;c) :i ls lqfuf'pr djus dk d"V djsaA"

17.

Brochure
of
NEET
U.P.
Counseling 2017 also contains specific
clause about the security money. It also
provides that if a candidate does not take
admission after allotment or if leaves the
allotted college after taking admission,
security money shall not be refunded. It is
relevant to reproduce the provision as
regards security money in the Brochure as
follows:-

राजकीय तथा निजी क्षेत्र के मेनिकल/ िेण्टल
कालेज ों हेतु धर हर
धिरानि नलये जािे के सम्बन्ध में

1. न ि यू०ज ० 2017 क उत्तर प्रदेश
क आाँनलाइन काउींबसबलींग के माध्यम से
राजक य
मेबडकल
/
डेन्टल
कालेजोीं
/
बवश्वबवद्यालयो / सींस्थानोीं में आवींिन प्राप्त
अभ्यबथथयोीं द्वारा रू० 20,000/- (रूपये ब स
हजार मात्र) तथा बनज क्षेत्र के मेबडकल / डेण्टल
कालेजोीं / बवश्वबवद्यालयोीं / अल्पसींख्यक सींस्थानोीं
9 All. Yasir Ali Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
751
/
अल्पसींख्यक
बवश्वबवद्यालयोीं
/
ड म्ड
बवश्वबवद्यालयोीं में आवींिन प्राप्त अभ्यबथयोीं द्वारा
2,00,000/-(रूपये दो लाख मात्र) क धनराबश
बसक्योररि मन के रूप में आनलाईन
प्रबक्रया(डेबबि / क्रेबडि काडथ / इन्टरनेि बैंबकींग
से ह ) के माध्यम से जमा करना अबनवायथ होगा।

ऑिलाईि काउोंनसनलोंग (Online
counseling)

ऑनलाईन काउींबसबलींग प्रवेश सबींध
सूचनाः

(अ) ..................................

(ब) ...................................

(स) ....................................

(द) यबद कोई अभ्यथी आवींिन के
पिात पाठ्यक्रम में प्रवेश नह ीं लेता है अथवा
प्रवेश लेने के पिात् त्यागपत्र दे देता है तो धरोहर
धनराबश वापस नह ीं क जायेग ।

18. From a conjoint reading of the
Government Orders dated 3.7.2017 and
2.8.2017, it is evident that there was no
change as regards the provision for refund
of security amount. It continued as it
existed in G.O. Dated 3.7.2017. However,
the schedule was changed and as per this
schedule, 19.8.2017 was the date for
declaration of result.

19. The Director General, Medical
Education and Training, U.P. Lucknow
issued
letter
No.M.E.-3/2017
dated
4.8.2017 for the second counselling and as
per this letter, 19.8.2017 was the date for
declaration of result and the date for
downloading allotment letter and for taking
admission in the allotted college was 20th
and 21st August, 2017. The said schedule is
being reproduced as under:-

"dk;kZy; egkfuns'kd] fpfdRlk f'k{kk ,oa
izf'k{k.k] mRrj izns'k] NBk] ry] tokgj Hkou] y[kuÅ

la[;k&,e0bZ0&3@2017@
y[kuÅ% fnukad 04 vxLr 2017

jk"Vah; ik=rk lg izos'k ijh{kk
1⁄4N.E.E.T) 2017 dh f}rh; pdz dh vkWuykbZu
dkmaflfyax gsrq vkWuykbZu iathdj.k] vfHkys[kks ds
lR;kiu] PokbZl fQfyax rFkk izos'k vkfn ds lac/k
esa egRoiw.kZ lwpuk

