Allowed

Soni Verma and Others v. Union of India Thru. Secy., Ministry Ayush, New Delhi and Others

Allahabad HC22 Apr 2024/3075/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a writ petition seeking quashing of inaction and a direction to upload petitioner-students' names on the NCISM portal. The dispute arose because the institution failed to upload selected candidates' data despite valid counseling. Applying the maxim Nemo Alterius Facto Praggravari Debet, the court directed NIC and NCISM to complete the upload within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the opposite party no. 9 and NCISM to upload petitioners' names on the portal within two weeks.

Soni Verma and Others Vs Union of India Thru… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

AFR

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:31321

¶3

Court No. - 20

¶4

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3075 of 2024 Petitioner :- Soni Verma And Others Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Secy., Ministry Ayush, New Delhi And Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudeep Kumar,Avdhesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C.,Dhirendra Pratap Singh,Sudhanshu Chauhan,Umesh Singh

¶6

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶7

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, 3^rd floor Yojna Bhawan, 9- Sarojini Naidu Marg, Lucknow.

¶8

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

¶9

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, 3^rd floor Yojna Bhawan, 9- Sarojini Naidu Marg, Lucknow as opposite party no. 9 in the array of opposite parties, during course of the day.

¶10

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

¶11

The present petition is preferred seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari 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

¶12

official website of National Commission for Indian System of Medicine or Uttar Pradesh Ayush Under-Graduate 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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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 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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

themselves to be the student of the institution. He added that NCISM has no objection, if any technical fault is corrected by appropriate authority.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

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.

¶27

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.

¶28

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.

¶29

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

¶30

Appearance of Dr. Raj Kumar Kasyap is hereby exempted.

¶31

Counsel appearing for the opposite parties shall communicate this order to the respective authorities forthwith.

¶32

Order Date :- 22.4.2024

¶33

Mayank

¶34

Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Soni Verma and Others v. Union of India Thru. Secy., Ministry Ayush, New Delhi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soni Verma and Others v. Union of India Thru. Secy., Ministry Ayush, New Delhi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shanti Devi Jain Degree College, Muzaffarnagar Thru. Manager Subhash Jain Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Higher Education, Lucknow and Others

Rajesh Kumar Vs Managing Director U.P. Jal Nigam (Nagriya) Lko. and 3 Others

Dr. Avinash Kumar Yadav and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Medical Education and Training, Lucknow and Others

Iqbal Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy., Deptt. Social Welfare Lko. and 4 Others

Ram Kali Kanya Vidyalaya Samiti Sultanpur Thru. Manager and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Institutinal Finance Lko. and 2 Others

Meenu Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education and 3 Others