{"id":150821,"date":"2010-08-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-08-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cm-dau-dayal-mahila-p-g-college-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-6-august-2010"},"modified":"2016-04-29T04:03:08","modified_gmt":"2016-04-28T22:33:08","slug":"cm-dau-dayal-mahila-p-g-college-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-6-august-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cm-dau-dayal-mahila-p-g-college-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-6-august-2010","title":{"rendered":"C\/M, Dau Dayal Mahila P.G. College vs State Of U.P. & Others on 6 August, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court<\/div>\n
C\/M, Dau Dayal Mahila P.G. College vs State Of U.P. & Others on 6 August, 2010<\/div>\n
                                                                       1\n\n                                                       Reserved Judgment\n\n                   Special Appeal No.1212 of 2009\n      Committee of Management, Dau Dayal Mahila P.G. College,\n                Firozabad Vs. State of U.P. & others\n\n                            Connected with :\n\n                  Special Appeal No.1293 of 2009\n            Usha Devi and others Vs. State of U.P. & others\n\n                                 ****\n<\/pre>\n
Hon’ble R.K. Agrawal, J
\nHon’ble A.P. Sahi, J<\/p>\n
      These two appeals arise out of a common judgment in two writ
\npetitions, one filed by the Management of the institution and the other
\nby the students in relation to admission in M.Ed. courses conducted by
\nthe institution. The institution, having failed to receive any direction
\nfrom the University for making admissions, had filed a writ petition in
\nthe year 2006 itself being Writ Petition No.49255 of 2006. Interim
\norders were granted by this Court under which admissions were made
\nby the institution and the students subsequently filed Writ Petition No.
\n9693 of 2009 for a mandamus to enable the University to allow them to
\nappear in the exams. Both these writ petitions have been dismissed by
\nthe learned single Judge on 16.7.2009, hence this Appeal.\n<\/p>\n
      The dispute relates to admission in M.Ed. courses of Dau Dayal
\nMahila P.G. College, Firozabad, affiliated to the Agra University. The
\ninstitution appears to have been granted permission\/affiliation by the
\nChancellor His Excellency the Governor vide order dated 10.6.2004 for
\nadmission against 25 seats. As a consequence of this permission, the
\nCollege contends that it started running the courses and that admissions
\nwere to be made in accordance with the U.P. State Universities
\n(Regulation of Admission to Course of Instruction for Degree in
\nEducation in affiliated, associated and constituent Colleges) Order 1987.
\nChapter-III of the said provisions is quoted below:-\n<\/p>\n
                                                                         2<\/span><\/p>\n
                           “CHAPTER III
\n                    ADMISSION TO M.ED. CLASSES\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         15.Introductory.– The provision of this Chapter shall apply for
\n            admission to a course of instruction in M.Ed. classes only in
\n            any college.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         16.No person shall be admitted in any college unless he has
\n            passed an examination for the degree of B.Ed. conducted by
\n            a University established by law or an examination for the
\n            diploma of recognised B.T. or L.T.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         17.Only those applications for admission to M.Ed. will be
\n            considered where the candidates, according to the statutes
\n            of the concerned University, fulfil all other qualifications
\n            except M.Ed., for appointment as a Lecturer in B.A.
\n            (Education) or in the B.Ed., department in the degree
\n            colleges of the State.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         18.Admission according to merit.– Candidates shall be
\n            admitted strictly in order of merit on the basis of percentage
\n            of marks obtained in the B.Ed. or its equivalent other
\n            recognised examinations. Full marks obtained in the theory
\n            and fifty per cent marks obtained in the practical
\n            examination shall be considered in calculating the
\n            percentage.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            Illustration.–If a candidate has secured 240 marks out of
\n            500 in the theory and 140 marks out of 200 in the practical
\n            examination then for the sake of calculation, the full marks
\n            obtained by him will be 240+(140\/2 or 70) = 310 and his
\n            percentage will be 44.28 (310 x 100)\/700.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         19.Application of Orders of Chapter II.– The provisions of
\n            paras 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13 and 14 shall mutatis mutandis
\n            apply to admission under this Chapter also.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      The University was requested to process admissions according to
\nthe said permission granted in the Session 2004-05 but having failed to
\nreceive any response, the Management filed Writ Petition No. 55847 of
\n2005. A counter-affidavit was filed in the said writ petition and it was
\nindicated therein that only 2 candidates had been recommended by the
\nUniversity and according to the conditions imposed, 50% of the seats
\nare to be filled up from the candidates recommended by the University.