'kklukns'k
la[;k&2823@71&2&17&158@2017 fnukad 02
vxLr 2017 esa fufgr funsZ'kksa ds dze esa NEET-
2017 ds ek/;e ls p;fur Nk=ksa ds 'kS{kf.kd l=
2017&18 esa mRrj izns'k jkT; dh ,e0ch0ch0,l0
,oa ch0Mh0,l0 ikB~;dze dh lhVksa ij f}rh;
pdz dh vkuWykbu dkmaflfyax rFkk eki&vi
jkm.M vkoaVu rFkk izos'k vkfn dh dk;Zokgh
fuEukuqlkj lEiUu dh tk,xh%&

dz0
la0
fooj.k
vof/k
1
आनलाईन पुनः
पींज करण
fnukad 06 ls 10 vxLr
2017 rd
2
f}rh; dkmaflfyax
gsrq vfHkys[kksa dk
lR;kiu
fnukad 09 vxLr 2017 ls
12 vxLr 2017 rd
3
esfjV lwph dk
izdk'ku
fnukad 13 vxLr 2017
4
बदव्याींग
छात्रोीं
हेतु
मेबडकल
बोडथ का गठन
fnukad 08 ls 10 vxLr
2017 rd
5
बद्वत य चक्र क
च्वाईस बफबलींग
fnukad 18 vxLr 2017
6
Ikfj.kke dh ?kks"k.kk 19 vxLr 2017
7
vkoaVu
i=
MkmuyksM
djus
rFkk
izos'k
dh
frfFk
fnukad 20 ,oa 21
vxLr 2017
8
eki&vi
jkm.M
gsrq
आनलाईन
iathdj.k
fnukad 23 vxLr 2017
752 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
9
esfjV lwph dk
izdk'ku
fnukad 24 vxLr 2017
10 jktdh; lhVksa gsrq
ekWivi
jkm.M
vkoaVu
dh
dk;Zokgh ,oa izos'k
fnukad 25 vxLr 2017
11 futh
{ks=
dh
,e0ch0ch0,l0
ikB~;dze dh lhVksa
gsrq
ekWi
vi
jkm.M
dh
dk;Zokgh ,oa izos'k
fnukad 26 ,oa 27
vxLr 2017

20. There is no dispute that the result
was to be declared on 19.8.2017 as per the
schedule. However, according to the
petitioner, result was declared on the
website on 20.8.2017 at about 12 noon or
1-00 P.M. and according to the respondent2, as per the counter affidavit, paragraph-4,
the processing for second round of
counseling was completed on 19.8.2017, at
about 01-00 midnight and later on cross
checking was also done and NIC uploaded
the result on the official website on
20.8.2017 at 02:16:18 hours.

Paragraph-4
of
the
counter
affidavit of respondent no.2 is being
reproduced as under:-

"4. That, in reply to para 9,
10,11, 12, 13 & 14 of the writ petition it is
respectfully submitted that the second
round of conseling NEET PG 2017 was
held as per procedure prescribed and time
schedule
according
to
G.O.
Dated
02.08.2017.
On
19.08.2017
the
NIC
completed the processing of choice filing
and choice lock of the seats. Processing
was completed at about 01.00 in the mid
night of 19.08.2017 and later on cross
checking was also done. The NIC made the
result available to the students on official
web site on 20.08.2017 at 02.16.18 Hr. The
candidates had taken admission after
downloading their allotment letters on
20.08.2017 and 21.08.2017. There was no
change in time schedule."

21. Thus, the respondent-2 has
admitted that the result of the second
counseling was not declared on 19.8.2017,
the date fixed as per the schedule, for
declaration of result but it was declared on
20.8.2017.

22. In Priya Gupta vs. State of
Chhatisgarh and others, (2012) 7 SCC
433, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
the schedule prescribed have the force of
law and are binding on all concerned and it
is difficult to comprehend that any
authority can have the discretion to alter
these schedules to suit a given situation.
Paragraph-40 of Priya Gupta case (supra)
is being reproduced as under:-

"40. The schedules prescribed
have the force of law, in as much as they
form part of the judgments of this Court,
which are the declared law of the land in
terms of Article 141 of the Constitution of
India and form part of the regulations of
the Medical Council of India, which also
have the force of law and are binding on all
concerned. It is difficult to comprehend that
any authority can have the discretion to
alter these schedules to suit a given
situation, whether such authority is the
Medical Council of India, the Government
of India, State Government, University or
the selection bodies constituted at the
college level for allotment of seats by way
of counseling. We have no hesitation in
clearly declaring that none of these
authorities are vested with the power of
relaxing, varying or disturbing the time
schedule, or the procedures of admission,
as provided in the judgments of this Court
9 All. Yasir Ali Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
753
and
the
Medical
Council
of
India
Regulations."

