Mohammad Sharif Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:73847

Court No. - 38

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14405 of 2025

Petitioner :- Mohammad Sharif Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Khanna,Ram Kripal,Sandal Khanna

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rohit Pandey

¶6

Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Raj Kumar Khanna, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Tanya Mishra holding brief of Sri Rohit Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent-University and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶8

The writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

¶9

"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Vice Chancellor, Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Rohilkhand University, Bareilly (respondent no.2) and Administrative Officer / Controller of Exam, Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Rohilkhand University, Bareilly (respondent no.3) to issue a degree of five years LL.B. course to the petitioner.

¶10

2. Issue a writ, order of direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Vice Chancellor, Mahatma Jyotiba Pbule Rohilkhand University, Bareilly (respondent no.2) and Administrative Officer / Controller of Exam, Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Rohilkhand University, Bareilly (respondent no.3) to issue the mark sheet of IX and X semester of five years LL.B. course to the petitioner."

¶11

Submission is that the petitioner has pursued studies for five years LL.B. course. According to the assertions made in the writ petition as he has completed the five years LL.B course and completed all the papers, despite the same, the respondentUniversity has not issued the degree certificate to the petitioner. In such circumstances, the petitioner made several representations. Despite the same, the respondent - University has not issued the degree certificate to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶12

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent - University has submitted that the 3rd respondent is the competent authority to look into representation made by the petitioner.

¶13

In view of the same and without going into factual aspect of the

¶14

case, the petitioner is permitted to make a fresh representation to the 3rd respondent within a period of two weeks. On receipt of such representation, the 3rd respondent shall consider and as per records, shall take decision within a period of four weeks thereafter.

¶15