Ujjwal and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical Education, Lko. and Others

1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:30930

Court No. - 8

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4907 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ujjwal And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Medical Education, Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nirankar Singh,Rajani Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dhirendra Kumar Singh,Syed Mohammad Haider Rizvi

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Notices on behalf of the respondents Nos.1 and 3 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing Counsel. Sri S. M.H. Rizvi has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No.2. Sri Dhirendra Kumar Singh, has accepted notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

¶7

Under challenge is the order dated 11.03.2025 passed by respondent No.1 and in furtherance thereof the respondent No.6 has passed the order dated 12.03.2025, a copy of which have been brought on record as Annexure 1 and 6 respectively.

¶8

The sole submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are taking education with the respondent No.6 institute. In the counselling through which the petitioners had taken admission was found to be faulty, in this regard a Committee had been constituted, who submitted its report on 20.08.2024 and it furtherance thereof it revealed that large number of students had been granted the benefit of admission, who were apparently not eligible.

¶9

2

¶10

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that Mahayogi Guru Gorakhnath Ayush University, Gorakhpur has been constituted under the State Ayush University Uttar Pradesh Act, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act 2020’) and the statute of the University provides under Section 25 that no student admitted to the University or its affiliated colleges in contravention of the provisions of this section shall be permitted to take up any examination conducted by the University and the Vice-Chancellor shall have the power to cancel any admission made in such contravention.

¶11

It is urged that in the instant case the order has been passed by the respondent No.1 and not by the Vice-Chancellor of the University. Consequently, the said order dated 11.03.2025 is de hors the provisions and as such can not stand. It is also urged that the order dated 12.03.2025 passed by the respondent is merely a consequential order and once the main order dated 11.03.2025 is found to be bad in the eyes of law, the consequential orders will also be hit by the same proposition of being void.

¶12

Learned Standing counsel for the respondent No.2 and the learned counsel for the University have tried to justify the order dated 11.03.2025, but could not dispute the fact that the order regarding cancellation of the admission is to be passed by the Vice Chancellor of the University, in furtherance of Section 25 of the Act 2020.

¶13

Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and noticing a fact that in so far as, the present petitioners are concerned, there is no dispute that they were not eligible to the counselling at the time when they were admitted. The only grievance which appears to be that the order dated 11.03.2025 in pursuance thereof the respondent’s institute has issued the order dated

¶14

3

¶15

12.03.2025 is not in accordance with law as it was not passed by the designated authority.

¶16

This Court finds that the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners may sound attractive and perhaps in terms of Section 25 of the Act 2020 may also have some substance, but it is also to be noticed that it is an admitted case of the petitioners that they do not qualify and their admission is not as per criteria. In this backdrop, of admitted fact, even if the order impugned is set aside, it would still gave rise to an anomaly and an illegal order, permitting the petitioners to continue their education in the institution will revive, which also cannot be permitted.

¶17

This Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which are absolutely discretionary and this Court would be loath in passing an order in favour of the petitioner, which will have an effect of giving rise to another illegal order.

¶18

Thus, for the aforesaid reason, this court is not inclined to interfere, however, a direction is issued to the respondent-University to pass a fresh order terminating the admission of the petitioners in accordance with law.

¶19

With the aforesaid, the petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 23.5.2025 Arvind

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ujjwal and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical Education, Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ujjwal and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical Education, Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khetan Ji Narayani Devi Girls College, Sitapur Thru. Secy. i.e.Ashish Khaitan vs Board of Revenue, U.P. Prayagraj, Lko. Division, Lko. and Others

Kamlesh Kumar Singh vs Commissioner Lucknow Mandal, Lucknow and another

Mantasha @ Shafak Fatima vs Mohd. Yusuf Khan

Neelu Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Empowerment of Persons With Disabilities, Lucknow and Others

Mohd Farook vs Smt. Monika Rani, District Magistrate, Bahraich

Hans Raj Chandani and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. State Tax U.P. Lko. and 2 Others