23. In the case of Mridul Dhar vs.
Union of India, reported in (2005) 2 SCC
65 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
emphasized for timely declaration of
results, to save the candidates and their
parents from facing undesirable hardships.
Paragraph 17 of Mridul Dhar (supra) is
being reproduced as under:-

17. Another connected aspect is
declaration
of
result
of
qualifying
Examination/Entrance Examination for State
quota seats. The State Governments, as per the
time schedule are required to declare the said
results by 15th June of every year. The timely
declaration of result will enable the students to
take a decision about participation in All India
counseling or State counseling. The Central
Government has rightly pointed out that due to
late declaration of result of State level
entrance examination, candidates and their
parents travel from all over the country to
participate in All India Quota Counseling
which is conducted in Delhi and then travel to
allotted medical/dental colleges. Later on, if
the candidates get admission in the colleges of
their choice in their respective States through
State counseling, they have to travel back to
the college allotted through All India Quota to
get their college leaving certificate and other
documents which are deposited with allotted
college before joining the State college. By
timely declaration of the results of the State
level entrance examination i.e. by 15th June,
which is before the start of All India Quota
counseling, candidates and their parents can
be saved from facing undesirable hardships."

24. In Priya Gupta (supra), also the
importance of declaration of result for the
entire admission process was observed. The
Supreme Court while noticing Mridul Dhar
case(supra) observed in paragraph-30 as
under:-

"30. The Court in Mridul Dhar
case(Mridul Dhar v. Union of India, (2005)
2 SCC 65 noticed that the holding of 10+2
examination and declaration of results is
also of importance for the entire admission
process and, therefore, directed strict
adherence to the Schedule in all respects
and by all concerned. The date of 30th
September was stated not t be the date of
normal admission but is to give opportunity
t grant admission against stray vacancies.
The Court clarified that adherence to the
time
schedule
by
everyone
was
a
paramount concern. In that case, the Court
issued a specific direction to all the State
functionaries,
particularly
the
Chief
Secretaries
and
heads
of
the
Ministries/Departments
concerned
participating
in
the
States/Union
Territories adopting the time schedule and
holding he State examination to ensure
declaration of results on or before 15.-
6.2005.."

In Paragraph 72 of Priya Gupta
(Supra) adherence to the time schedule,
procedure for selection/admission and strict
observance of M.C.I. Regulations by all
concerned was emphasized. Paragraph 72
is being quoted as under:-

"72. Balancing of equities by the
Court itself is inequitable. Some party or
the other would suffer a set back or adverse
consequence from the order of the Court.
On the one hand, if admissions are
cancelled,
the
students
who
have
practically completed their MBBS course
would lose their professional education as
well as nearly five years of their life spent
in such education. If their admissions are
protected, then the standard of education,
the merit of the candidates and the
desirability of the persons of higher merit
754 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
becoming doctors is negated. The best solution
to such problems is strict adherence to the
time
schedule,
procedure
for
selection/admission and strict observance of
the Medical Council of India Regulations, by
all concerned. Once these factors are adhered
to, not only would such situation not arise, but
also it will prevent avoidable litigation before
the Courts. The persons who violate the time
schedule to grant admissions in an arbitrary
manner and by colourable exercise of power,
who are not adhering to Medical Council of
India Regulations and the judgments of this
Court, should be dealt with strictly by
punishment in accordance with law, to prevent
such mischief from repeating."

