Subedar Raj Devi Memorial Edu.Trust Thru.Chairman Pawan Kumar Singh and Anr. Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Ayush Lko. and 2 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20587

Court No. - 8

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2305 of 2025

Petitioner :- Subedar Raj Devi Memorial Edu.Trust Thru.Chairman Pawan Kumar Singh And Anr. Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Ayush Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vinod Kumar Shukla

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing counsel for the State respondent as well as Sri Vinod Kumar Shukla learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3 who has filed a short counter affidavit which is taken on record.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not wish to file any rejoinder affidavit as the material necessary for adjudication of the writ petition is already available on record.

¶8

Accordingly, with the consent of the parties the petition has been heard.

¶9

By means of the instant petition, the petitioners seeks the following reliefs:

¶10

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to consider and process the application of the petitioners seeking grant of affiliation/recognition to S.R.M Homeopathy Institute of Medical Sciences established by the petitioners trust to run the course of Diploma in Homeopathic Pharmacist at the earliest.

¶11

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the mandamus commanding the opposite party no. 2 and 3 to grant the affiliation/recognition for Diploma in Homeopathic Pharmacist in S.R.M Homeopathy Institute of Medical Sciences established by the petitioners trust."

¶12

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioner no.1 is a Trust which runs an educational institute under the name and style of SRM Homeopathic Institute of Medical Sciences. It is further urged that in order to run the aforesaid institute the petitioner had to seek affiliation and recognition which was to be granted by the respondent no.2.

¶13

It is urged that at an earlier point of time, a large number of

¶14

applications seeking affiliation of different institute were pending which were not being taken up. One such aggrieved institute had preferred a Writ Petition no.22950/MS/2021 (Raghunandan Sheetaldan Singh Memorial Trust vs State of U.P. and Ors) wherein a coordinate Bench of this Court by means of the order dated 10.12.2021 while disposing of the said writ petition had issued certain directions for the Board to be adhered while considering the applications for affiliation.

¶15

It has further submitted that the said order passed by a coordinate Bench was assailed in Special Appeal no.12 of 2022 which came to be dismissed. It is urged that though the said Special Appeal came to be dismissed on 18.01.2022 but the State Government on 18.04.2022 issued a Government Order in pursuance whereof it was stated that until and unless necessary syllabus and the rules were duly notified till then no fresh affiliation be granted by the Board. It is the contention of the petitioners that despite the same certain fresh affiliation was granted to an institute, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure no.16.

¶16

It is urged that in the aforesaid circumstances though the State had issued a letter dated 16.11.2023 in favour of the petitioner yet the respondent no.2 Board, has not granted the affiliation despite they having undertaken an inspection and though at the first instance certain deficiencies were pointed out and they were rectified yet the petitioners has been left in lurch as no affiliation has been granted till date.

¶17

Considering the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, time was granted to the State as well as for the respondent nos.2 and 3 to seek instructions and in furtherance thereof, the respondent nos.2 and 3 have filed a short counter affidavit which is taken on record. It will be relevant to notice that the instant short counter affidavit has been filed under the signatures of the Registrar namely Vinay Kumar Tripathi.

¶18

In the said counter affidavit, it has not been disputed that the letter dated 16.11.2023 was issued in furtherance whereof, the inspection was made, however, in para-10 of the said counter affidavit, it is stated that the affiliation to the petitioner's institution could not be granted for the reason that the State Government has neither promulgated the relevant rules as mentioned in the letter dated 18.07.2022 nor the syllabus has been finalized. In para-12 it has been stated that the affiliation granted to other institute was only in compliance of the order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition MS/22950/2021 dated 10.12.2021.

¶19

Learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3 further submits that in so far as the respondent nos.2 and 3 are concerned, the affiliation could not be granted simplicitor on account of the embargo placed in light of the Government Order dated 18.07.2022.

