Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ku. Pratibha Singh (Minor) vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 11 April, 2014
Bench: A. M. Khanwilkar, K.K. Trivedi
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
W.P. No. 20342/2013
Ku. Pratibha Singh (minor)
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.18708/2013
Siddhartha Kaim
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.18728/2013
Mansi Kaveeshwar
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.18738/2013
Brijesh Kumar Mishra
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.18750/2013
Shrasti Raghuwanshi
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.19100/2013
Aditya Singh Rajpoot
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.19465/2013
Atul Kumar
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.20050/2013
Priyanka Dewada
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
2
W.P. No.20318/2013
Mayur Masani
Vs
Medical Council of India and others
W.P. No. 20908/2013
Saksham Rai
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.21297/2013
Ku. Pragyashree Baghel
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.21502/2013
Anjali
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No. 21503/2013
Miss Suman Kumawat
Vs
M.P. Professional Examination Board and others
W.P. No.21504/2013
Seema Dabi
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No. 21505/2013
Ku. Ketki Pandit
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No. 21506/2013
Pradeep
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.21507/2013
Ankit Patidar
Vs.
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
3
W.P. No.21508/2013
Saloni Badole
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No. 21510/2013
Rajkumar Yogi
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No. 21511/2013
Neha Jarman
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.21513/2013
Ms. Anam Syed
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.21514/2013
Akanksha Patel
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.21515/2013
Abhishek Saxena
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.21516/2013
Krutika Hada
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.21517/2013
Arpit Singh
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
4
W.P. No.21518/2013
Ms. Ritubala Patel
Vs
Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board and others
W.P. No.21519/2013
Ku. Elisha Damor
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.21520/2013
Sumit Sinha
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.21522/2013
Munmun Jain
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.21523/2013
Nidhi Sulya
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.21525/2013
Vandana Prajapati
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.21526/2013
Shubhangini Kushwah
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.21529/2013
Priyanka Buaa
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
5
W.P. No.21530/2013
Jagrat Biloniya
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.21531/2013
Mahesh Ahirwar
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.21533/2013
Kshitij Kaneriya
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.21534/2013
Sugam Alawa
Vs
Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board and others
W.P. No.21536/2013
Pulkit Patel
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.21537/2013
Aditi Rawat
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.21545/2013
Priyal Awasthy
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.21562/2013
Chandra Shekhar Hindoliya
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
6
W.P. No.21566/2013
Vikas Singh
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.21827/2013
Shivani Shrivastava
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.21828/2013
Harsha Yadav
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.21830/2013
Sanjeev Yadav
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.21831/2013
Samishta Shrama
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No. 203/2014
Dharmendra Prajapati
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.286/2014
Rohit Jaiswal
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.321/2014
Rahul Raghuwanshi
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
7
W.P. No.334/2014
Mandira Shinde
Vs
M.P. Professional Examination Board and others
W.P. No.367/2014
Shrikant Pandey
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.494/2014
Priya Yadav
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.1067/2014
Pooja Yadav
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.1069/2014
Surbhi Dalal
Vs
Secretary, Medical Education Department and others
W.P. No.1668/2014
Neha Bee
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.1673/2014
Palak Kukreja
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.1771/2014
Raviraj Verma
Vs
M.P. Professional Examination Board and others
8
W.P. No. 1842/2014
Abhishek Chouhan
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.1843/2014
Aakash
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.1929/2014
Sukhveer Singh Kaviya
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.2345/2014
Jharan Divekar
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No.2381/2014
Manish Yadav
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No. 2382/2014
Paras Yadav
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No. 2618/2014
Rashmi Verma
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No. 2820/2014
Parul Singh
Vs
The State of Madhya Pradesh and others
W.P. No. 21554/2013
Preeti Shakya
Vs
State of Madhya Pradesh and others
9
==========================================================
Coram
Hon'ble Shri Justice A. M. Khanwilkar, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Justice K.K. Trivedi, J.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes
------------------------------------------
Shri Amitabh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners in W.P. No.20908/2013 &
21518/2013.
Ms Durgesh Thapa, Advocate for the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 21562/2013 &
21566/2013.
Shri Aditya Sanghi, Advocate for the petitioners in W.P. Nos.20050/2013,
21506/2013, 21534/2013 & 203/2014.
Shri D.C. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners in W.P. No.21505/2013,
21514/2013, 21533/2013 & 21536/2014.
Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners in W.P. No.1067/2014,
1069/2014, 1842/2014, 1843/2014 and 1929/2014.
Shri Manikant Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner in W.P. No.21827/2013,
21828/2013, 21830/2013, 21831/2013.
Shri Rajendra Tiwari, Senior Advocate with Shri T.K. Khatka, Advocate for the
petitioners in W.P. Nos.21525/2013 and 321/2014
Shri Amit Khatri, Advocate for the petitioner in W.P. No.18708/2013
Shri Vijay Tulsiyan, Advocate for the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 21522/2013,
21516/2013, 2618/2014.
Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner in W.P. No.21297/2013
Shri Paritosh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners in W.P. No.18750/2013 and
21545/2013
Shri Pushpendra Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner in W.P. No.19100/2013
Shri K.K. Gautam, Advocate for the petitioner in W.P. No.20342/2013
Shri Hemendra Singh, Advocate for the petitioner in W.P. No.21530/2013
Shri Prabhakar Singh, Advocate for the petitioner in W.P. No.19465/2013
Shri Ramji Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner in W.P. No.18728/2013 and
2345/2014
Shri R.N. Dwivedi, Advocate for the petitioner in W.P. No.21554/2013.
Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, Government Advocate for the respondents/State.
Shri P.K. Kaurav, Advocate for the respondent/Professional Examination Board.
==========================================================
10
Reserved on : 25.03.2014
Date of Decision : 11.04.2014
ORDER
{11th April, 2014} Per A.M. Khanwilkar, Chief Justice:
By this common judgment, we propose to dispose of all the abovenoted writ petitions together as the same involve similar points for consideration and challenge the common orders passed by the Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board').
02. Each of these petitions, essentially, challenge the decision of the Board vide orders dated 9th October, 2013 and 6th December, 2013 respectively. By the said orders, the Board cancelled the entrance examination results of 415 candidates of Dental and Medical Admission Test (hereafter referred to as the 'entrance test' for the sake of brevity) in two lots of 345 and 70 candidates vide order dated 9th October, 2013 and 6th December, 2013 respectively, for the reasons recorded in the said orders.
03. As a consequence, the admissions granted to the concerned candidates in the Medical Colleges on the basis of the said examination results, which stood annulled, came to be cancelled by the respective Medical Colleges. As a result, even these consequential orders are subject matter of challenge. We may mention that in some of the writ petitions, the reliefs claimed are loosely worded. In the interest of justice, however, we 11 hold that the intention of each of the petitioners is not only to challenge the action and decision of the Board, but, also the consequential order passed by the concerned Medical College cancelling their admission to medical course.
04. The background in which the impugned orders were passed by the Board can be briefly stated as under:-
(i) The Board initiated steps to conduct Pre-Medical Test (PMT) examination pursuant to the request made by the Medical Education Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh, in that behalf vide letter dated 10th May, 2013. An Activity Chart, Rule Book, Examination Programme was then approved by the Chairman of the Board on 20th May, 2013.
Thereafter, an advertisement was issued in newspapers having wide circulation on 22nd May, 2013. The Online Forms were invited between 22nd May, 2013 to 21st June, 2013 and the date of examination was scheduled on 7th July, 2013. The Board then appointed Coordinating Centers in 14 cities on 27th May, 2013. Other logistical arrangements were made by the Board for conduct of free and fair entrance examination for admission to professional courses. The candidates were to be allocated roll numbers and examination centers on 30th June, 2013. As per the Activity Chart, finalized by the Chairman of the Board, the Test Admit Cards, which were to be generated contemporaneously with computerised allocation of roll numbers and examination centers to the students and uploaded on 30th June, 2013 itself. However, that was done on 3rd July, 2013 by the concerned officials 12 of the Board.
(ii) The complaint regarding gross irregularities and unfair means in the conduct of examination was received by the Director General of Police on 6th July, 2013. Acting upon the said complaint and the reports appearing in the local newspapers about the conspiracy hatched for resorting to unfair means by large number of the candidates with the assistance of candidates coming from other States, the Indore Crime Branch moved into action and arrested about 20 suspects. However, the Board continued with the process of conducting entrance examinations on 7th July, 2013. On the same day, FIR was registered at Police Station, Rajendra Nagar, Indore, bearing Crime No.539/2013 mentioning about the involvement of large number of candidates having indulged in unfair means during the entrance examination. After registration of the FIR, the Crime Branch made inquiries with the officials of the Board and sought certain information. A written communication in that behalf was also received by the officials of the Board dated 8th July, 2013 from the Crime Branch. The information, as sought by the Crime Branch, was provided by the officials of the Board on 12th July, 2013.
(iii) Notwithstanding these developments, the Board proceeded to declare result on 13th July, 2013. Two officials of the Board, namely, Nitin Mohindra, Principal System Analyst and Ajay Kumar Sen were interrogated by the Investigating Team of police. The said officials of the Board were formally arrested on 16th July, 2013. As a result of their arrest, the Board 13 suspended these officers on 17th July, 2013. Following the arrest of the abovesaid two officers, during investigation, the complicity of one C.K. Mishra, Assistant Programmer of the Board was also unravelled. He was arrested on 18th July, 2013. Consequent to his arrest, the Board suspended the said official on 19th July, 2013.
(iv) The Board received a list of 317 candidates, from the Superintendent of Police, Indore dated 20th July, 2013, who were named as beneficiaries of the conspiracy. It came to light that one Jagdish Sagar was party to the conspiracy.
(v) The list of 317 suspected candidates was also given to the Director of Medical Education, Government of Madhya Pradesh on 20th July, 2013. The Board made over the entrance examination result to the Director of Medical Education, Government of Madhya Pradesh, on 24th July, 2013, for counselling before admission of the concerned candidate.
(vi) A communication dated 13th August, 2013 was received by the Board from the Crime Branch regarding roll number allotment Logic Formula. Another communication dated 17th August, 2013 was received for the same information.
(vii) As regards the criminal case, considering the gravity and seriousness of the offence and involvement of resourceful persons in the commission of crime, the State Government entrusted the investigation of the said case to the Special Task Force (STF) on 26th August, 2013.