25. Subsequent to Priya Gupta
decision, Regulations of M.C.I. were
amended
empowering
the
Central
Government to modify the Stages and time
limits in the schedule to the regulations. In
Royal
Medical
Trust
(Regd.)
and
another vs. Union of India and another
(2015) 10 SCC 19, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that the directions in Priya
Gupta case must now be understood in the
light of such statutory empowerment and it
was declared that it was open to the Central
Government to extend or modify the time
limits in the schedule to the Regulations.

26. Thus, the schedules prescribed
have the force of law and have to be
mandatorily followed. The non observance
of the schedules may give rise to many
mischiefs, including arbitrariness in giving
admission to the candidates. However,
here, we are concerned with the refund or
forfeiture of security money, deposited by a
candidate, who could not take admission in
time, in the allotted college.

27. Clause VIII of the G.O. Dated
3.7.2017 as well as the Brochure, as
reproduced above, provide that if a candidate
after allotment does not take admission in the
allotted college or if after taking admission
leaves the college, the security amount shall
not be refunded/returned. However, we
cannot read Clause VIII, in isolation. The
other provisions of the G.O dated 03.07.2017,
particularly, the final schedule for declaration
of result, as fixed and modified by G.O.
Dated 2.8.2017, are also be read. When we
read the aforesaid provisions, together, we are
of the considered view that the security
amount can be forfeited or not refunded to a
candidate, if the time schedule for declaration
of result, is strictly adhered to by the
authorities. If the result is declared as per the
time schedule, on the date fixed for
declaration of result, and in spite thereof the
candidate to whom college is allotted does
not take admission, the security money,
deposited by the candidate shall not be
refunded to the candidate. But, if the result is
not declared in time and is delayed, as in the
present case, it was declared on 20.8.2017
instead of 19.8.2017, Clause VIII cannot be
invoked to forfeit the security money, if the
candidate fails to take admission in the
allotted college in time as per the time
schedule for taking admission.

28. We are of the considered view
that as per the schedule, the authorities in
their own wisdom allowed two complete
days' time to the candidate for taking
admission in the allotted college, after the
date
of
declaration
of
the
result,
considering such time as a reasonable time.
The delay in declaration of one day
necessarily reduced the period of 2 days for
taking admission in the allotted college. On
the face of the schedule and the actual date
of declaration of result , the petitioner did
not get that reasonable time of 2 days for
admission in the allotted college. The
petitioner cannot be held to have failed to
9 All. Yasir Ali Khan Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
755
take admission in the allotted college in
time, in terms of Clause VIII of the
Government Order dated 3.7.2017. Any
such failure to take admission by the
petitioner is referable to the act of the
respondents in failing to declare result as
per the schedule, in time.

29. It is well settled in law that an
authority cannot take advantage of its own
wrong. In the case of Kusheshwar Prasad
Singh vs. State of Bihar, reported in
(2007)11 SCC 447 the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that an authority cannot be
allowed to take advantage of its own wrong
giving favourable interpretation of law. It is
relevant to reproduce paragraphs 13 to 16
of the report as under:-

"13. The appellant is also right in
contending before this Court that the power
under Section 32B of the Act to initiate fresh
proceedings could not have been exercised.
Admittedly, Section 32B came on the statute
book by Bihar Act 55 of 1982. The case of the
appellant was over much prior to the
amendment of the Act and insertion of
Section 32B. The appellant, therefore, is right
in contending that the authorities cannot be
allowed to take undue advantage of its own
default in failure to act in accordance with
law and initiate fresh proceedings.

14. In this connection, our
attention has been invited by the learned
counsel for the appellant to a decision of
this Court in Mrutunjay Pani & Another v.
Narmada Bala Sasmal & Another, AIR
1961 SC 1353, wherein it was held by this
Court that where an obligation is cast on a
party and he commits a breach of such
obligation, he cannot be permitted to take
advantage of such situation. This is based
on the Latin maxim 'Commodum ex injuria
sua nemo habere debet' (No party can take
undue advantage of his own wrong).