\nIt was pointed out by the Management that the University having failed
\nto fill up 50% seats, the entire session 2004-05 would go waste and, as
\nsuch advertisement had been issued by the College for filling up the
\nseats. The Court found that the scheme was a self financing scheme and
\naccordingly directed the University to scrutinize the admissions and take
\nsuitable steps for admission.\n<\/p>\n
      Thereafter, for the session 2005-06 entrance examinations were
\n                                                                         3<\/span><\/p>\n
held but the results were not declared. Consequently, the University did
\nnot continue with the admission process of the Session 2006-07. It is,
\ntherefore, clear that the University, which had to hold the entrance
\nexamination for admission to the M.Ed. courses, had not been able to
\nhold the examinations. The reason given by the University for not
\nprocessing the admissions for 2006-07 is delayed session. In the
\naforesaid background, the College had come up before this Court for an
\nappropriate direction.\n<\/p>\n
      Upon entertaining the writ petition, this Court passed an order on
\n3.10.2006 to the following effect:-\n<\/p>\n
            “University is directed to provide 50% of the M.Ed. students
\n            for the academic session 2006-07 in the institution of the
\n            petitioner or show cause by the next date.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      The matter was taken up on 12.10.2006 where an order was
\npassed to the following effect:-\n<\/p>\n
                  “Learned counsel for the respondents states that he
\n            has received instructions but as the Registrar of the
\n            University has been placed under suspension of 4.10.2006,
\n            the counter-affidavit could not be filed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  As agreed, list\/put up on 18.10.2006 for compliance of
\n            the order dated 3.10.2006.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                          Sd\/- Hon. Vineet Saran, J
\n                                               Dt. 12.10.2006″<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Subsequently, when the University failed to provide the students,
\nthis Court passed the following interim order on 5.12.2006:-\n<\/p>\n
                 “On 3.10.2006 this Court had directed the
\n            respondent- University to provide 50% of the M.Ed.
\n            students for the academic Session 2006-07 in the institution
\n            of the petitioner or who cause by the next date and
\n            12.10.2006 was the date fixed. On the next date, on a
\n            statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent-
\n            University mentioning that he had received instructions but
\n            as the Registrar of the University had been placed under
\n            suspension, the counter-affidavit could not be filed, as such,
\n            the matter was adjourned. Thereafter, on several dates the
\n            case was passed over on the illness slip sent by the learned
\n                                                                           4<\/span><\/p>\n
            counsel for the respondent-University. The case has thus
\n            come up today but till date no counter-affidavit has been
\n            filed.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
\n            till date the respondent-University has not provided 50% of
\n            the M.Ed. students for the said Session.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   In the aforesaid circumstances, it is directed that in
\n            case if within ten days from today the students are not
\n            provided to the petitioner-institution, the institution shall be
\n            at liberty to admit students and fill up the remaining seats,
\n            in accordance with law, after ten days.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  Let this matter be listed on 20.12.2006.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  Let a certified copy of this order be issued to the
\n            learned counsel for the parties, within 24 hours, on payment
\n            of usual charges.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                           Sd\/- Hon. Vineet Saran, J
\n                                                Dt. 5.12.2006″<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      The University contends that a short-counter-affidavit had already
\nbeen filed on 22.12.2006 and, as such, the sentence reciting that no
\ncounter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the University was incorrect
\nand, accordingly, a recall application with a detailed counter-affidavit
\nwas filed on 2.1.2007. The said recall application was disposed of on
\n2.11.2007 by the following order:-\n<\/p>\n
            “A short counter-affidavit without giving any reply to the
\n            averments made in this writ petition had been filed by the
\n            respondent-University on 22.11.2006. Another detailed
\n            counter-affidavit has been filed on 2.1.2007 along with an
\n            application with the prayer for recalling the interim order
\n            dated 5.12.2006. In my view, the interim order dated
\n            5.12.2006 does not require to be recalled. The said
\n            application be treated as an application for vacating the stay
\n            order.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  List before the appropriate Court immediately after
\n            two weeks by which time the petitioner may file rejoinder-
\n            affidavit.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                          Sd\/- Hon. Vineet Saran, J
\n                                                Dt. 2.11.2007″\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Thus, it is evident that the aforesaid interim orders were passed from
\ntime to time and the Management contends that admissions were taken
\n                                                                              5<\/span><\/p>\n
thereafter.\n<\/p>\n
      The students filed the subsequent Writ Petition No. 9693 of 2009
\nalleging that they have been admitted in accordance with the interim
