Arun Kumar Modanwal Vs Vice Chancellor,University of Lucknow and 3 Others

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:6376

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6510 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Modanwal

¶5

Respondent :- Vice Chancellor,University Of Lucknow And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mridula Saxena,Mridula Saxena,Rakesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Savitra Vardhan Singh,C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. Savitra Vardhan Singh, learned counsel for opposite parties no.1 to 3 and learned State Counsel for opposite party no.4.

¶8

On 27.01.2025, the following order had been passed:-

¶9

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Savitra Vardhan Singh learned counsel for opposite parties 1 to 3 and learned State Counsel for opposite party No.4.

¶10

2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 27th May, 2024 whereby petitioner's application for permission to complete his first professional course has been rejected.

¶11

3. Learned counsel for opposite parties submit that petitioner had been admitted in the first year B.A.M.S. course for the academic session 202021 but after taking admission, he failed to attend any class or even participate in the first semester examination.

¶12

4. It is submitted that as per the impugned order, reference has been made to the notification dated 7th November, 2016 issued by the Indian Medicine Central Council with particular emphasis on paragraph 6(c) which entails that the failed student of first professional would be allowed to appear in second professional examination but would be debarred from appearing in the third professional examination unless he passes all the subjects of first professional examination subject to a maximum of four chances to pass the first professional examination within a period of maximum three years.

¶13

5. It is submitted that since the course for first professional examination started in April, 2021, the aforesaid provision applied whereby the petitioner was required to complete his first professional examination by March, 2024.

¶14

6. Learned counsel for petitioner however refuted the aforesaid submission and has averred that the aforesaid provision would be applicable only in case a student fails to appear in the first professional examination, which is not the current case where petitioner on having

¶15

become unwell during Covid period was unable to participate in the classes and therefore in the first professional examination.

¶16

7. It is submitted that since petitioner is seeking only continuance of studies pertaining to first professional examination, the question of his appearing in the third professional examination does not arise.

¶17

8. In view of such submission, learned counsel for opposite parties are granted three weeks time to obtain instructions as to whether there is any provision in the statute or rules or regulations prohibiting continuance of studies for the purposes of first professional examination once a student has already been admitted.

¶18

9. List this case on 30th January, 2025 as fresh in top ten cases.

¶19

In pursuance thereof, learned counsel for opposite parties submit that there are no fresh instructions in this matter and impugned order has been passed only on the basis of paragraph 6 (c) of the notification dated 07.11.2016.

¶20

In view thereof, it is evident that notice in the order dated 27.01.2025 that the aforesaid provision is not applicable in the present case and no specific provision has been indicated whereby petitioner could be prohibited from continuance of studies particularly since he has already once been admitted with fee for the same also being deposited.

¶21

Mr. Savitra Vardhan Singh, learned counsel on the basis of instructions, however, submits that there is still time enough for petitioner to complete the aforesaid course.

¶22

In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order dated 27.05.2024 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature certiorari with a further writ in the nature of mandamus being issued to the opposite parties no. 3 and 4 to permit petitioner to commence the pursuit of study of the B.A.M.S. Course in the State Ayurvedic College and Hospital, Lucknow and upon completion of requisite formality forthwith and for appearance in the next upcoming examination.

¶23

Resultantly, petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own cost.

¶24

Order Date :- 30.1.2025 Satish

¶25

Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Arun Kumar Modanwal v. Vice Chancellor,University of Lucknow and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kumar Modanwal v. Vice Chancellor,University of Lucknow and 3 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Munish Chandra Saxena vs State of U.P. Its Addl. Secy. Deptt. of Finance and 4 Others

Hanuman Deen Vs State of U.P Thru Pramukh Sachiv Labour Lko and Ors.

Jagdambika Prasad Shukla vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. .Deptt. of Finance Lko. and 3 Others

Akash Anand vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Social Welfare, Lko. and Others

Devesh Gautam Mishra vs State of Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Irriagation Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Smt. Alka Singh vs Ajit Singh