15. In Union of India & Ors. v.
Major General Madan Lal Yadav (Retd.),
(1996) 4 SCC 127, the accused-army
personnel himself was responsible for delay
as he escaped from detention. Then he
raised an objection against initiation of
proceedings on the ground that such
proceedings ought to have been initiated
within six months under the Army Act,
1950. Referring to the above maxim, this
Court held that the accused could not take
undue advantage of his own wrong.
Considering the relevant provisions of the
Act, the Court held that presence of the
accused was an essential condition for the
commencement of trial and when the
accused did not make himself available, he
could not be allowed to raise a contention
that proceedings were time-barred. This
Court referred to Broom's Legal Maxims
(10th Edn.) p. 191 wherein it was stated;

"it is a maxim of law, recognised
and established, that no man shall take
advantage of his own wrong; and this
maxim, which is based on elementary
principles, is fully recognised in Courts of
law and of equity, and, indeed, admits of
illustration from every branch of legal
procedure".

16. It is settled principle of law
that a man cannot be permitted to take
undue and unfair advantage of his own
wrong to gain favourable interpretation of
law. It is sound principle that he who
prevents a thing from being done shall not
avail himself of the non-performance he
has occasioned. To put it differently, "a
wrong doer ought not to be permitted to
make a profit out of his own wrong"."

30. We are not convinced with the
submission of the learned counsel for
respondent-2 that in the absence of any
challenge to the G.O.s dated 3.7.2017 and
2.8.2017, with respect to the security
756 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
money clause contained therein, any relief
of refund of the security amount cannot be
granted to the petitioner, inasmuch as the
manner in which we have read the aforesaid
Government Orders and Brochure, make the
provisions relating to security money, its
refund/forfeiture, equitable and reasonable.
On the other hand, if we read the above
provisions in the manner suggested by the
learned counsel for respondent-2, i.e. in
isolation from the schedules prescribed for
declaration of result and taking of admission
in the allotted college, that would confer
arbitrary powers on the authorities to forfeit
the security money in all the cases, including
those cases where the fault does not lie on the
part of the candidate but lies on the
authorities. This would be inequitable and
would render the provision arbitrary as well
as conferring arbitrary power on the
authorities. It is settled in law that
arbitrariness in State action is negation of rule
of law and violates the right of equality as
enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of
India.

31. In view of the above reading of
the Government Orders relating to security
money clause, the same does not require
any challenge by the petitioner for the relief
of refund of the security amount.

32. We, therefore, allow this petition
in part and direct the respondents to refund
the
amount
of
security
money
of
Rs.2,00,000/-, deposited with respondent-2,
within a period of two weeks from the date
of production of a certified copy of this
judgment before the said authority.

33. No orders as to costs.
----------
(2020)09ILR A756
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

WRIT - C No. 46379 of 2006

Smt. Manju Mittal & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri M.A. Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

(A) Civil Law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -
Section 166 -Application for compensation,
Section
173-Appeals,
Section
174
-
Recovery of money from insurer as arrear of
land revenue - statutory forum created by
law for redressal of grievances - writ
petition should not be entertained ignoring
the statutory dispensation i.e. without first
relegating the petitioner to exhaust the
remedies available under the statute - a
self-imposed restriction; a rule of policy
convenience and discretion rather than a
rule of law - In at least three contingencies:
(i) Violation/infringement of fundamental
rights; (ii) Violation of the principles of
natural justice; (iii) the order or proceedings
being wholly without jurisdiction or the
vires of an Act being under challenge, this
Court
may
still
exercise
its
writ
jurisdiction.(Para-27)

Petitioner No.1 is the owner of the offending
vehicle/bus bearing registration No. PB-13E-9775 -
purchased from Petitioner No.2, on 6.5.2002 -
causing the accident dated 16.5.2002 - resulting
into death of one Sri Mahipal Singh - legal heirs of
late Mahipal Singh filed Motor Accident Claim for
grant of compensation under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. (Para - 4)

HELD:- Petitioners have statutory alternative
remedy of appeal against the award dated
5.11.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims