By the Court.—This special appeal is reported to be beyond time by 79 days. After hearing the submissions and on perusal of the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application, in our view, the cause shown is sufficient. Accordingly the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The present intra Court appeal has been preferred by petitioner-appellant Ishrat Ali challenging the validity and correctness of the judgment and order dated 16.11.2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 66958 of 2010, by which learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant. Relevant extract of the impugned judgment reads thus:

“3. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not place anything to show that the aforesaid so called university has been established in accordance with Section 2(f) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. It has also not been shown that the university is a “deemed university” under Section 3 of the said Act,nor is an institution especially conferred power to grant or confer degree by an Act of Parliament. Hence, the degree awarded by Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya Vrindavan, Mathura is absolutely illegal and unauthorised conferring no right upon the incumbent to claim any benefit on the basis of such degree.

4. In the case in hand the petitioner claims to have passed Adhikari Examination in the year 2000 from Gurukul Viswavidyalaya, Brindavan and it says that the Adhikari Examination is recognised as equivalent to the High School examination of Board of High School and Intermediate, U.P., Allahabad. However, nothing has been placed on record to show as to how and in what manner the said examination was equivalent to High School and was duly recognised particularly when the aforesaid institution as an University cannot be held to be within the term “University” as defined in Section 2(f) of the U.G.C. Act, 1956. The petitioner seeks to place before this Court the extract of U.P. Education Manual, page 226, item 30 which reads as under:

^^¼3½ xq#dqy fo’ofo|ky;] o`Unkou }kjk o"kZ 2008 dh ijh{kk rd lapkfyr vaxzsth ds lkFk vf/kdkjh ijh{kk] tks ,d ls vf/kd o"kZ esa [k.M+ksa esa mRrh.kZ u dh xbZ gksA

^^fVIi.kh& bl fofu;e esa iz;qDr 'kCn [k.M+ksa ls rkRi;Z iwjd ijh{kk ls gSA**

There is a note at the bottom on the same page which reads as under:

^^foKfIr la[;k ifj"kn&9@532] 'kklu vius i= la[;k 2085@15&7&08&1¼139½@05] fnukad 8 flrEcj] 2008] }kjk la'kksf/kr tks m0iz0 ljdkjh xtV Hkkx&4 fnukad 27 flrECj] 2008 dks izdkf'kr gqvk ¼tks rkRdkfyd izHkkoh½A**

6. It is thus evident there from that this recognition has been made in 2008 and does not apply for 2000 examination. Moreover, the finding recorded by the authorities concerned in the impugned order that the aforesaid institution has been declared to be a fictitious one by the State Government has not been shown to be perverse inasmuch as in respect to the said institution there is nothing on record to show as to how it came into existence and in what manner it has been constituted and has been permitted to run educational institution in the State of U.P.

7. In view thereof, I find no factual or legal error in the order warranting any interference. Dismissed.”

4. The impugned judgment aforesaid is assailed by the appellant on the ground that it suffers from gross errors of law and patent misrepresentation of facts as the writ Court has not appreciated the grievance of the petitioner-appellant and the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 25.9.2010 rejecting his candidature for B.T.C. Course-2010, has been dismissed on the ground that he had obtained education from Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya Vrindavan, which has been found by the Government to be a forged and fictitious institution.

5. According to the counsel for petitioner-appellant, the writ Court in the impugned judgment has ignored the Government notification dated 19th September, 2008 that the degree gr