\ndirections of this Court. This writ petition was filed in February 2009 in
\nwhich the University filed a counter-affidavit to which a reply has been
\nfiled by the University. The students contend that they have been
\nadmitted and, therefore, for no fault of theirs, the University should be
\ncommanded to allow them to appear in the exams.\n<\/p>\n
      On behalf of the University, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh contends that
\nthe Affidavits filed in support of the recall application and the
\nsubsequent Affidavits filed in both the writ petitions, it is absolutely
\nclear that the institution has proceeded to admit students on its own
\nwithout there being any order of the University and without compliance
\nof any of the procedure including the guidelines framed by the National
\nCouncil for Teachers Education and regulations framed for admission to
\nM.Ed. classes in accordance with Statute 11.01. Sri Singh submits that
\nStatute 11.01, which is reproduced below, entails that the qualifications
\nhas to be the same as that of a Lecturer in Education except for the
\nMasters degree. The Statute 11.01 is quoted below:-\n<\/p>\n
              “11.01. (1) In the case of Faculties of Arts, Commerce
\n              Science and Home Science the minimum qualifications for
\n              the post of a lecturer in the University shall be Master’s
\n              degree or an equivalent Degree of a Foreign University in
\n              the relevant subject with at least 55 per cent marks or its
\n              equivalent grade and consistently good academic record.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (2) In the case of Faculty of Education the minimum
\n              qualifications for the post of a lecturer in the University shall
\n              be Master’s degree or an equivalent degree of a Foreign
\n              University in Educations (that is an M.Ed. degree) with at
\n              least 55 per cent marks or its equivalent grade and
\n              consistently good academic record.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (3) ………………………………………..
\n              (4) ………………………………………..
\n              (5) (a) ……………………………………\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              (b) A candidate for Lecturer ship in the Faculty of Education
\n              having obtained either 55 per cent marks in B.Ed. degree
\n              examination and second class in any other Bachelor’s
\n              degree examination or 50 per cent marks in each of the two
\n              examination separately is said to have consistently good
\n                                                                         6<\/span><\/p>\n
            academic record;”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      Sri Singh contends that even these qualifications are not fulfilled
\nby the students including the eligibility of 55% marks for admission in
\nthe courses. Sri Singh further submits that the grant of interim order by
\nthis Court was also against the law inasmuch as the University was not
\nobliged to grant admission as a matter of compulsion. He further
\nsubmits that the entrance examinations could not be conducted for
\nprocessing the admissions as the session was late and, therefore, in the
\nMeeting held by the University – Authority on 3.6.2008, it was decided
\nto declare the Session of 2006-07 to be a Zero session. This fact has
\nbeen brought on record through the counter-affidavit filed in the
\nsubsequent writ petition and it is stated that in view of the aforesaid
\nposition of the University, there is no occasion to permit the students to
\nappear in the exams.\n<\/p>\n
      This matter was heard on several occasions and the learned
\ncounsel for the appellant was directed to demonstrate before the Court
\nas to even if the admissions had been made under the interim orders
\nquoted herein above, what was the procedure followed by the College to
\nfinalize admissions. Sri Ranjit Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant,
\nhas produced the record and has also filed Affidavits. The norms and
\nstandard for M.Ed. Degree Programme as prescribed by the National
\nCouncil for Teachers Education has been appended along with the
\nsupplementary-affidavit   dated   23.2.2010.   Another    supplementary-
\naffidavit has been filed on 25.2.2010 annexing therewith the list of the
\nstudents, who had applied and the list of the admitted students. Sri
\nSaxena contends that the aforesaid basic norms had been complied with
\nand, therefore, the admissions were validly conducted by the College in
\naccordance with the norms prescribed.\n<\/p>\n
      Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in view of the
\naforesaid facts that emerge from the pleadings, it is evident that the
\nCollege was not granted permission by the University to take admission
\nfor the session 2006-07. The University has not conducted any entrance
\ntest and has come up with a plea that the session has been declared to
\n                                                                            7<\/span><\/p>\n
be a Zero session. It is worth noting that the resolution dated 3.6.2008
\npassed by the University in the Meeting of the Examination Committee
\nfails to take notice of the interim orders passed by this Court in relation
\nto the admissions of the present institution before proceeding to declare
\nthe entire session to be a Zero session. The University, while proceeding
\nto do this, was obliged to take notice of orders passed in the year 2006-\n<\/p>\n
07. This having not been done, the University, in our opinion, was not
\njustified in taking a decision to declare the session to be a Zero session
\non account of the delay of session of the University itself. To this extent,
\nthe College cannot be said to be at any fault. This aspect of the matter,
\nin our opinion, had not been noticed by the learned single Judge while
\nproceeding to dismiss the writ petition. The interim orders granted by
\nthis Court, therefore, permitted the institution to take admissions.\n<\/p>\n
      The next question which falls for consideration is that the
\nprocedure of admission of 25 students who are the petitioners in the
\nsecond writ petition, the documents of which had been filed, indicate
\nthat 2 lists were prepared, one indicating the number of applicants who