(viii) The Board vide letter dated 27th August, 2013 furnished 14 information to the Crime Branch in response to its letter dated 17th August, 2013. Besides providing that information, the Director of the Board realizing the seriousness of the situation, which came to his knowledge, moved into action and, thus, submitted proposal to the Chairman on 30th August, 2013 to permit constitution of Computer Experts Committee to examine the records and submit its opinion and recommendation. The Chairman accorded approval to the said proposal on 5th September, 2013. The Director then submitted proposal to the Chairman for nominating experts on the Computer Experts Committee on 5th September, 2013. That note was approved by the Chairman on 6th September, 2013. As a result of which, the Computer Experts Committee - of six experts - was constituted. The said Committee convened its first meeting on 7th September, 2013 and after due inquiry formed opinion which was reduced into writing. The same reads thus:-
"fo"k;% e.My esa miyC/k O;ofLFkr MsVk ds ykftd ds lac/k esaA i`"B dzekad 233 uLrh dzekad 27&12@2013@08 fo"k;% PMT 2013 uLrh ds varZxr Fkkuk jktssUnz uxj bankSj ds vijk/k dz- 539@2013a dh foospuk ckcrA lapkyd ,oa fu;a+=d }kjk vkeaf=r dEI;wVj ,DliVZ~l desVh dh cSBd dEI;wVj 'kk[kk esa fnukad 07-09-2013 dks nksigj 12-00 cts vk;ksftr dh xbZ] ftUgsa lapkyd }kjk ih,eVh&2013 ijh{kk esa jksy uacj vkoaVu ls lacaf/kr ykWftd Kkr djus] Kkr ykWftd vuqlkj jksy uacj vkoafVr djus] Kkr ykWftd ls rS;kkj MkVk dk ih,eVh&2013 ls lacaf/kr Vh-,-lh- MkVk ls rqyuk dj 'kgjokj feyku u gksus okys jksy uacj dh tkudkjh Kkr djus ,oa bl dk;Z gsrq mi;ksx esa yk, x, izksxzke dj fooj.k miyC/k djokus gsrq funsZf'kr fd;k x;kA 2- CkSBd esa fuEufyf[kr dEI;wVj ,DliV~Zl mifLFkr gq, %& 1 Dr. Samar Asso. Professor & Govt. Engineering College, Upadhyay Head,Compurter Jabalpur,Mob. 09425862726 Applications 2 Mrs. Juhi Jain Lecturer & I/c HOD, IT Govt. SV Polytechnic College, Bhopal, Mob. 09425009697 15 3 Mr. D.K. Chourishi Lecturer, Computer Govt. Women's Polytechnic Science & Engineering College, Bhopal Mob. 09826816730 4 Mr. Kuldeep Singh Sr. Software Engineer CRISP, Bhopal Mob.
Chouhan 09893318230
5 Mr. Ashish Jain Server Administrator CRISP, Bhopal Mob.
08085856465
6 Mrs. Ajita Satheesh Asstt. Professor UIT, RGPV, Bhopal Mob.
09826632257
3- lHkh dEI;wVj ,DliVZl }kjk uLrh ,oa layXudkas dk voyksdu
fd;k x;k o ik;k x;k fd e/;izns'k O;kolkf;d ijh{kk e.My ds vkns'k dza VP/COMPUTER/11-80/2012/08/42-76, Dated 22-06-2012 (P-955 to 980) ds i`"B dza 04 ij mYysf[kr fooj.k vuqlkj rRdkyhu dEI;wVj 'kk[kk ds vf/kdkfj;ksa ;Fkk Jh fufru eksfgUnzk] Jh vt; dqekj ,oa deZpkjh] Jh lh-ds- feJk }kjk js.Me jksy uacj tujsV fd;k tkuk ugha ik;k x;k] vfirq QkbZy dks b.MsfDlax ds ek/;e ls tujsV djuk ik;k x;k] tks fd js.Me tujs'ku dh Js.kh esa ughas vkrk gSA 4- Jh fufru eksfgUnzk] Jh vt; dqekj ,oa Jh lh-ds- feJk }kjk tsy v/kh{kd] ftyk tsy bUnkSj ds ek/;e ls izsf"kr mRrjksa ¼ih-945@lh ls ih&954@lh½ dk dEI;wVj fo'ks"kKksa }kjk voyksdu fd;k x;k ,oa ik;k x;k fd buds }kjk izLrqr ykWftd laca/kh tkudkjh vLi"V o viw.kZ gSA 5- dEI;wVj fo'ks"kKksa }kjk fofHkUu ftyksa dh jksy uacj ls lacaf/kr QkbZyksa dks dzec} dj ykWftd Kkr djus dk iz;kl fd;k ,oa ik;k fd mi;qDr ykWftd] ftldk mi;ksx lEHkor% jksy uacj tujsV djus ds fy, Jh fufru eksfgUnzk] Jh vt; dqekj ,oa Jh lh-ds-feJk }kjk fd;k x;k gksxk] og bl izdkj gS %& ¼v½ 'kgjokj vH;fFkZ;ksa dh i`Fkd&i`Fkd QkbZy rS;kj dh xbZ ,oa QkbZy dks tUe fnukad] VªktsaD'ku vkbZMh ds 7 ls 13 rd ds Hkkx ,oa lh&,y use ¼miuke½ ds vk/kkj ij b.MsfDlax dh xbZA ¼c½ b.MsDl QkbZy ij i`Fker% le fjdkMZ gsrq jksy uacj vkoafVr fd, x,] mlds i'pkr~ fo"ke fjdkMZ gsrq jksy uacj vkoafVr fd, x,A 6- mijksDr ykWftd ds vk/kkj ij ih,eVh &2013 ls lacaf/kr lHkh 14 'kgjksa ds MkVk ds jksy uacj fo"k; fo'ks"kKksa }kjk tujsV fd, x,] ftUgsa layXu lh-Mh-ds Experts Generated Roll Nos PMT-2013 QksYMj esa 'kgjokj j[kk x;k gSA ih,eVh&2013 ls lacaf/kr mi;ksx esa yk, x, jksy uacj dks lh-Mh-ds used Roll Nos for PMT-2013 QksYMj esa 'kgjokj j[kk x;k gSA fo"k; fo'ks"kKksa }kjk tujsV fd, x, ,oa ih,eVh&2013 gsrq mi;ksx esa yk, x, uacjks esa feleSp Hkh fo"k; fo'ks"kKksa }kjk Kkr fd;k x;k gS] ftlls lacaf/kr fjdkMZ Hkh Mismatch Roll Nos PMT -2013 QksYMj esa 'kgjokj j[ks x, gSaA fo"k; fo'ks"kKksa }kjk mi;ksx esa yk, x, izksxke dks Hkh lh-Mh- esa Experts Program PMT-2013 QksYMj esa j[kk x;k gSA bl tkudkjh ds nks lsV lh-Mh- esa lfefr }kjk lhYM dj uLrh ds lkFk layXu gSA 'kgjokj fooj.k rkfydk :i esa fuEukuqlkj gS %& l-dz- ijh{kk 'kgj dqy vH;FkhZ eSp gq, vH;FkhZ feleSp feleSp dk izfr'kr 1 Ckkyk?kkV 819 819 0 0% 2 cSrwy 719 719 0 0% 3 Hkksiky 6372 337 6035 94.71 % 4 Nrjiqj 937 937 0 0% 5 fNanokMk 991 991 0 0% 16 6 xquk 622 622 0 0% 7 Xokfy;j 6368 125 6243 98.03% 8 bUnkSj 10464 286 10178 97.26% 9 tcyiqj 4332 670 3662 84.53% 10 jryke 1175 234 941 80.08% 11 jhok 3308 248 3060 92.50% 12 lkxj 1285 1265 20 1.55% 13 'kgMksy 1324 1296 28 2-11% ` 14 mTtSu 1370 1342 28 2.04% ;ksx 40086 9891 30195 75.32% 7- mijksDrkuqlkj tkudkjh vko';d ,oa vfxze dk;kZokgh gsrq izLrqr gSa A ¼vk'kh"k tSu½ ¼dqynhi flag pkSgku½ ¼Mh-ds- pkS+_"kh½ loZj ,MfefuLVªsVj lhfu;j lkQ~Vos;j bathfu;j ySDpjj fdzLi]Hkksiky fdzLi] Hkksiky 'kkl- efgyk iksyh-Hkksiky ¼twgh tSu ½ ¼vthrk lrh"k½ ¼MkW- lej mik/;k; ½ ysDpjj o ,pvksMh vflLVsaM izksQslj ,lks- izksQslj ,.M gsM ,l-Ogh- iksyh- Hkksiky ;wvkbZVh- vkjthihoh]Hkksiky 'kkl- bath-egk- tcyiqj"
(emphasis supplied)
(ix) In the meantime, the Director called upon Nitin Mohindra and Ajay Kumar Sen who were in District Jail, Indore, by written communication dated 31st August, 2013, to furnish the logic of allotment of roll numbers for facilitating scrutiny by the Computer Experts Committee. The said officials, however, by written communication dated 3rd September, 2013 expressed their inability to disclose the logic in allocation of roll numbers to the candidates. In absence of information divulged by the officials under suspension and in jail, the Computer Experts Committee had to evolve their own mechanism to find out the methodology that must have been adopted in allocation of roll numbers to concerned candidates - by method other than stipulated or specified of randomisation process. The 17 Committee thus submitted its report in that behalf on 7th September, 2013, which has been extracted in the preceding paragraph. The Computer Experts Committee thus in the initial scrutiny, found mismatch of 30195 out of 40086 candidates in the allocation of roll numbers, including of allocation of roll numbers to 49 rejected candidates.
(x) The Board then received communication dated 9th September, 2013 from STF demanding information on various aspects such as Roll Numbers, Application Form etc. The Board also received communication from STF dated 18th September, 2013 to supply Test Admit Cards and online forms issued to 369 students; to furnish two coloured true copies of the Test Admit Card and online form in hard as well as soft format. On 21st September, 2013, the Board supplied list of mismatch of 30195 candidates identified by the Computer Experts Committee. The STF then, vide letter dated 27th September, 2013, posed certain queries to the Board in connection with the list of roll numbers and mismatch. In response, the Board vide letter dated 27th September, 2013 informed that the mismatch is limited to 876 candidates.
(xi) On the same day, i.e. 27th September, 2013, Dr. Pankaj Trivedi, Controller/ Director of the Board was arrested by the Investigating Agency.
