Disposed¶13

Mohd. Akram v. Vice Chancellor Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Rohilkhand University, District Bareilly and 3 Others

Allahabad HC9 Jan 2026WRIC/43837/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Admit card not issued; 9th Semester LLB 5-year course; Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Rohilkhand University, Bareilly; college did not forward examination form; written instructions taken on record; notice to respondent no. 2 by speed post/A.D.; dasti notice; personal service permitted; interim order; matter listed fresh 2.2.2026; WRIT - C No. 43837 of 2025; Vivek Saran, J.; Allahabad High Court; Mohd. Akram v. Vice Chancellor Rohilkhand University.

What did the court decide?

Interim directions only: notice to respondent no. 2 by speed post/A.D. with steps within three days; liberty to the petitioner to serve respondent no. 2 personally with dasti notice from the Office; matter listed fresh on 2.2.2026. The writ petition was not finally decided. ¶13

Mohd. Akram vs Vice Chancellor Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Rohilkhand University, District Bareilly and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who claims to have completed all formalities, is entitled to be issued the admit card for the 9th Semester of the LLB 5-year course, notwithstanding the University's submission that his college did not forward his examination form.

¶10

Court's answer

Notice was ordered to be issued to respondent no. 2 by speed post/A.D., with steps to be taken within three days.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

Written instructions provided by Sri Rohit Pandey, counsel for the respondent University, were taken on record.

¶11

Key takeaways

In addition to normal mode of service, the petitioner was permitted to serve respondent no. 2 personally, and the Office was directed to provide dasti notice.ratio¶14
The matter was directed to be listed as fresh on 2.2.2026.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Vivek Saran, J.), interim order dated January 9, 2026 in WRIT - C No. 43837 of 2025, Mohd. Akram v. Vice Chancellor, Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Rohilkhand University, District Bareilly & 3 others. The petitioner, a student of the LLB 5-year course, complained that he had not been issued the admit card for the 9th Semester despite completing all formalities. Counsel for the University (Sri Rohit Pandey) produced written instructions, taken on record, stating that the petitioner's college had not forwarded his form, which was 'probably' a reason for non-issuance of the admit card. Without deciding any merits, the Court directed issue of notice to respondent no. 2 by speed post/A.D. (steps within three days), permitted the petitioner to serve respondent no. 2 personally with dasti notice from the Office in addition to normal service, and listed the matter as fresh on 2.2.2026. No statute or precedent was cited; no substantive right was adjudicated at this stage.

Mohd. Akram v. Vice Chancellor Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Rohilkhand University, District Bareilly and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Akram v. Vice Chancellor Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Rohilkhand University, District Bareilly 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Committee of Management, Guru Nanak Pathshala Kanya High School and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramnaresh @ Ramnaresh Gupta vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Naseem Ahmed vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Committee of Management and Another vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Suraj Kumar vs State of U.P.

Shiv Kumar and Another vs the State of U.P. and 3 Others