\nwere 63 and the other a list of 25 students who were ultimately
\nadmitted and who are the petitioners in the second writ petition. The
\nAffidavits filed do indicate some process having been adopted but there
\nis nothing on record to demonstrate as to how these admissions were
\nprocessed after calculating the minimum eligibility marks of the
\nstudents. The marks of every student calculated according to the norms
\nprescribed have not been indicated in the 2 lists. Learned counsel
\ncontends that some students, who were higher in merit, did not turn up
\nand, as such, they were issued intimations as to whether they would
\nlike to still seek admission or not. It is contended that in view of the fact
\nthat 25 students, who were admitted, turned up according to the notice
\nissued and no other candidate staked a claim for admission, the
\nadmissions were finalized.\n<\/p>\n
      Learned single Judge, therefore, in our opinion, rightly arrived at
\nthe conclusion that in the absence of any such material it would be
\ndifficult to uphold the admissions. The conduct of the institution,
\ntherefore, in proceeding to take admissions was not according to
\n                                                                         8<\/span><\/p>\n
conditions of recognition and the University cannot be said to have
\nextended any such permission to the institution to go ahead with the
\nadmission. The University must have delayed the session yet it appears
\nthat the University had taken measures to rectify the same by declaring
\nthe session to be a Zero session. The University might have been
\ncompelled to do so but in our opinion, the Management of the institution
\nhad no occasion to proceed to take admissions without following the
\nprocedure and without bringing anything on record to indicate that the
\nadmissions were held in conformity with the procedure prescribed in
\nlaw. This has resulted in an awesome injury to the students, who bona
\nfidely approached     the institution for admission. The Management
\nhaving not followed a genuine procedure as prescribed under law, has
\nacted in violation of norms and in our opinion it is the Management
\nwhich has created this confusion which has been worst confounded by
\nthe absence of any demonstrable procedure having been adopted by the
\nCollege in accordance with law. The learned single Judge, therefore, in
\nour opinion, was right in arriving at a conclusion in respect of the
\nconduct of the institution.\n<\/p>\n
      There is yet another aspect of the matter. The appellants cannot
\nplead estoppal as the University had nowhere on its own volition
\nextended some promise on the basis whereof any legitimate claim can
\nbe set up on behalf of the students. The institution also could not have
\nunder the existing provisions compelled the University to allow it to take
\nadmissions without the involvement and participation of the University.
\nNonetheless, the University also was obliged to take into account the
\nvarious factors in relation to the conduct of such courses before
\nproceeding to declare the Session as zero session. The University also,
\ntherefore, did not take action promptly and in the year 2008 passed a
\nresolution for declaring the session to be a zero session. Under Section
\n28 of the State Universities Act, there is a provision for statutory
\nAdmissions Committee which functions subject to the superintendence
\nof the academic council. It is the Admissions Committee which lays
\ndown the policy for admission to various courses of studies in the
\nUniversity. The criteria and method of admission, therefore, has to be
\nprovided by the University. Under Section 29 of the Act, there is a
\n                                                                              9<\/span><\/p>\n
Statutory Examinations Committee which is entrusted with all functions
\nof examination except those of autonomous Colleges where under
\nSection 42 of the Act, the University has the authority to grant
\npermission in the manner prescribed to run a particular course of study
\nand hold an examination. The determination of such matters is left to
\nthe University. It is, therefore, clear that there is a direct control over all
\nsuch matters of the University and hence the University is under a legal
\nobligation to discharge its function, more so when the College had been
\nmaking repeated requests and the litigation was going on from the
\nsession 2005-06 itself. Thus, the Institution, the University and the
\ndirections issued by this Court have all led to a situation where the
\nstudents are standing on the brink of their career. It is pointed out by
\nSri Saxena that all the 25 students have completed their courses but
\nthey have not been permitted to take up the exams. He further submits
\nthat all the students being female candidates are in search of
\nemployment and looking to their capabilities, they would be contributing
\ntowards the educational system of the Society without causing any
\nharm to the system.\n<\/p>\n
      In view of the aforesaid facts, let the University permit the
\npetitioners of Writ Petition No.9693 of 2009 to appear in the exams for
\nthe session 2006-07 for which the University shall take steps at the
\nearliest. We are passing this order also because of the fact that no other
\nstudent or candidate has put any challenge to the procedure adopted by
\nthe College in selecting the candidates for admission.\n<\/p>\n
      We may, however, make it clear that this order has been passed
\nin the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case as noted
\nherein above and this order shall not be a precedent for any other
\ncourse or any other session. The College is hereafter warned not to seek
\nany admissions except with the approval of the University in accordance
\nwith rules and after complying with the procedure prescribed in law. Any
\nsuch further attempt by the College shall be viewed seriously and the
\nUniversity shall recommend appropriate action against the Management
\nof the institution in the event any such default is located being
\ndeliberately attempted by the institution at the cost of the students.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                 10<\/span><\/p>\n
     The Special Appeal stands disposed of and the order passed by
\nthe learned single Judge to that extent would stand modified
\naccordingly.\n<\/p>\n
Dt. August 6, 2010
\nIrshad\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Allahabad High Court C\/M, Dau Dayal Mahila P.G. College vs State Of U.P. & Others on 6 August, 2010 1 Reserved Judgment Special Appeal No.1212 of 2009 Committee of Management, Dau Dayal Mahila P.G. College, Firozabad Vs. State of U.P. & others Connected with : Special Appeal No.1293 of 2009 Usha Devi and others Vs. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[9,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-150821","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allahabad-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nC\/M, Dau Dayal Mahila P.G. College vs State Of U.P. & Others on 6 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cm-dau-dayal-mahila-p-g-college-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-6-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"C\/M, Dau Dayal Mahila P.G. College vs State Of U.P. & Others on 6 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cm-dau-dayal-mahila-p-g-college-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-6-august-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-08-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-28T22:33:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cm-dau-dayal-mahila-p-g-college-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-6-august-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cm-dau-dayal-mahila-p-g-college-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-6-august-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"C\\\/M, Dau Dayal Mahila P.G. College vs State Of U.P. & Others on 6 August, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-28T22:33:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cm-dau-dayal-mahila-p-g-college-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-6-august-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3164,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Allahabad High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cm-dau-dayal-mahila-p-g-college-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-6-august-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cm-dau-dayal-mahila-p-g-college-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-6-august-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cm-dau-dayal-mahila-p-g-college-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-6-august-2010\",\"name\":\"C\\\/M, Dau Dayal Mahila P.G. College vs State Of U.P. & Others on 6 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-08-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-28T22:33:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cm-dau-dayal-mahila-p-g-college-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-6-august-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cm-dau-dayal-mahila-p-g-college-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-6-august-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/cm-dau-dayal-mahila-p-g-college-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-6-august-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"C\\\/M, Dau Dayal Mahila P.G. College vs State Of U.P. & Others on 6 August, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"C\/M, Dau Dayal Mahila P.G. College vs State Of U.P. & Others on 6 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cm-dau-dayal-mahila-p-g-college-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-6-august-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"C\/M, Dau Dayal Mahila P.G. College vs State Of U.P. & Others on 6 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cm-dau-dayal-mahila-p-g-college-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-6-august-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-08-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-28T22:33:08+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cm-dau-dayal-mahila-p-g-college-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-6-august-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cm-dau-dayal-mahila-p-g-college-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-6-august-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"C\/M, Dau Dayal Mahila P.G. College vs State Of U.P. & Others on 6 August, 2010","datePublished":"2010-08-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-28T22:33:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cm-dau-dayal-mahila-p-g-college-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-6-august-2010"},"wordCount":3164,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Allahabad High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cm-dau-dayal-mahila-p-g-college-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-6-august-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cm-dau-dayal-mahila-p-g-college-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-6-august-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cm-dau-dayal-mahila-p-g-college-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-6-august-2010","name":"C\/M, Dau Dayal Mahila P.G. College vs State Of U.P. & Others on 6 August, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-08-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-28T22:33:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cm-dau-dayal-mahila-p-g-college-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-6-august-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cm-dau-dayal-mahila-p-g-college-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-6-august-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/cm-dau-dayal-mahila-p-g-college-vs-state-of-u-p-others-on-6-august-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"C\/M, Dau Dayal Mahila P.G. College vs State Of U.P. & Others on 6 August, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/150821","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=150821"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/150821\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=150821"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=150821"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=150821"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}