(xii) The Computer Experts Committee convened its emergent meeting on 30th September, 2013, for consideration of the matter in the light of new information. This meeting was attended by five members of the Committee. The sixth member being outstation member, could not attend 18 that meeting. After due deliberations, the Committee recorded its opinion in the form of Minutes, which reads thus:
"i`"B dzekad uLrh dzekad -O;kie 5&i&1@02@2013- fo"k;% e.My esa miyC/k O;ofLFkr MsVk ds ykftd ds lac/k esaA tkod dzekad 6121@13 fnukad 30@09@13 6122@13 lapkyd ,oa fu;a+=d }kjk vkeaf=r dEI;wVj ,DliVZ~l desVh dh cSBd dEI;wVj 'kk[kk esa fnukad 30-09-2013 dks vijkUg 04-00 cts vk;ksftr dh xbZ] ftUgsa lapkyd }kjk ih,eVh&2013 ijh{kk esa jksy uacj vkoaVu ls lacaf/kr 40]135 ds MsVk ds vk/kkj ij ykWftd Kkr djus] Kkr ykWftd vuqlkj jksy uacj vkoafVr djus] Kkr ykWftd ls rS;kkj MkVk dk ih,eVh&2013 ls lacaf/kr Vh-,-lh- MkVk ls rqyuk dj 'kgjokj feyku u gksus okys jksy uacj dh tkudkjh Kkr djus ,oa bl dk;Z gsrq mi;ksx esa yk, x, izksxzke dj fooj.k miyC/k djokus gsrq funsZf'kr fd;k x;kA 2- CkSBd esa fuEufyf[kr dEI;wVj ,DliV~Zl mifLFkr gq, %& 1 Mrs. Juhi Jain Lecturer & I/c HOD, IT Govt. SV Polytechnic College, Bhopal, Mob. 09425009697 2 Mr. D.K. Chourishi Lecturer, Computer Govt. Women's Polyteechnic College, Science & Engineering Bhopal Mob. 09826816730 3 Mr. Kuldeep Singh Sr. Software Engineer CRISP, Bhopal Mob. 09893318230 Chouhan 4 Mr. Ashish Jain Server Administrator CRISP, Bhopal Mob. 08085856465 5 Mrs. Ajita Satheesh Asstt. Professor UIT, RGPV, Bhopal Mob. 09826632257 3- lHkh dEI;wVj ,DliVZl }kjk uLrh ,oa layXudkas dk voyksdu fd;k x;k o ik;k x;k fd e/;izns'k O;kolkf;d ijh{kk e.My ds vkns'k dza VP/COMPUTER/11-80/2012/08/42-76, Dated 22-06-2012 ds i`"B dza 04 ij mYysf[kr fooj.k vuqlkj rRdkyhu dEI;wVj 'kk[kk ds vf/kdkfj;ksa ;Fkk Jh fufru eksfgUnzk] Jh vt; dqekj ,oa deZpkjh] Jh lh- ds- feJk }kjk js.Me jksy uacj tujsV fd;k tkuk ugha ik;k x;k] vfirq QkbZy dks b.MsfDlax ds ek/;e ls tujsV djuk ik;k x;k] tks fd js.Me tujs'ku dh Js.kh esa ughas vkrk gSA 4- Jh fufru eksfgUnzk] Jh vt; dqekj ,oa Jh lh-ds- feJk }kjk tsy v/kh{kd] ftyk tsy bUnkSj ds ek/;e ls izsf"kr mRrjksa dk dEI;wVj fo'ks"kKksa }kjk iqu% voyksdu fd;k x;k ,oa ik;k x;k fd buds }kjk izLrqr ykWftd laca/kh tkudkjh vLi"V o viw.kZ gSA 5- dEI;wVj fo'ks"kKksa }kjk fofHkUu ftyksa dh jksy uacj ls lacaf/kr QkbZyksa dks dzec} dj ykWftd Kkr djus dk iz;kl fd;k ,oa ik;k fd mi;qDr ykWftd] ftldk mi;ksx jksy uacj tujsV djus ds fy, Jh fufru eksfgUnzk] Jh vt; dqekj ,oa Jh lh-ds-feJk }kjk fd;k x;k gksxk] og bl izdkj gS D;ksafd bl ij izkIr gksus okys felesp leLr VªktsaD'ku vkbZMh ds laHkkfor fodYiks esa U;wure 876 gS %& 19 ¼v½ 'kgjokj vH;fFkZ;ksa dh i`Fkd&i`Fkd QkbZy rS;kj dh xbZ ,oa QkbZy dks tUe fnukad] VªktsaD'ku vkbZMh ds 7 ls 11 rd ds Hkkx ,oa lh&,y use ¼miuke½ ds vk/kkj ij b.MsfDlax dh xbZA ¼c½ b.MsDl QkbZy ij i`Fker% le fjdkMZ gsrq jksy uacj vkoafVr fd, x,] mlds i'pkr~ fo"ke fjdkMZ gsrq jksy uacj vkoafVr fd, x,A 6- mijksDr ykWftd ds vk/kkj ij ih,eVh &2013 ls lacaf/kr lHkh 14 'kgjksa ds MkVk ds jksy uacj fo"k; fo'ks"kKksa }kjk tujsV fd, x,]A fo"k; fo'ks"kKksa }kjk tujsV fd, x, ,oa ih,eVh &2013 gsrq mi;ksx esa yk, x, uacjksa esa feleSp Hkh 40]135 ds vk/kkj ij fo"k; fo'ks"kKksa }kjk Kkr fd;k x;k gS] ftlls lacaf/kr fjdkMZ dh U;wure feleSp 876 fjdkMZ dks MIS876.docx--- QkbZy esa VªktsaD'ku vkbZMh ds fofHkUu laHkkfor fodYiks ds pkVZ dks Digits_2013_Revised.docx QkbZy esa rFkk fo"k; fo'ks"kKksa }kjk mi;ksx esa yk, x;s izksxzke dks Hkh Rol_GEN.docx QkbZy esa j[krs gq, lh-Mh- esa j[kk x;k gSA bl tkudkjh ds nks lsV lh-Mh- esa lfefr }kjk lhYM dj uLrh ds lkFk layXu gSA 'kgjokj fooj.k rkfydk esa fuEukuqlkj gS %& l-dz- ijh{kk 'kgj dqy vH;FkhZ eSp gq, vH;FkhZ feleSp feleSp dk izfr'kr 1 Ckkyk?kkV 819 819 0 0% 2 cSrwy 719 719 0 0% 3 Hkksiky 6384 6198 186 2.91 % 4 Nrjiqj 937 937 0 0% 5 fNanokMk 991 991 0 0% 6 xquk 622 622 0 0% 7 Xokfy;j 6377 6377 0 0% 8 bUnkSj 10475 9885 590 5.63% 9 tcyiqj 4334 4334 0 0% 10 jryke 1176 1152 24 2.04% 11 jhok 3322 3322 0 0% 12 lkxj 1285 1265 20 1.56% 13 'kgMksy 1324 1296 28 2.11% ` 14 mTtSu 1370 1342 28 2.04% ;ksx 40135 39259 876 2.18% 7- mDr ds vfrfjDr VªkatsD'ku vkbZMh ds lHkh laHkkfor fodYiks dk mi;ksx djrs gq, feleSp pkVZ rS;kj dj lfefr }kjk gLrk{kfjr fd;k x;kA 8- mijksDrkuqlkj tkudkjh vko';d ,oa vfxze dk;kZokgh gsrq izLrqr gSa A ¼vk'kh"k tSu½ ¼dqynhi flag pkSgku½ ¼Mh-ds- pkS+_"kh½ loZj ,MfefuLVªsVj lhfu;j lkQ~Vos;j bathfu;j ySDpjj fdzLi] Hkksiky fdzLi] Hkksiky 'kkl- efgyk iksyh-Hkksiky 20 ¼twgh tSu ½ ¼vthrk lrh"k½ ysDpjj o ,pvksMh vflLVsaM izksQl s j ,l-Ogh- iksyh- Hkksiky ;wvkbZVh- vkjthihoh]Hkksiky"
(emphasis supplied)
(xiii) After the second report of the Computer Experts Committee was made available, the Director of the Board submitted proposal to the Chairman to constitute Committee of Controllers to submit its report for necessary action. The said proposal was approved by the Chairman. As a result of which, the Committee of Joint Controllers of following persons was constituted:
1. Dr. Sanjay Kumar Jain - Acting Controller
2. Dr. Santosh Kumar Gandhi- Jt. Controller (Computer)
3. Dr. Alok Kumar Nigam - Jt. Controller (Exam)
4. Shri R.S. Mujalda - Finance Officer
5. Shri K.K. Soni - Dy. Controller (Estt.)
(xiv) The meeting of the said Committee was convened on 4th October, 2013 which concluded with the following Minutes:
"i`"B dzekad uLrh dzekad O;kie @5i&1@02@2013- fo"k;% PMT - 2013 ds laca/k esa A vkt fnukad 04-10-2013 dks lk;a 6-00 cts ih&242@,u ij xfBr lfefr dh cSBd izHkkjh fu;a=d ds] d{k esa vk;ksftr dh xbZ ftlesa lfefr dh lHkh 5 ukeakfdr lnL; mifLFkr gq,A lfefr }kjk izdj.k ds ijh{k.k ds nkSjku ;g ik;k x;k gS fd iqfyl v/kh{kd ¼if'pe½] ftyk&bankSj ds i= daz iqv@if'pe @ ih,@ 412@2013] fn- 19-07-2013 }kjk 317 vH;fFkZ;ksa dh lwph ea.My dks izkIr gqbZ gS] ijUrq 'ks"k 52 vH;fFkZ;ksa dh lwph vf/kd`r i= ds ek/;e ls e.My dks vizkIr gSA ;gka ;g mYys[kuh; gS fd orZeku esa Fkkuk jktsUnz uxj] ftyk&bankSj esa iathc} vijk/k izdj.k dzekad 539@2013 e0iz0 ,l-Vh- ,Q- Hkksiky dks LFkkukUrfjr fd;k tk pqdk gSA vr% orZeku ifjizs{; esa e0iz0 ,l-Vh-,Q- Hkksiky ls Li"V tkudkjh izkIr fd;k tkuk mfpr gksxkA gLrk@&4-10-13 gLrk@&4-10-13 gLrk@&4-10-13 (ds- ds- lksuh) (vkj-,l- eqtkYnk) (MkW- vkyksd fuxe) mi fu;a=d foRr vf/kdkjh la;qDr fu;a=d 21 gLrk@&4-10-13 gLrk@&4-10-13 (MkW- ,l-ds- xka/kh) (MkW- ,l-ds- tSu) la;qDr fu;a=d izHkkjh fu;a=d fu;a=d e.My }kjk fnukad 07-07-2013 dks ih-,e-Vh- ijh{kk dk vk;kstu fd;k x;k FkkA bl ijh{kk ds vkijkf/kd izdj.k dzekad 539@13 dh foospuk ,l-Vh-,Q- }kjk dh tk jgh gSA ijh{kk dh foospuk ds vUrxZr ftu&ftu vH;fFkZ;ksa ls lacaf/kr lk{; ,l-Vh-,Q- dks izkIr gq, gS] mu lHkh vH;fFkZ;ksa dh lwph ,oa lk{;ksa dh lR;kfir izfrfyfi e.My dks miyC/k djkus gsrq ,l-Vh-,Q- ds ,-vkbZ-th- Jh vk'kh"k [kjs dks izHkkjh fu;a=d Lrj ls i= fy[kk tk jgk gSA gLrk@&7-10-13 ¼Mka-lat; dqekj tSu½ izHkkjh fu;a+=d &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& i= tkod dzekad e-iz- O;kie@6262@2013 fnukad 07-10-2013 tkjh fd;k x;kA O.C. uLrh esa layXu A &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&"
(emphasis supplied)
(xv) The Acting Controller, Dr. Sanjay Kumar Jain, in his noting made in the note-sheet dated 7th October, 2013 referred to the information sought from STF. After exchange of inter departmental office notes, the Committee of Joint Controllers was again convened on 8th October, 2013, which concluded with the following opinion:-
"i`"B dzekad uLrh dzekad O;kie @5i&1@02@2013- fo"k;% PMT - 2013 ds laca/k esa A ih&242@,u ij mYysf[kr lfefr dh cSBd vkt fn- 08-10-2013 dks vijkUg 01-00 cts MkW- lat; dqekj tSu] izHkkjh fu;a=d ds d{k esa vk;ksftr dh xbZ ftlesa lfefr ds lHkh lnL; mifLFkr gq;sA lfefr }kjk ijh{k.k] fo'ys"k.k ,oa lexz fopkj mijkUr ik;k x;k fd ,l-Vh-,Q-] Hkksiky ,oa dzkbZe czkap] banksj }kjk e.My dks miyC/k djokbZ xbZ] vH;fFkZ;ksa dh lwph ,oa rduhdh fo'ks"kK lfefr }kjk miyC/k djokbZ xbZ vuq'kalkvksa vuqlkj 345 vH;FkhZ ,sls gS tks fd nksuksa lwfp;ksa esa miyC/k gS ftlls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd ;g vH;FkhZ jksy uacj ifjofrZr djokus laca/kh "kM;a= esa 'kkfey gSa] buds }kjk bl izdj.k ds vkjksfi;ksa ls lEidZ fd;k x;k gS rFkk vH;fFkZ;ksa ds jksy uacj tujs'ku mijkUr ifjofrZr fd;s x;s gSa bl izdkj 345 vH;fFkZ;ksa dks vuqfpr ykHk igqapk;s tkus dh iqf"V orZeku esa miyC/k nLrkostksa ls gksrh gSA mijksDr fcUnqvksa ij dh xbZ foospuk ds vk/kkj ij lfefr bl fu"d"kZ ij igqaprh gS fd 345 vH;fFkZ;ksa dh lwph esa mYysf[kr vH;fFkZ;ksa }kjk ijh{kk fu;eksa dk mYya?ku Li"Vr% n`f"Vxkspj gksrk gSA vr% lfefr leLr 345 vH;fFkZ;ksa dh vH;fFkZrk rFkk ifj.kke fujLr fd;s tkus dh 22 vuq'kalk djrh gSA lfefr dk foLr`r ijh{k.k izfrosnu ih&1711@lh ls ih&1716@lh ij layXu gSA ijh{k.k izfrosnu voyksdukFkZ ,oa vkns'kkFkZ izLrqr gSA gLrk@&8-10-13 gLrk@&8-10-13 gLrk@&8-10-13 (ds- ds- lksuh) (vkj-,l- eqtkYnk) (MkW- vkyksd fuxe) mi fu;a=d foRr vf/kdkjh la;qDr fu;a=d gLrk@&8-10-13 gLrk@&8-10-13 (MkW- ,l-ds- xka/kh) (MkW- ,l-ds- tSu) la;qDr fu;a=d izHkkjh fu;a=d fu;a=d Sd/-8.10.13 Dr. S.K. Jain Controller M.P. Professional Examination Board Bhopal (M.P.) Lkapkyd"
(emphasis supplied) (xvi) The report prepared by the Committee on the basis of which the conclusion noted in the above quoted Minutes evinces the yardstick adopted by the Committee in identifying 345 candidates against whom immediate action was warranted. The said evaluation report reads thus:
"e-iz- O;kolkf;d ijh{kk e.My] Hkksiky @@ijh{k.k izfrosnu@@ e.My }kjk fnukad 07-07-2013 dks vk;ksftr ih-,e-Vh- ijh{kk 2013 ds miyC/k O;ofLFkr MsVk ds ykWftd ds laca/k esa dEI;wVj fo"k;&fo'ks"kKksa ds }kjk iznku dh xbZ feleSp fjiksVZ rFkk ,l-Vh-,Q- ls izkIr fjiksVZ dh lexz xgu Nkuchu ,oa fu"d"kZ gsrq lapkyd] e-iz- O;kolkf;d ijh{kk e.My }kjk lfefr xfBr dh xbZ] ftlesa e.My ds 5 vf/kdkfj;ksa ;Fkk MkW- lat; tSu] izHkkjh fu;a=d] MkW- ,l- ds- xkWa/kh] la;qDr fu;a=d] MkW- vkyksd dqekj fuxe] la;qDr fu;a=d] Jh vkj-,l- eqtkYnk] foRr vf/kdkjh ,oa Jh ds- ds- lksuh] mifu;a=d dks euksuhr fd;k x;kA xfBr lfefr dh cSBd izHkkjh fu;a=d ds d{k esa fn- 04-10- 2013] 07-10-2013 rFkk 08-10-2013 dks vk;ksftr dh xbZA lfefr }kjk ih-,e-Vh- ijh{kk 2013 ls lacaf/kr lEiw.kZ ?kVukdze ij foLr`r ppkZ] lacaf/kr ewy uLrh] i=kpkj ,oa layXudksa dk xgu voyksdu fd;k x;k] rnksijkar lfefr dk ijh{k.k izfrosnu fcUnqokj fuEukuqlkj gS %& 1- e-iz- O;kolkf;d ijh{kk e.My }kjk fofHkUu izos'k rFkk izfr;ksxh ijh{kkvksa dk vk;kstu izfro"kZ lqfuf'pr fd;k tkrk gSA e.My }kjk 23 fnukad 07-07-2013 dks izh&esMhdy VsLV (ih-,e-Vh-) ijh{kk&2013 dk vk;kstu fpfdRlk f'k{kk foHkkx] e/;izns'k 'kklu ds vuqjks/k ij muds }kjk miyC/k djok;s x;s foHkkxh; fu;eksa ds vuqlkj izns'k ds 14 'kgjksa esa ,d ikyh esa vijkUg 12-00 ls 3-30 cts rd lqfuf'pr fd;k x;k FkkA e.My dks ih-,e-Vh- ijh{kk&2013 ds fy, ,e-ih- vkWuykbZu ds ek/;e ls dqy 40]165 vkosnu i= vkWuykbZu izkIr gq, Fks] ftuesa ls 40086 vH;fFkZ;ksa dks VsLV ,MfeV dkMZ e.My }kjk osclkbZV ij viyksM djrs gq, tkjh fd, x, FksA ijh{kk ds lqpk:] lQy lapkyu rFkk fdlh Hkh izdkj ds vuqfpr lk/ku dks jksdus ds en~nsutj lapkyd] e- iz- O;kolkf;d ijh{kk e.My }kjk iqfyl egkfuns'kd] e/;izns'k] Hkksiky dks i= dz- e-iz- O;kie@i&1@5@ 4338@2013] fnukad 05-07-2013 (ifjf'k"V&1) }kjk voxr djk;k x;k FkkA 2- e.My dh izpfyr izfdz;k vuqlkj] ijh{kk lEiknu ds mijkar vks-,e-vkj- mRrj'khV~l dh Ldsfuax] izkslsflax laca/kh dk;Z iw.kZ fd;k x;k rFkk e.My }kjk fnukad 13-07-2013 dks ih-,e-Vh- ijh{kk&2013 dk ifj.kke ?kksf"kr dj e.My dh osclkbZV ij viyksM fd;k x;kA 3- ftyk vijk/k 'kk[kk] bankSj }kjk ih-,e-Vh- ijh{kk&2013 esa rFkkdfFkr fxjksg ds idM+s x;s QthZ O;fDr;ksa ls izkIr lwpuk ds vk/kkj ij e.My dh dEI;wVj 'kk[kk esa inLFk vf/kdkjh}; fufru eksfgUnzk] rRdkyhu ih-,l-,- rFkk vt; dqekj rRdkyhu ,l-,l-,- dks vfHkj{kk esa ysrs gq, fnukad 16-07-13 dks fxjQ~rkj fd;k x;k ftldh lwpuk dk;kZy; iqfyl Fkkuk jktsUnz uxj] ftyk bankSj ds i= dz- 2438@13] fnukad 17-07-2013 ds }kjk e.My dks izkIr gqbZ ftlds izdk'k esa nksuksa vf/kdkfj;ksa dks e.My ds i`"Bkafdr vkns'k dz- O;kie@02@LFkk@4655@2013]fnukad 18-07-2013 ,oa i`"Bkafdr vkns'k dz- O;kie@02@LFkk@4657@2013] fnukad 18-07-2013 }kjk fuyafcr fd;k x;kA blh rkjrE; esa dEI;wVj 'kk[kk esa gh inLFk ,d vU; deZpkjh lh-ds- feJk] rRdkyhu lgk;d izksxzkej dks fnukad 18-07-2013 dks fxjQ~rkj fd;k x;kA ftldh lwpuk dk;kZy; iqfyl Fkkuk jktsUnz uxj] ftyk bankSj ds i= fnukad 19-07-2013 ds }kjk e.My dks izkIr gqbZ ftlds izdk'k esa lh- ds- feJk dks e.My ds i`"Bkafdr vkns'k dz- O;kie@02@LFkk@4677@2013] fnukad 20-07-2013 }kjk fuyafcr fd;k x;kA 4- rRdkyhu fu;a=d] e- iz- O;kolkf;d ijh{kk e.My }kjk iqfyl egkfujh{kd bankSj tksu dks e.My ds i= dz- O;kie@4661@2013] fnukad 19-07-2013 }kjk ih-,e-Vh- ijh{kk &2013 ds vUrxZr QthZ vH;fFkZ;ksa ds uke o vuqdzekad laca/kh tkudkjh pkgh xbZ Fkh] ftlds izfrmRrj esa iqfyl v/kh{kd (if'pe), ftyk bankSj ds i= dz- iqv@if'pe@ih,@412@2013] fnukad 19-07-2013 }kjk ih-,e-Vh- ijh{kk 2013 (ifjf'k"V&2) ds laca/k esa vkjksfi;ksa ls izkIr 317 vH;fFkZ;ksa dh lwph e.My dks miyC/k djokbZ FkhA 5- pwafd e.My }kjk ih-,e-Vh- ijh{kk 2013 dk ifj.kke fnukad 13- 07-2013 dks gh ?kksf"kr fd;k tk pqdk FkkA vr,o rRdkyhu fu;a=d] e- iz- O;kolkf;d ijh{kk e.My }kjk izeq[k lfpo] e- iz- 'kklu] fpfdRlk f'k{kk foHkkx] ea=ky;] Hkksiky dks i= dz- O;kie@4674@2013] fnukad 20-07-2013 (ifjf'k"V&3) ds }kjk 317 vH;fFkZ;ksa dh iqfyl v/kh{kd (if'pe), ftyk bankSj ls izkIr lwph layXu djrs gq, izsf"kr fd;k x;k Fkk ftlesa ;g mYysf[kr fd;k x;k Fkk fd esfjV lwph esa LFkku izkIr QthZ@lafnX/k vH;fFkZ;ksa dks dkmalfyax ds nkSjku izkof/kd :i ls lhV dk vkoaVu bl 'krZ ds lkFk 24 fd;k tk;s fd ;fn mijksDr vH;fFkZ;ksa dh vijk/k izdj.k dz- 539@13 esa iqfyl dh tkap@foospuk ds nkSjku lafyIrrk izekf.kr gksrh gS rks budh vH;fFkZrk Lor% fujLr le>h tk;sxhA 6- ih-,e-Vh- ijh{kk 2013 dh O;kie }kjk miyC/k djkbZ xbZ esfjV lwph ds vk/kkj ij dkmalfyax dk dk;Z 'kkldh; ,oa futh egkfo|ky;ksa gsrq lapkyd] fpfdRlk f'k{kk }kjk fn- 28-09-2013 rd lEiUu djok;k x;kA ftldh iqf"V lapkyd] fpfdRlk f'k{kk foHkkx] e0 iz0 'kklu ds mudh osclkbZV ij miyC/k i= dz- 