Allahabad High Court
Jyoti Devi vs State Of U P And 3 Others on 26 August, 2021
Bench: Neeraj Tiwari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14702 of 2021
Petitioner :- Jyoti Devi
Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadhesh Kumar Singh,Abhai Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Avneesh Tripathi,Laxmi Kant Tripathi
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the respondent no.1, Sri Laxmi Kant Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and Sri Avneesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.
With the consent of parties, the writ petition is being finally decided at this stage without calling for counter affidavit.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has appeared in U.P. B.Ed Joint Entrance Examination 2019 conducted by the respondent no.-2 Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Rohilkhand University, Bareilly, U.P. (hereinafter referred to as respondent no.2). In the said examination, petitioner had secured 70.666% marks in the written test. Thereafter, she appeared in counseling and allotted Brahmdutt Dwivedi Prabha Dwivedi Degree College Ramgarh, Chhawani, Basti-respondent no.4 (hereinafter referred to as respondent no.4) which is affiliated to Siddharth University, Kapilvastu, Siddharth Nagar-respondent no.3 (hereinafter referred to as respondent no.3). After counseling, petitioner was required to download acceptance letter from the website and submitted before the respondent no.4, but the same was not available on website, therefore, she requested to respondent no. 4 to inform this fact to respondent no.2, which had conducted counseling. Accordingly, respondent no. 4 had written several letters to respondent no.2.
He next submitted that in the meantime, petitioner had taken admission in B.Ed first year, deposited admission fee, persuaded her studies and attended 210 classes of B.Ed 1st year as a regular student, which is minimum requirement for appearing in B.Ed. examination. He also submitted that due to spread of corona virus, University as well as State Government has taken policy decision to declare successful to all students, who had taken admission in B.Ed course and attended minimum required classes through online. Accordingly, other students of the same session have been declared successful. He further submitted that as petitioner could not download the acceptance letter from the website of the respondent no.2 only on the technical ground, she has been denied for admission. He lastly submitted that petitioner duly appeared in the entrance examination, alloted respondent no. 4 on the basis of merit, therefore, on the ground of mere technicality, she cannot be denied for admission and her result should also be declared as she is fulfilling all other requirements.
In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Khushboo Singh and 2 others Vs. State of U.P. and three others passed in Writ-C No. 2996 of 2020 vide order dated 5.2.2020. The Court has reiterated the same controversy and held that mere on technical ground admission cannot be cancelled. Relevant paragraph of the said judgement is being quoted hereinbelow:-
"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."
Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 & 3 could not dispute the facts as argued by learned counsel for the petitioner and only submitted that petitioner could not fulfill the mandatory requirement to download the acceptance letter and submit before the respondent no.4, which is alloted to her, therefore, his candidature for admission was not accepted.
I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as judgment relied by learned counsel for the applicant. I am of the view that once this fact is admitted that petitioner has duly appeared in entrance examination and also alloted respondent no.4 on the basis of merit. After allotment, she has taken admission in respondent no.4 and attended required number of classes, but could not submit acceptance letter only. There is no violation of merit or any other procedure or requirement of eligibility for appearing in B.Ed examination, therefore, on the ground of mere technicality, she cannot be denied for admission. The Court has also taken the very same view in the matter of Khushboo Singh (supra).
Therefore, under such facts and circumstances as well as law laid down by this Court, writ petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. Respondent no.2 is directed to accept the admission and forwarded the same to respondent no.3. Thereafter, respondent no.3 is directed to verify the fact as to where petitioner attended classes as required in the Act, Statute and Ordinance of University or not. In case, it is found in accordance with rules, her result shall also be declared as it was declared in the matter of earlier students.
So far as admission in second year is concerned, petitioner shall be given admission by the respondent no. 4 after having consultation with respondent no. 3 in accordance with Act, Statute and Ordinance of University.
Order Date :- 26.8.2021
Junaid
