V.K. Shukla, J. - (1.) THIS Court on 14.02.2011 passed following order: Learned standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of Respondent No. 1. Sri Saumitra Singh, Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, Sri Vivek Verma, Sri Anurag Khanna, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh and Sri Satish Mandhyan, Advocates have entered appearance on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 respectively. Issue notice to Respondent No. 7. Apart from serving notice on Respondent No. 7 through R.P.A.D., dasti summons also be issued? for serving the said Respondent, making it returnable within four weeks. List this petition on 15th March, 2011. Each one of the Respondents is directed to file counter affidavit by the date fixed.
(2.) DASTI notices as well as R.P.A.D. notices were issued fixing 15.03.2011. Office note indicates that neither undelivered cover nor acknowledgment has been returned back after service. In such a situation and in this background service on Respondent No. 7 is presumed to be sufficient in terms of Chapter VIII Rule 12 of the Rules of Court. On the matter being taken up, none of the Respondents has filed any counter affidavit in the present case.
(3.) CONTROVERSY involved in present case has already been dealt with and answered by learned Single Judge of this Court in writ petition No. 62615 of 2010, Prem Narain Tiwari and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. in following terms: All the 54 Petitioners in this writ petition claim that they had appeared in the Joint Entrance Examination, 2010 for admission in B. Ed. course and having qualified in the same they were issued letters of allotment for taking admission in separate institutions, who have been arrayed as Respondents herein. The Petitioners after having taken admission without any confirmation slips have pursue their courses but the Lucknow University came up with a notification dated 29th September, 2010 (annexure 6 to the writ petition) informing that such students, who do not have any confirmation slips in their favor cannot be given admission as they are ineligible. The said notification further provides that if such candidates want admission they can appear in second round of Counseling and have to report by 30th September, 2010. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contends that there was no mistake on the part of the Petitioners as there was no information that the admission would stand defaulted for want of confirmation slips and even the letters of allotment simply state that the same shall be treated to be incomplete, hence the same cannot be treated to have been cancelled. For this, learned Counsel for the Petitioners relies on the information tendered to the candidates of second round of Counseling where this specific information has been given. He further contends that the brochure, which has been supplied, does not contain or mention any procedure nor does the news item as published contain any such recital. He further submits that this mistake has occurred on the Counseling centers of Luck now and Varanasi and even if there was an alleged mistake on the part of the Petitioners that was due to the incorrect or incomplete information given by the University, therefore, the Petitioners' admission cannot be treated to have been cancelled. It is further submitted that the Petitioners are continuing under the interim order and, therefore, the same deserves to be confirmed. He has further invited the attention of the Court to paragraph 9 of the supplementary affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 536 of 2011 to contend that the University itself was prepared to rectify the error and, therefore, it should have allowed some more extra time so that the Petitioners could avail the confirmation slips. He therefore contends that it is an error which could have been rectified and the same should not be allowed to operate as a condition invalidating the admissions of the Petitioners. It is further submitted that the Petitioners are higher in merit than those who have been given admission in the second and third round of Counseling, therefore, they should not be eliminated on a technicality. He further submits that the said error of not getting a confirmation slip is a mere irregularity and not a illegality so as to deny the admission. The issue relating to the binding nature of the procedure prescribed has been discussed by this Court in detail in the decision dated 31st January, 2011 in Writ Petition No. 536 of 2011 (Sachin Arora and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors.). It has been held that the letter of allotment itself prescribes the condition which has to be completed by the candidate himself. For ready reference the said condition may be gainfully looked into from the letters of allotment, which have been filed by the Petitioners themselves. A certificate of Zero fee balance has to be obtained and even otherwise, the candidate has to report to the fee deposit counter in order to get a negative balance to confirm the allotment of seats. The aforesaid condition is also peremptory in nature or else the admission would be incomplete and the allotment cannot be treated to be final. The Petitioners did not make any effort to obtain the confirmation slips, which was mandatory under the aforesaid provisions. The aforesaid deficiency is not a mere curable irregularity as suggested. After having dealt with the issues and the submissions that were raised in this regard, it has been held by this Court that in the absence of a confirmation slip, the admission cannot be accepted. There is no new argument on this score to take a different view from that of Sachin Arora's (supra) case. The contention raised by the Petitioners that there was no information is without any substance as they had complete knowledge of the procedure to be followed through their letters of allotment itself. No further information was required to be given. A large number, and as a matter of fact, a majority of the students whose admissions are valid had obtained confirmation slips as such the Petitioners cannot plead ignorance or mistake. The notification dated 29th September, 2010 was in the nature of a warning issued that no admission should be made in violation of the said Rules and, therefore, the same was a direction to the institutions in general to ensure that the admissions are made only in accordance with the procedure prescribed and not otherwise. The notification, therefore, cannot be faulted with on any score as it is neither contrary to the provisions of the brochure nor does it violate any provisions relating to the examinations. The declaration through the said notification is neither arbitrary nor does it effect any rights of such candidates who have obtained valid admissions. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contends that even if it is assumed that the mistake was of the Petitioners then the same is on account of the incorrect information of the University. The said argument has to be rejected in view of the terms prescribed in the letter of allotment itself and as indicated above. The Petitioners who have obtained the interim order from this Court forget that all such students who have obtained admission through the correct procedure are standing outside inspite of having confirmation slips in their favor on account of the interim order passed in this writ petition. The Petitioners having failed to establish that they have any confirmation slips in their favor are not entitled to any benefit and there is no reason to quash the notification merely because the Petitioners have been allowed to pursue their studies under the interim orders which does not by itself confer any right on the Petitioners. The interim order which was passed had not considered the aforesaid aspects of the matter including the reasons given in Sachin Arora's (supra) case. In such a situation, the Petitioners cannot claim benefit in view of the interim orders passed in their favor. In view of this, the writ petition is dismissed. The interim order dated 12.10.2010 stands discharged. No orders as to cost.;