2285@;w-th-@4@Mh-,e-bZ-@13] fn- 16-07-2013 (ifjf'k"V&4) ds }kjk gksrh gSA 7- ih-,e-Vh- ijh{kk 2013 esa vH;fFkZ;ksa dks jksyuacj vkoaVu lacaf/kr izfdz;k e.My ds fdlh Hkh vfHkys[kksa esa miyC/k ugha ikbZ tkus ds dkj.k e.My ls lacaf/kr vkjksfi;ksa Jh fufru eksfgUnzk] Jh vt; dqekj lsu rFkk Jh lh- ds- feJk ls mDr izfdz;k Kkr djus gsrq v/kh{kd] ftyk tsy] bankSj ds ek/;e ls i= Hksts x;s] ijUrq rhuksa vkjksfi;ksa }kjk jksy uacj vkoaVu ls lacaf/kr Li"V ykWftd laca/kh tkudkjh e.My dks iznku ugha dh xbZA 8- lapkyd] e0iz0 O;kolkf;d ijh{kk e.My] Hkksiky }kjk ih-,e-Vh- ijh{kk 2013 ds jksy uacj vkoaVu ds fy;s fufru eksfgUnzk] vt; dqekj lsu ,oa lh- ds- feJk }kjk mi;ksx esa yk;k x;k ykWftd e.My esa miyC/k MsVk ls Kkr djus gsrq Ng lnL;h; dEI;wVj fo'ks"kK lfefr dk xBu fd;k x;k] ftlesa Hkksiky ls jktho xka/kh izks|ksfxdh fo'ofo|ky;] l-o- ikWyhVsdfud egkfo|ky;] 'kkl- efgyk ikWyhVsdfud egkfo|ky; rFkk tcyiqj ls 'kkl- bathfu;fjax egkfo|ky; ls ,d&,d lnL; ,oa Hkksiky fdzLi ls nks lnL; 'kkfey FksA ;gka ;g mYys[kuh; gS fd ;g ykWftd e.My esa miyC/k nLrkostksa rFkk dEi;wVjksa esa vuqiyC/k gSA lfefr dh cSBd fnukad 07-09-2013 dks vk;ksftr dh xbZ ftlesa e.My dh osclkbZV ij miyC/k 40086 jksy uacj ds MsVk ds vk/kkj ij jksy uacj vkoaVu ds fy;s mi;ksx esa yk;s x;s ykWftd dks Kkr djus dk iz;kl fd;k x;kA ftlds fy;s MsVk esa miyC/k fofHkUu QhYMksa ij baMsfDlax djrs gq, izkIr MsVk rFkk osclkbZV ij miyC/k 40086 jksy uacj ds MsVk dks feyku fd;k x;k] rRle; lfefr }kjk tks ykWftd izLrqr fd;k x;k mlesa U;wure 30195 fjdkMZ ij feleSp izkIr gksuk ik;k x;k ftldk mYys[k lfefr ds cSBd dk;Zo`Rr (ifjf'k"V&5) esa fd;k x;k gSA 9- dEI;wVj fo'ks"kK lfefr dh fnukad 07-09-2013 dks vk;ksftr cSBd esa izkIr tkudkjh ls ,l-Vh-,Q-Hkksiky dks e.My ds i= dz- O;kie@5957@2013] fnukad 21-09-2013 (ifjf'k"V&6) ds }kjk voxr djk;k x;kA
10. ,l-Vh-,Q- Hkksiky us e.My }kjk izsf"kr tkudkjh dk ijh{k.k fd;k ,oa e.My dks vius i= dz- ,l-Vh-,Q-
@eq[;ky;@2013@,e&74] fnukad 27-09-2013 (ifjf'k"V&7) }kjk ;g voxr djok;k fd ih-,e-Vh- ijh{kk 2013 ds fy;s e.My }kjk fnukad 30-06-2013 dks tkjh ijh{kk dsUnz lwph esa dqN vH;fFkZ;ksa dh la[;k 40135 mYysf[kr gS] tcfd e.My }kjk xfBr rduhdh lfefr }kjk 30195 jksy uacj dh tks feleSp laca/kh tkudkjh miyC/k djokbZ xbZ gS og 40086 vH;fFkZ;ksa ls lacaf/kr gSA ftlds vk/kkj ij 'ks"k 49 dks lekfgr djrs gq;s ijh{k.k mijkar la'kksf/kr tkudkjh miyC/k djokus gsrq fy[kk x;kA 11- ,l-Vh-,Q- Hkksiky ls izkIr i= ds izdk'k esa ijh{k.k djus ij 25 ik;k x;k fd 49 vekU; vkosndksa dks fufru eksfgUnzk] vt; dqekj lsu ,oa lh- ds- feJk }kjk fu;e fo:) rjhds ls jksy uacj vkoafVr dj fn;s x;s gSa] ftUgsa vekU; izdj.kksa ls lacaf/kr QkbZy esa j[kk x;k FkkA 49 vekU; izdj.kksa ds MsVk dks osclkbZV ij miyC/k 40086 ds MsVk esa 'kkfey dj 40135 vH;fFkZ;ksa dh MsVk QkbZy rS;kj dh xbZ rFkk blds vk/kkj ij pkgh xbZ vko';d tkudkjh ,l-Vh-,Q- Hkksiky dks e.My ds i= dz- O;kie@6071@2013] fnukad 27-09-2013 (ifjf'k"V&8) ds ek/;e ls izsf"kr dh xbZA 12- rRdkyhu lapkyd] e0iz0 O;kolkf;d ijh{kk e.My ds funsZ'kkuqlkj ih-,e-Vh- ijh{kk 2013 ds jksy uacj ls lacaf/kr MsVk QkbZy ds fjdkMZ 40086 esa 49 vfrfjDr fjdkMZ 'kkfey djrs gq;s dqy la[;k 40135 gks tkus ds QyLo:i iwoZ esa xfBr rduhdh lfefr ds LFkkuh; lnL;ksa dh cSBd dj izfrosnu izkIr djus gsrq funsZf'kr fd;k x;kA ftlds izdk'k esa rduhdh fo'ks"kKksa dh cSBd fnukad 30-09-2013 dks vk;ksftr dh xbZ ftlesa rduhdh fo'ks"kK lfefr ds lHkh LFkkuh; 5 lnL; mifLFkr gq;sA lfefr }kjk iqu% 40135 dh MsVk QkbZy ds vk/kkj ij ih-,e-Vh- ijh{kk 2013 ds jksy uacj vkoaVu ds fy;s fufru eksfgUnzk] vt; dqekj lsu rFkk lh- ds- feJk }kjk rRle; mi;ksx esa yk;s x;s ykWftd Kkr djus dk iz;kl fd;k x;kA ftlesa ik;k x;k fd e.My esa miyC/k 40135 dh MsVk QkbZy rFkk rduhdh lfefr }kjk rS;kj dh xbZ MsVk QkbZy esa U;wure feleSp 867 (ifjf'k"V&9) izkIr gks jgk gS ftls rduhdh lfefr }kjk ih-,e-Vh- ijh{kk 2013 ds jksy uacj vkoaVu gsrq mi;ksx esa yk;k x;k ykWftd ekuk x;k gSA rduhdh lfefr }kjk ;g Hkh voxr djok;k x;k fd ih-,e-Vh- 2013 ijh{kk esa vH;fFkZ;ksa ds jksy uacj dk vkoaVu ykWftd (tUefrfFk $ V~katsD'ku vkbZ-Mh- ds 7&11 Hkkx $ ljuse) ds vk/kkj ij baMsfDlax djrs gq;s igys le ,oa rRi'pkr fo"ke fjdkMZ ysrs gq, jksy uacj vkoafVr fd;s x;s FksA ftldk mYys[k lfefr ds cSBd dk;Zo`Rr (ifjf'k"V&10) esa fd;k x;k gSA 13- ,l-Vh-,Q- Hkksiky ds i= dz-
vefu@,lVh,Q@ih,@2013&(,e&45) Hkksiky fnukad 18-09-2013 (ifjf'k"V&11) }kjk ,d vkjksih ls tIr lwph dzekad&1 dh dkih (Vk;fiax 'kqnk) ftlesa 317 vH;FkhZ rFkk ,d vU; nwljs vkjksih ls tIr lwph dzekad 2 ftlesa 52 vH;FkhZ (dqy 369 vH;FkhZ) lfEefyr gS] izsf"kr djrs gq, e.My ls buds Hkjs gsrq QkeZ ,oa ,MfeV dkMZ dh dyMZ 2&2 gkMZ ,oa lkQ~V dkih iznku djus dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;kA e.My }kjk ;g tkudkjh ,l-Vh-,Q- Hkksiky dks miyC/k djokbZ xbZ gSA 14- ,l-Vh-,Q- Hkksiky }kjk izsf"kr 369 vH;fFkZ;ksa dh lwph dk e.My esa miyC/k ih-,e-Vh- ijh{kk 2013 ds MkVk ls feyku djus ij Kkr gqvk fd vkosnu dz- 80016247] 80034595] 80005183] 80002064 ,oa 80034884 (dqy 05) MkVk esa miyC/k ugha gS rFkk vkosnu ua- 80029699 (dqy 01) l- dz- 157 ,oa 271 ij nks txg ij gSA bl izdkj dqy 6 vkosnu dzekad dks i`Fkd djus ij 'ks"k 363 vH;FkhZ ih-,e-Vh- ijh{kk 2013 ls lacaf/kr MsVk esa miyC/k gSa] ftldh lwpuk e.My }kjk i= dzekad&O;kie@5979@2013 fnukad 24-09-2013 (ifjf'k"V&12) }kjk ,l-Vh-,Q- Hkksiky dks miyC/k djokbZ xbZ gSA 15- e.My }kjk lafLFkr rduhdh fo'ks"kK lfefr }kjk miyC/k djokbZ xbZ 876 vH;fFkZ;ksa dh lwph ftuesa jksy uacj ifjofrZr gksus dh iqf"V muds }kjk dh xbZ gS] dk feyku ,l-Vh-,Q- Hkksiky ,oa dzkbZe czkap] bankSj }kjk miyC/k djokbZ xbZ dqy 363 vH;fFkZ;ksa dh lwph ls 26 djus ij ik;k x;k fd 363 vH;fFkZ;ksa esa ls 345 vH;FkhZ (ifjf'k"V&13)] 876 vH;fFkZ;ksa dh ifjofrZr jksy uacj lwph esa miyC/k gSA ;g 345 vH;fFkZ;ksa dh lwph e.My ds i= dz- O;kie@6071@2013] fnukad 27- 09-2013 ds }kjk ,l-Vh-,Q- Hkksiky dks Hkh miyC/k djokbZ xbZ gSA 16- dk;kZy; lgk;d iqfyl egkfujh{kd (,l-Vh-,Q-) eq[;ky; Hkksiky ds i= dzekad&lefu@,lVh,Q@eq[;ky;@2013&(,e&119) Hkksiky fnukad 07-10-2013 (ifjf'k"V&14) ds }kjk Hkh iwoZ esa mYysf[kr 363 vH;fFkZ;ksa dh lwph dh iqf"V fuEukuqlkj dh xbZ gS %&
(i) vkjksih MkW0 txnh'k lkxj us Jh fufru eksfgUnzk dks 317 ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa ds jksy uacj lsV djokus gsrq fn;s FksA Jh fufru eksfgUnzk }kjk 317 esa ls 298 ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa ds jksy uacj lsV djuk crk;k x;k gSA
(ii) vkjksih lq/khj jk; rFkk larks"k xqIrk us Jh fufru eksfgUnzk dks 52 vH;fFkZ;ksa ds jksy uacj lsV djokus gsrq fn;s FksA Jh fufru eksfgUnzk }kjk 52 esa ls 48 ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa ds jksy uacj lsV djuk crk;k x;k gSA
