Allahabad High Court
Mumtaz Saifi vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 17 September, 2020
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 71 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13967 of 2020 Petitioner :- Mumtaz Saifi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Chaudhary Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Avneesh Tripathi,Rohit Pandey Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Yogesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Shri Rohit Pandey, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and 3 and Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in similar circumstances Khushboo Singh and others have preferred Writ C No.2996 of 2020 (Khushboo Singh and others vs. State of UP and 3 others) wherein the Court had allowed the writ petition with following observations:-
"Petitioners appeared in the B.Ed. Entrance Examination-2019 and were declared successful therein. In the second phase of counseling they were allotted colleges, whereafter the amount of fee was also deposited by petitioners. Petitioners have been granted admission and they have been pursuing their course, accordingly. It is at this stage that suddenly the amount of fee deposited by them has been returned without passing any specific order cancelling their admission. Aggrieved by such action, petitioners have approached this Court.
Writ petition had been entertained and following orders were passed on 28.1.2020:-
"Learned counsel for the respondent-University may obtain instructions in the matter as to why petitioners' fee for the course in question has been returned without any opportunity of hearing. Post as fresh on 4.2.2020."
Sri Rohit Pandey has appeared for the University and has also obtained instructions from the concern authority, as per which there was a technical compulsion on account of which the process of counseling has to be discontinued and fresh counseling was undertaken by the University. As per the reconstituted procedure, petitioner nos.1 and 2 were entitled to allotment in the same college. So far as the petitioner no.3 is concerned, it is alleged that though he was allotted college but he never downloaded college allotment letter and therefore his admission has been treated as cancelled.
Learned counsel for the petitioners states that petitioners have not only deposited their fee but have also pursued their course for more than six months and at this stage asking them to undertake fresh admission would serve no purpose. So far as petitioner no.3 is concerned, it is pointed out on behalf of petitioners that he has also deposited his fee on 29.6.2019 and the same has also been returned on 21.12.2019. It is submitted that petitioner no.3 has also attended course for more than six months.
In the facts and circumstances as have been noticed above, it is clear that petitioners have qualified the entrance test and have secured admission on the basis of their merits. There is no default on their part in depositing fee or attending their class. Merely because of some change in the procedure by which admission process was being undertaken would not be a ground to cancel petitioners' admission or to require them to take fresh steps by applying again or depositing fee. This entire exercise is otherwise without any opportunity of hearing and is not shown to be referable to any provision of law.
In that view of the matter, this writ petition stands allowed with a direction upon respondents to treat the petitioners' admission as valid and to allow them to pursue their B.Ed. course for which admission has already been granted to them and fee was also deposited. The returned amount shall be deposited by way of a bank draft to the college concerned, alongwith certified copy of this order, within a week from today."
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the present matter is also squarely covered with the aforesaid matter and as such similar treatment may also be extended to the petitioner.
So far as the factual and legal aspect is concerned, moreover the same is accepted by counsel for the respondents.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, following the same set of reasoning, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner's admission as valid and to allow her to pursue her B.Ed. course for which admission has already been granted to her and fee was also deposited. The returned amount shall be deposited by way of a bank draft to the college concerned, alongwith copy of this order, within a week from today.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioner alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 17.9.2020 A. Pandey