¶20

Having heard the aforesaid submissions and from a perusal of the material on record, this Court finds that in so far as the matter regarding consideration of applications for affiliation the same has been considered and detailed guidelines have been laid down by a coordinate Bench of this Court in the order dated 10.12.2021 passed in Writ Petition no.22950/MS/2021. It is also not disputed that the said order though assailed in an intra court appeal which was dismissed hence the said order stands affirmed and the guidelines have attained finality.

¶21

Considering the reason given by the respondents for not granting affiliation in light of the order of the State dated 18.07.2022, would reveal, that in Clause-4 of the said Government Order, it has been indicated that unless and until the syllabus and the necessary rules are framed, no fresh affiliation would be granted by the Board. In juxtaposition to the aforesaid letter, it will be appropriate to take note of the letter dated 16.11.2023, which has been issued by the Registrar which is on record as Annexure no.6.

¶22

From a perusal of the said letter in paragraphs-3 and 4, it clearly refers to the order of the State Government coupled with the fact that it also takes note that at present necessary syllabus and the Regulations have been updated.

¶23

Relying upon the letter dated 16.11.2023, a team for inspection was also constituted which admittedly made an inspection and despite a plea that there were certain deficiencies which had been rectified as of now there is nothing that creates any impediment for the grant of affiliation to the petitioners institute except the letter dated 18.07.2022.

¶24

It is also surprising to note that the letter issued by the Board dated 16.11.2023, a copy of which is on record as Annexure no.6 clearly indicates that when the syllabus and Regulations have been updated. But at the same time, in the affidavit filed today how could the Board take a ground that syllabus of Regulation have not been finalized, could for not granting affiliation. Once as per the Registrar himself, it had noticed not only the letter issued by the State but also the fact that the necessary exercise which was contemplated in the letter dated 18.07.2022 has been completed, then there was no reason why the same could be taken as an impediment on behalf of the

¶25

respondent nos.2 and 3 to deny the affiliation. Nothing has been brought on record by the respondent nos.2 and 3 to indicate that the Board had informed the State that its directions given in letter dated 16.11.2023 could not be carried out as it was contrary to the earlier Government Order. Thus, on one hand, the Board has accepted the directions of the State and got the inspection done of the petitioner's institute and when the time come to issue the affiliation it has take the umbrage of the Government Order.

¶26

In the instant case, what is undisputed is that once the State had issued letter dated 16.11.2023 which was accepted by the respondent nos.2 and 3, duly acted upon and also incorporating therein that the necessary exercise which was contemplated in the letter dated 18.07.2022 has been updated there was no justiceable reason why the application of the petitioner could be refused.

¶27

In light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the clear view that the respondent nos.2 and 3 are not justified in proceeding with the matter for grant of affiliation as the stand taken by them is contrary to their own documents. Nothing has been brought on record to indicate that this was informed to the State at any point of time. In the given circumstances, the Court finds that that the petitioners are entitled to be considered for grant of recognition/affiliation, accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

¶28

A direction is issued to respondent nos.2 and 3 to ensure that in case, if the petitioners comply with all necessary Regulations, the appropriate orders considering the petitioner for grant of affiliation be passed preferably within six weeks from today.

¶29

The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Costs are made easy.

¶30

Order Date :- 11.4.2025 Harshita

¶31

Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Subedar Raj Devi Memorial Edu.Trust Thru.Chairman Pawan Kumar Singh and Anr. v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Ayush Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subedar Raj Devi Memorial Edu.Trust Thru.Chairman Pawan Kumar Singh and Anr. v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Ayush Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Umapati Mahadeo College of Pharmacy, Amroha Thru. Authorized Signatory Ashish Sarin Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. of Technical Education, Lko. and Others

Umapati Mahadeo College of Pharmacy, Amroha Thru. Authorized Signatory Ashish Sarin vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. of Technical Education, Lko. and Others

Smt. Kalpana Patel and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy. Higher Edu. Lko and 5 Others

Maidul Hasan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Minority and Waqf Welfare Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Aman Kumar vs Shri Arvind Tiwari, Tehsildar Baldirai, Sultanpur

Gaurav Pratap Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Finance Lko. and 4 Others