(iii) vkjksih MkW0 txnh'k lkxj] Jh lq/khj jk; rFkk larks"k xqIrk vkfn ds }kjk Jh fufru eksfgUnzk dks ih-,e-Vh- ijh{kk 2013 esa ftu ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa ds jksy uacj ftl izdkj lsV djus gsrq fn;s x;s FksA O;kolkf;d ijh{kk e.My }kjk mlh vuqlkj jksy uacj ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa dks vkoafVr fd, x, gS] ftlls Li"V gS fd mDr ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa }kjk vkjksfi;ksa ds ek/;e ls vuqfpr rjhds ls ijh{kk esa ykHk izkIr fd;k x;k gSA 17- bl laca/k esa e.My ds }kjk cuk;s x;s fu;eksa dk Hkh voyksdu ,oa ijh{k.k fd;k x;kA 18- jksy uacj ifjofrZr djokus laca/kh "kM;a= esa 'kkfey gksus] vkjksfi;ksa ls lEidZ djus rFkk jksy uacj tujs'ku mijkar ifjofrZr fd;s tkus ds dkj.k e- iz- O;kolkf;d ijh{kk e.My }kjk ih-,e-Vh- ijh{kk 2013 ds vk;kstu dh fu;e iqfLrdk ds fu;eksa (ifjf'k"V&15) dk mYya?ku 345 vH;fFkZ;ksa }kjk gksuk ik;k x;k gSA
(i) v/;k;&4] funsZ'k ,oa ijh{kk lapkyu fu;e ds] *egRoiw.kZ* fn'kk&funsZ'k vuqlkj %& **vkWuykbZu vkosnu i= esa Hkjh xbZ tkudkjh dk lR;kiu dkmalfyax@izos'k ds le; ewy nLrkostksa ds vk/kkj ij lacaf/kr foHkkx@laLFkk }kjk fd;k tk;sxkA vr% ckn esa ;g irk pyrk gS fd lQy vkosnd }kjk vkWuykbZu vkosnu i= Hkjrs le; xyr vFkok vlR; tkudkjh vFkok fdlh tkudkjh dk Nqik;k gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa ;fn ;g ik;k x;k fd dksbZ mEehnokj >wBh@xyr tkudkjh nsdj ;k lqlaxr rF;ksa dks Nqik dj izos'k ikus esa lQy gks x;k gS ;k izos'k ds i'pkr fdlh Hkh le; ;g ik;k x;k fd vkosnd dks fdlh xyrh ;k pwdo'k izos'k fey x;k gS] rks vkosnd dks fn;k x;k izos'k laLFkk izeq[k@izos'k izkf/kdj.k@e/;izns'k O;kolkf;d ijh{kk e.My }kjk mlds v/;;u dky ds nkSjku rqjar fcuk fdlh lwpuk ds jn~n fd;k tk ldsxkA**
(ii) blh izdkj fcUnq dz- 4-12 **vuqfpr lk/ku** vuqlkj %&
(d) ijh{kk d{k esa vU; ijh{kkFkhZ ls fdlh Hkh izdkj dk lEidZA ([k) vius LFkku ij fdlh vU; O;fDr ls ijh{kk fnykuk ;k ijh{kkFkhZ 27 ds LFkku ij vU; dksbZ O;fDr mifLFkr gksukA
(x) ijh{kk d{k esa vius ikl fdlh Hkh izdkj dh izfrcaf/kr lkexzh j[kukA (?k) ijh{kk ds nkSjku fpYykuk] cksyuk] dkukQwlh djuk] bZ'kkjs djuk o vU; izdkj ls lEidZ lk/kukA (M-) vU; ijh{kkFkhZ dh mRrj'khV ;k iz'u iqfLrdk ls vU; fdlh izdkj ls udy djukA
(p) vU; ijh{kkFkhZ ds lkFk mRrj'khV ;k iz'u iqfLrdk dh vnyk&cnyh djukA (N) izfrcaf/kr lkexzh ik;s tkus ij ijh{kkFkhZ }kjk mls lkSaius ls badkj djuk ;k mls Lo;a u"V djukA
(t) udy izdj.k ls lacaf/kr nLrkostksa@izi=ksa ij gLrk{kj djus ls euk djukA (>) le{k vf/kdkjh ds funsZ'kksa dh vogsyuk@voKk djuk ;k muds funsZ'kksa dk ikyu u djukA (´) l{ke vf/kdkjh ds funsZ'kkuqlkj mRrj'khV ;k vU; nLrkost okil ugha djuk ;k okil djus ls euk djukA (V) ijh{kk dk;Z esa yxs deZpkfj;ksa@vf/kdkfj;ksa dks ijs'kku djuk] /kedkuk ;k 'kkjhfjd pksV igqapkukA 19- mijksDr rF;ksa ij lfefr }kjk ijh{k.k] fo'ys"k.k ,oa lexz fopkj mijkUr ik;k x;k fd ,l-Vh-,Q- Hkksiky ,oa dzkbZe czkap] bankSj }kjk e.My dks miyC/k djokbZ xbZ vH;fFkZ;ksa dh lwph ,oa rduhdh fo'ks"kK lfefr }kjk miyC/k djokbZ xbZ vuq'kalkvksa vuqlkj 345 vH;FkhZ ,sls gSa tks fd nksuksa lwfp;ksa esa miyC/k gS ftlls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd ;g vH;FkhZ jksy uacj ifjofrZr djokus laca/kh "kM;a= esa 'kkfey gS] buds }kjk bl izdj.k ds vkjksfi;ksa ls lEidZ fd;k x;k gS rFkk vH;fFkZ;ksa ds jksy uacj tujs'ku mijkar ifjofrZr fd;s x;s gSA bl izdkj 345 vH;fFkZ;ksa dks vuqfpr ykHk igqapk;s tkus dh iqf"V orZeku esa miyC/k nLrkostksa ls gksrh gSA mijksDr fcUnqvksa ij dh xbZ foospuk ds vk/kkj ij lfefr bl fu"d"kZ ij igqaprh gS fd 345 vH;fFkZ;ksa dh lwph esa mYysf[kr vH;fFkZ;ksa }kjk ijh{kk fu;eksa dk mYya?ku Li"Vr% n`f"Vxkspj gksrk gSA vr% lfefr leLr 345 vH;fFkZ;ksa dh vH;fFkZrk rFkk ifj.kke fujLr fd;s tkus dh vuq'kalk djrh gSA gLrk@&8-10-13 gLrk@&8-10-13 gLrk@&8-10-13 (ds- ds- lksuh) (vkj-,l- eqtkYnk) (MkW- vkyksd fuxe) mi fu;a=d foRr vf/kdkjh la;qDr fu;a=d gLrk@&8-10-13 gLrk@&8-10-13 (MkW- ,l-ds- xka/kh) (MkW- ,l-ds- tSu) la;qDr fu;a=d izHkkjh fu;a=d"
(emphasis supplied) 28 (xvii) These reports and opinion were placed before the Chairman of the Board with recommendation to initiate action against 345 identified candidates. The Chairperson concurred with the said proposal submitted by the Director and issued directions to proceed in the matter accordingly. This noting was made on 8th October, 2013, as can be discerned from the Office File, which reads thus:
"i`"B dzekad 60 uLrh dzekad O;kie @5&i&1@02@2013- fo"k;% PMT - 2013 ds laca/k esa A lfefr }kjk izLrqr izfrosnu dk ijh{k.k fd;k x;kA izfrosnu esa mYysf[kr jksy uacj ds ykWftd laca/kh izfrosnu] iqfyl ds }kjk izkIr nLrkost] lfefr dk izfrosnu ,oa e.My }kjk cuk;s x;s fu;eksa ls ;g Li"V gks tkrk gS fd 876 vH;fFkZ;ksa ds jksy uacj fcuk fdlh dkj.k vuqfpr <aax ls ifjofrZr dj fn;s x;s gSa ;g ckr Hkh Li"V gksrh gS fd ;g ifjorZu 438 vH;fFkZ;ksa dks ykHk igqWpkus ds fy;s fd;k x;k gSA ;gkW ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd bu 345 jksy uacjksa esa ,d iSVuZ mHkjdj vkrk gS ftlesa e/;izns'k ds vH;FkhZ dks vU; izns'k ds vH;FkhZ ds lkFk lqfu;ksftr <aax ls dze esa jksy uacj vkoafVr fd;k x;k gSA fdlh Hkh js.Me izfdz;k ds ikyu djus ls ,slk iSVuZ mHkjuk laHko ugha gSA bl ckr dh iqf"V iqfyl foHkkx }kjk miyC/k djk;s x;s nLrkostksa ls Hkh gksrh gSA vr% lfefr ds izfrosnu ls lger gksrs gq;s izfrosnu esa of.kZr 345 vH;fFkZ;ksa dh vH;fFkZrk fu;eksa ds myya?ku gksus ds dkj.k fujLr fd;k tkuk izLrkfor gSA voyksdukFkZ ,oa vuqeksnukFkZA Sd/-08-10-2013 ¼Tarun Kumar Pithode) DIRECTOR eku- v/;{k egks-
lfefr ds izfrosnu dk voyksdu fd;kA lfefr ds izfrosnu ds fu"d"kksZ ls lger gksrs gq, lapkyd us 345 vH;fFkZ;ksa dh vH;fFkZrk fujLr djus ds vuqlkj lfefr ds izLrko vuqlkj dh gSA esa mijksDr ls lger gwWa A rnkuqlkj vuqeksfnrA lapkyd vkxkeh dk;Zokgh lqfuf'pr djsa A lgh@08-10-2013 lapkyd vkns'k dk izk:i izLrqr djsaA ,oa 'kklu dks Do letter dk izk:i izLrqr djsaA lgh@08-10-2013 29 Steno vuqeksnu dh izR;k'kk esa vkns'k dh LoPN izfr;k izLrqr gSA d`i;k gLrk{kj djuk pkgsa A lgh@08-10-2013 lapkyd egksn;
lgh@09-10-2011 Controller "
(emphasis supplied) (xviii) As a consequence of directions issued by the Chairman, the Director processed the matter further and finally issued the impugned order dated 9th October, 2013 cancelling the entrance examination results of 345 identified candidates and held them ineligible for having indulged in unfair practices. The impugned order dated 9th October, 2013 reads thus:
"e-iz- O;kolkf;d ijh{kk e.My] Hkksiky **p;u Hkou** fpukj ikdZ (bZLV) esu jksM+ ua- 1] Hkksiky&462011 dz-e- iz- O;kie@6297@2013 Hkksiky] fnukad 09-10-2013 @@vkns'k@@ e.My }kjk fnukad 07-07-2013 dks vk;ksftr ih-,e-Vh- ijh{kk 2013 ds miyC/k O;ofLFkr MsVk ds ykWftd ds laca/k esa dEI;wVj fo"k;&fo'ks"kKksa ds }kjk iznku dh xbZ feleSp fjiksVZ rFkk ,l-Vh-,Q- ls izkIr fjiksVZ ds ifjizs{; esa ih-,e-Vh- 2013 dh lexz xgu Nkuchu ,oa fu"d"kZ gsrq ,d 5 lnL;h; lfefr xfBr dh xbZA lfefr }kjk lacaf/kr ufLr;ksa] vfHkys[kksa ,oa fu;eksa dk ijh{k.k djus ds mijkar viuk foLr`r izfrosnu izLrqr fd;k x;kA izLrqr izfrosnu dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA bl izfrosnu esa lfefr us jksy uacj esa gsjkQsjh] jksy uacj dk vH;fFkZ;ksa dks vuqfpr :i ls vkoaVu] fcuk l{ke vf/kdkjh ds vkns'k ds fujLr vkosnuksa ds vk/kkj ij jksy uacj tkjh fd;k tkuk ik;k x;k ,oa e.My }kjk cuk;s x;s ijh{kk fu;eksa dk Hkh mYya?ku gksus dk Hkh mYys[k fd;k x;k gSA lfefr us ih-,e-Vh- ijh{kk 2013 ds vk;kstu dh fu;e iqfLrdk ds v/;k;&4] funsZ'k ,oa ijh{kk lapkyu fu;e ds **egRoiw.kZ** fn'kk&funsZ'k dk mYys[k fd;k gS] ftlds vuqlkj& **vkWuykbZu vkosnu i= esa Hkjh xbZ tkudkjh dk lR;kiu dkmalfyax@izos'k ds le; ewy nLrkostksa ds vk/kkj ij lacaf/kr foHkkx@laLFkk }kjk fd;k tk;sxkA vr% ckn esa ;g irk pyrk gS fd lQy vkosnd }kjk vkWuykbZu vkosnu i= Hkjrs le; xyr vFkok vlR;30
tkudkjh vFkok fdlh tkudkjh dk Nqik;k gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa ;fn ;g ik;k x;k fd dksbZ mEehnokj >wBh@xyr tkudkjh nsdj ;k lqlaxr rF;ksa dks Nqik dj izos'k ikus esa lQy gks x;k gS ;k izos'k ds i'pkr fdlh Hkh le; ;g ik;k x;k fd vkosnd dks fdlh xyrh ;k pwdo'k izos'k fey x;k gS] rks vkosnd dks fn;k x;k izos'k laLFkk izeq[k@izos'k izkf/kdj.k@e/;izns'k O;kolkf;d ijh{kk e.My }kjk mlds v/;;u dky ds nkSjku rqjar fcuk fdlh lwpuk ds jn~n fd;k tk ldsxkA** blh izdkj fu;e ds fcUnq dz- 4-12 ds vUrxZr ijh{kk d{k esa vU; ijh{kkFkhZ ls fdlh Hkh izdkj dk lEidZ] vius LFkku ij fdlh vU; O;fDr ls ijh{kk fnykuk ;k ijh{kkFkhZ ds LFkku ij vU; dksbZ O;fDr mifLFkr gksuk] ijh{kk ds nkSjku fpYykuk] cksyuk] dkukQwlh djuk] bZ'kkjs djuk o vU; izdkj ls lEidZ lk/kuk]vU; ijh{kkFkhZ dh mRrj'khV ;k iz'u iqfLrdk ls vU; fdlh izdkj ls udy djuk] vU; ijh{kkFkhZ ds lkFk mRrj'khV ;k iz'u iqfLrdk dh vnyk&cnyh djus dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gSA mijksDr rF;ksa ij lfefr }kjk ijh{k.k] fo'ys"k.k ,oa lexz fopkj mijkar ik;k x;k fd ,l-Vh-,Q- Hkksiky ,oa dzkbZe czkap] bankSj }kjk e.My dks miyC/k djokbZ xbZ vH;fFkZ;ksa dh lwph ,oa rduhdh fo'ks"kK lfefr }kjk miyC/k djokbZ xbZ vuq'kalkvksa vuqlkj 345 vH;FkhZ ,sls gSa tks fd nksuksa lwfp;ksa esa miyC/k gSa ftlls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd ;g vH;FkhZ jksy uacj ifjofrr djokus laca/kh "kM;a= esa 'kkfey gSa] buds }kjk bl izdj.k ds vkjksfi;ksa ls lEidZ fd;k x;k gS rFkk vH;fFkZ;ksa ds jksy uacj tujs'ku mijkUr ifjofrZr fd;s x;s gSA bl izdkj 345 vH;fFkZ;ksa dks vuqfpr ykHk igqapk;s tkus dh iqf"V dh xbZ gSA izfrosnu esa mYysf[kr jksy uacj ds ykWftd laca/kh izfrosnu] iqfyl ds }kjk izkIr nLrkost] lfefr dk izfrosnu ,oa e.My }kjk cuk;s x;s fu;eksa ls ;g Li"V gks tkrk gS fd 876 vH;fFkZ;ksa ds jksy uacj fcuk fdlh dkj.k vuqfpr <ax ls ifjofrZr dj fn;s x;s gSa] ftuesa ls 345 vU; vH;fFkZ;ksa ds ukeksa dh iqf"V lfefr }kjk dh xbZ gSA ;gka ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd bu 345 jksy uacjksa esa ,d iSVuZ mHkjdj vkrk gS ftlesa e/;izns'k ds vH;FkhZ dks vU; izns'k ds vH;FkhZ ds lkFk lqfu;ksftr <ax ls dze esa jksy uacj vkoafVr fd;k x;k gSA fdlh Hkh js.Me izfdz;k ds ikyu djus ls ,slk iSVuZ mHkjuk laHko ugha gSA lfefr ds izfrosnu ds ifjizs{; esa vfHkys[kksa dk ijh{k.k djus ds mijkUr ;g lek/kku gks x;k gS fd 345 vH;fFkZ;ksa dks vuqfpr rjhds ls jksy uacj vkoafVr dj ijh{kk fu;eksa dk mYya?ku djrs gq, ykHk igqapk;k x;k gSA vr% bu 345 vH;fFkZ;ksa (ifjf'k"V&1) dh vH;fFkZrk rRdky izHkko ls fujLr dh tkrh gSA layXu % mijksDrkuqlkj ifjf'k"V&1 gLrk-@& lapkyd e-iz- O;kolkf;d ijh{kk e.My Hkksiky** (emphasis supplied) 31 (xix) On the basis of information gathered during the inquiry undertaken by the Board which unravelled the involvement of large number of candidates in resorting to unfair means during the entrance examination, the Board caused to register FIR in the local Police Station on 11th October, 2013.
(xx) Notably, the decision taken by the Chairman of the Board on the recommendation of the Director and as a result of which the impugned order dated 9th October, 2013 came to be issued, this entire matter was placed before the Executive Committee of the Board on 19th November, 2013. The Executive Committee not only approved the entire action but also ratified the same, thus, upholding the cancellation of entrance examination results of 345 candidates identified by the Committee.
(xxi) Thereafter, on 22nd November, 2013 the Board received list of another 92 candidates from the STF, who were allegedly involved in the commission of the crime registered against them. On receipt of this information, a meeting of Joint Controllers was convened on 30th November, 2013. In the said meeting, after due analysis of the material available and applying the same logic as was applied for identifying 345 candidates, the Committee of Joint Controllers opined that action must be taken against additional 70 candidates. The evaluation report of the said Committee reads, thus:
"e-iz- O;kolkf;d ijh{kk e.My] Hkksiky @@ijh{k.k izfrosnu@@ e.My }kjk fnukad 07-07-2013 dks vk;ksftr ih-,e-Vh- ijh{kk 32 2013 ds miyC/k O;ofLFkr MsVk ds ykWftd ds laca/k esa dEI;wVj fo"k;&fo'ks"kKksa ds }kjk iznku dh xbZ feleSp fjiksVZ rFkk ,l-Vh-,Q- ls izkIr fjiksVZ dh lexz xgu Nkuchu ,oa fu"d"kZ gsrq lapkyd] e-iz- O;kolkf;d ijh{kk e.My }kjk lfefr xfBr dh xbZ] ftlesa e.My ds 5 vf/kdkfj;ksa ;Fkk MkW- lat; tSu] izHkkjh fu;a=d] MkW- ,l- ds- xkWa/kh] la;qDr fu;a=d] MkW- vkyksd dqekj fuxe] la;qDr fu;a=d] Jh vkj-,l- eqtkYnk] foRr vf/kdkjh ,oa Jh ds- ds- lksuh] mifu;a=d dks euksuhr fd;k x;kA xfBr lfefr dh cSBd izHkkjh fu;a=d ds d{k esa fnukad 30-11-2013 dks nksigj 12-00 cts vk;ksftr dh xbZA lfefr }kjk ih- ,e-Vh- ijh{kk 2013 ls lacaf/kr lEiw.kZ ?kVukdze ij foLr`r ppkZ] lacaf/kr ewy uLrh] i=kpkj ,oa layXudksa dk xgu voyksdu fd;k x;k] rnksijkar lfefr dk ijh{k.k izfrosnu fcUnqokj fuEukuqlkj gS %& 1- e.My }kjk fnukad 07-07-2013 dks izh&esMhdy VsLV (ih-,e- Vh-) ijh{kk&2013 dk vk;kstu fpfdRlk f'k{kk foHkkx] e/;izns'k 'kklu ds vuqjks/k ij muds }kjk miyC/k djok;s x;s foHkkxh; fu;eksa ds vuqlkj izns'k ds 14 'kgjksa esa ,d ikyh esa vijkUg 12-00 ls 3-30 cts rd lqfuf'pr fd;k x;k FkkA e.My dks ih-,e-Vh- ijh{kk&2013 ds fy, ,e-ih- vkWuykbZu ds ek/;e ls dqy 40]165 vkosnu i= vkWuykbZu izkIr gq, Fks] ftuesa ls 40086 vH;fFkZ;ksa dks VsLV ,MfeV dkMZ e.My }kjk osclkbZV ij viyksM djrs gq, tkjh fd, x, FksA ijh{kk ds lqpk:] lQy lapkyu rFkk fdlh Hkh izdkj ds vuqfpr lk/ku dks jksdus ds en~nsutj lapkyd] e- iz- O;kolkf;d ijh{kk e.My }kjk iqfyl egkfuns'kd] e/;izns'k] Hkksiky dks i= dz- e-iz- O;kie@i&1@5@ 4338@2013] fnukad 05-07-2013 (ifjf'k"V&1) }kjk voxr djk;k x;k FkkA 2- e.My dh izpfyr izfdz;k vuqlkj] ijh{kk lEiknu ds mijkar vks-,e-vkj- mRrj'khV~l dh Ldsfuax] izkslsflax laca/kh dk;Z iw.kZ fd;k x;k rFkk e.My }kjk fnukad 13-07-2013 dks ih-,e-Vh- ijh{kk&2013 dk ifj.kke ?kksf"kr dj e.My dh osclkbZV ij viyksM fd;k x;kA 3- ftyk vijk/k 'kk[kk] bankSj }kjk ih-,e-Vh- ijh{kk&2013 esa rFkkdfFkr fxjksg ds idM+s x;s QthZ O;fDr;ksa ls izkIr lwpuk ds vk/kkj ij e.My dh dEI;wVj 'kk[kk esa inLFk vf/kdkjh}; fufru eksfgUnzk] rRdkyhu ih-,l-,- rFkk vt; dqekj rRdkyhu ,l-,l-,- dks vfHkj{kk esa ysrs gq, fnukad 16-07-13 dks fxjQ~rkj fd;k x;k ftldh lwpuk dk;kZy; iqfyl Fkkuk jktsUnz uxj] ftyk bankSj ds i= dz- 2438@13] fnukad 17-07-2013 ds }kjk e.My dks izkIr gqbZ ftlds izdk'k esa nksuksa vf/kdkfj;ksa dks e.My ds i`"Bkafdr vkns'k dz- O;kie@02@LFkk@4655@2013]fnukad 18-07-2013 ,oa i`"Bkafdr vkns'k dz- O;kie@02@LFkk@4657@2013] fnukad 18-07-2013 }kjk fuyafcr fd;k x;kA blh rkjrE; esa dEI;wVj 'kk[kk esa gh inLFk ,d vU; deZpkjh lh-ds- feJk] rRdkyhu lgk;d izksxzkej dks fnukad 18-07-2013 dks fxjQ~rkj fd;k x;kA ftldh lwpuk dk;kZy; iqfyl Fkkuk jktsUnz uxj] ftyk bankSj ds i= fnukad 19-07-2013 ds }kjk e.My dks izkIr gqbZ ftlds izdk'k esa lh- ds- feJk dks e.My ds i`"Bkafdr vkns'k dz- O;kie@02@LFkk@4677@2013] fnukad 20-07-2013 }kjk fuyafcr fd;k x;kA 4- rRdkyhu fu;a=d] e- iz- O;kolkf;d ijh{kk e.My }kjk iqfyl egkfujh{kd bankSj tksu dks e.My ds i= dzekad& O;kie@4661@2013] fnukad 19-07-2013 }kjk ih-,e-Vh- ijh{kk 2013 ds vUrxZr QthZ vH;fFkZ;ksa ds uke o vuqdzekad laca/kh tkudkjh pkgh xbZ Fkh] ftlds izfrmRrj esa iqfyl v/kh{kd (if'pe), ftyk bankSj ds i= 33 dz- iqv@if'pe@ih,@412@2013] fnukad 19-07-2013 }kjk ih-,e-Vh- ijh{kk 2013 (ifjf'k"V&2) ds laca/k esa vkjksfi;ksa ls izkIr 317 vH;fFkZ;ksa dh lwph e.My dks miyC/k djokbZ FkhA 5- pwafd e.My }kjk ih-,e-Vh- ijh{kk 2013 dk ifj.kke fnukad 13- 07-2013 dks gh ?kksf"kr fd;k tk pqdk FkkA vr,o rRdkyhu fu;a=d] MkW0 iadt f=osnh }kjk e- iz- O;kolkf;d ijh{kk e.My }kjk izeq[k lfpo] e- iz- 'kklu] fpfdRlk f'k{kk foHkkx] ea=ky;] Hkksiky dks i= dza- e-iz- O;kie@4674@2013] fnukad 20-07-2013 (ifjf'k"V&3) ds }kjk 317 vH;fFkZ;ksa dh iqfyl v/kh{kd (if'pe), ftyk bankSj ls izkIr lwph layXu djrs gq, izsf"kr fd;k x;k Fkk ftlesa ;g mYysf[kr fd;k x;k Fkk fd esfjV lwph esa LFkku izkIr QthZ@lafnX/k vH;fFkZ;ksa dks dkmalfyax ds nkSjku izkof/kd :i ls lhV dk vkoaVu bl 'krZ ds lkFk fd;k tk;s fd ;fn mijksDr vH;fFkZ;ksa dh vijk/k izdj.k dz- 539@13 esa iqfyl dh tkap@foospuk ds nkSjku lafyIrrk izekf.kr gksrh gS rks budh vH;fFkZrk Lor% fujLr le>h tk;sxhA 6- ih-,e-Vh- ijh{kk 2013 dh O;kie }kjk miyC/k djkbZ xbZ esfjV lwph ds vk/kkj ij dkmalfyax dk dk;Z 'kkldh; ,oa futh egkfo|ky;ksa gsrq lapkyd] fpfdRlk f'k{kk }kjk fn- 28-09-2013 rd lEiUu djok;k x;kA ftldh iqf"V lapkyd] fpfdRlk f'k{kk foHkkx] e0 iz0 'kklu ds mudh osclkbZV ij miyC/k i= dz- 2285@;w-th-@4@Mh-,e-bZ-@13] fn- 16-07-2013 (ifjf'k"V&4) ds }kjk gksrh gSA 7- ih-,e-Vh- ijh{kk 2013 esa vH;fFkZ;ksa dks jksyuacj vkoaVu lacaf/kr izfdz;k e.My ds miyC/k vfHkys[kksa esa ugha ikbZ tkus ds dkj.k e.My ls lacaf/kr vkjksfi;ksa Jh fufru eksfgUnzk] Jh vt; dqekj lsu rFkk Jh lh- ds- feJk ls mDr izfdz;k Kkr djus gsrq v/kh{kd] ftyk tsy] bankSj ds ek/;e ls i= Hksts x;s] ijUrq rhuksa vkjksfi;ksa }kjk jksy uacj vkoaVu ls lacaf/kr Li"V ykWftd laca/kh tkudkjh e.My dks iznku ugha dh xbZA 8- lapkyd] e0iz0 O;kolkf;d ijh{kk e.My] Hkksiky }kjk ih-,e-Vh- ijh{kk 2013 ds jksy uacj vkoaVu ds fy;s fufru eksfgUnzk] vt; dqekj lsu ,oa lh- ds- feJk }kjk mi;ksx esa yk;k x;k ykWftd e.My esa miyC/k MsVk ls Kkr djus gsrq Ng lnL;h; dEI;wVj fo'ks"kK lfefr dk xBu fd;k x;k] ftlesa Hkksiky ls jktho xka/kh izks|ksfxdh fo'ofo|ky;] l-o- ikWyhVsdfud egkfo|ky;] 'kkl- efgyk ikWyhVsdfud egkfo|ky; rFkk tcyiqj ls 'kkl- bathfu;fjax egkfo|ky; ls ,d&,d lnL; ,oa Hkksiky fdzLi ls nks lnL; 'kkfey FksA ;gka ;g mYys[kuh; gS fd ;g ykWftd e.My esa miyC/k nLrkostksa rFkk dEi;wVjksa esa vuqiyC/k gSA lfefr dh cSBd fnukad 07-09-2013 dks vk;ksftr dh xbZ ftlesa e.My dh osclkbZV ij miyC/k 40086 jksy uacj ds MsVk ds vk/kkj ij jksy uacj vkoaVu ds fy;s mi;ksx esa yk;s x;s ykWftd dks Kkr djus dk iz;kl fd;k x;kA ftlds fy;s MsVk esa miyC/k fofHkUu QhYMksa ij baMsfDlax djrs gq, izkIr MsVk rFkk osclkbZV ij miyC/k 40086 jksy uacj ds MsVk dks feyku fd;k x;k] rRle; lfefr }kjk tks ykWftd izLrqr fd;k x;k mlesa U;wure 30195 fjdkMZ ij feleSp izkIr gksuk ik;k x;k ftldk mYys[k lfefr ds cSBd dk;Zo`Rr (ifjf'k"V&5) esa fd;k x;k gSA 9- dEI;wVj fo'ks"kK lfefr dh fnukad 07-09-2013 dks vk;ksftr cSBd esa izkIr tkudkjh ls ,l-Vh-,Q-Hkksiky dks e.My ds i= dz- O;kie@5957@2013] fnukad 21-09-2013 (ifjf'k"V&6) ds }kjk voxr djok;k x;kA 34 10- ,l-Vh-,Q- Hkksiky us e.My }kjk izsf"kr tkudkjh dk ijh{k.k fd;k ,oa e.My dks vius i= dz- ,l-Vh-,Q-
@eq[;ky;@2013@,e&74] fnukad 27-09-2013 (ifjf'k"V&7) }kjk ;g voxr djok;k fd ih-,e-Vh- ijh{kk 2013 ds fy;s e.My }kjk fnukad 30-06-2013 dks tkjh ijh{kk dsUnz lwph esa dqy vH;fFkZ;ksa dh la[;k 40135 mYysf[kr gS] tcfd e.My }kjk xfBr rduhdh lfefr }kjk 30195 jksy uacj dh tks feleSp laca/kh tkudkjh miyC/k djokbZ xbZ gS og 40086 vH;fFkZ;ksa ls lacaf/kr gSA ftlds vk/kkj ij 'ks"k 49 dks lekfgr djrs gq;s ijh{k.k mijkar la'kksf/kr tkudkjh miyC/k djokus gsrq fy[kk x;kA 11- ,l-Vh-,Q- Hkksiky ls izkIr i= ds izdk'k esa ijh{k.k djus ij ik;k x;k fd 49 vekU; vkosndksa dks fufru eksfgUnzk] vt; dqekj lsu ,oa lh- ds- feJk }kjk fu;e fo:) jksy uacj vkoafVr dj fn;s x;s gSa] ftUgsa vekU; izdj.kksa ls lacaf/kr QkbZy esa j[kk x;k FkkA 49 vekU; izdj.kksa ds MsVk dks osclkbZV ij miyC/k 40086 ds MsVk esa 'kkfey dj 40135 vH;fFkZ;ksa dh MsVk QkbZy rS;kj dh xbZ rFkk blds vk/kkj ij pkgh xbZ vko';d tkudkjh ,l-Vh-,Q- Hkksiky dks e.My ds i= dz- O;kie@6071@2013] fnukad 27-09-2013 (ifjf'k"V&8) ds ek/;e ls izsf"kr dh xbZA 12- rRdkyhu lapkyd] Jh tkWu fdaXlyh] ,-vkj- e0iz0 O;kolkf;d ijh{kk e.My ds funsZ'kkuqlkj ih-,e-Vh- ijh{kk 2013 ds jksy uacj ls lacaf/kr MsVk QkbZy ds fjdkMZ 40086 esa 49 vfrfjDr fjdkMZ 'kkfey djrs gq;s dqy la[;k 40135 gks tkus ds QyLo:i iwoZ esa xfBr rduhdh lfefr ds LFkkuh; lnL;ksa dh cSBd dj izfrosnu izkIr djus gsrq funsZf'kr fd;k x;kA ftlds izdk'k esa rduhdh fo'ks"kKksa dh cSBd fnukad 30-09-2013 dks vk;ksftr dh xbZ ftlesa rduhdh fo'ks"kK lfefr ds lHkh LFkkuh; 5 lnL; mifLFkr gq;sA lfefr }kjk iqu% 40135 dh MsVk QkbZy ds vk/kkj ij ih-,e-Vh- ijh{kk 2013 ds jksy uacj vkoaVu ds fy;s fufru eksfgUnzk] vt; dqekj lsu rFkk lh- ds- feJk }kjk rRle; mi;ksx esa yk;s x;s ykWftd Kkr djus dk iz;kl fd;k x;kA ftlesa ik;k x;k fd e.My esa miyC/k 40135 dh MsVk QkbZy rFkk rduhdh lfefr }kjk rS;kj dh xbZ MsVk QkbZy esa U;wure feleSp 876 (ifjf'k"V&9) izkIr gks jgk gS ftls rduhdh lfefr }kjk ih-,e-Vh- ijh{kk 2013 ds jksy uacj vkoaVu gsrq mi;ksx esa yk;k x;k ykWftd ekuk x;k gSA rduhdh lfefr }kjk ;g Hkh voxr djok;k x;k fd ih-,e-Vh- 2013 ijh{kk esa vH;fFkZ;ksa ds jksy uacj dk vkoaVj ykWftd (tUefrfFk $ V~katsD'ku vkbZ-Mh- ds 7&11 Hkkx $ ljuse) ds vk/kkj ij baMsfDlax djrs gq;s igys le ,oa rRi'pkr fo"ke fjdkMZ ysrs gq, jksy uacj vkoafVr fd;s x;s FksA ftldk mYys[k lfefr ds cSBd dk;Zo`Rr fnukad 30-09-2013 (ifjf'k"V&10) esa fd;k x;k gSA 13- ,l-Vh-,Q- Hkksiky ds i= dz-
vefu@,lVh,Q@ih,@2013&(,e&45) Hkksiky fnukad 18-09-2013 (ifjf'k"V&11) }kjk ,d vkjksih ls tIr lwph dzekad&1 dh dkih (Vk;fiax ;qDr) ftlesa 317 vH;FkhZ rFkk ,d vU; nwljs vkjksih ls tIr lwph dzekad 2 ftlesa 52 vH;FkhZ (dqy 369 vH;FkhZ) lfEefyr gS] izsf"kr djrs gq, e.My ls buds Hkjs gsrq QkeZ ,oa ,MfeV dkMZ dh dyMZ 2&2 gkMZ ,oa lkQ~V dkih iznku djus dk vuqjks/k fd;k x;kA e.My }kjk ;g tkudkjh ,l-Vh-,Q- Hkksiky dks miyC/k djokbZ xbZ gSA 14- ,l-Vh-,Q- Hkksiky }kjk izsf"kr 369 vH;fFkZ;ksa dh lwph dk e.My esa miyC/k ih-,e-Vh- ijh{kk 2013 ds MkVk ls feyku djus ij Kkr gqvk 35 fd vkosnu dz- 80016247] 80034595] 80005183] 80002064 ,oa 80034884 (dqy 05) MkVk esa miyC/k ugha gS rFkk vkosnu ua- 80029699 (dqy 01) l- dz- 157 ,oa 271 ij nks txg ij gSA bl izdkj dqy 6 vkosnukas dks i`Fkd djus ij 'ks"k 363 vH;FkhZ ih-,e-Vh- ijh{kk 2013 ls lacaf/kr MsVk esa miyC/k gSa] ftldh lwpuk e.My }kjk i= dzekad&O;kie@5979@2013 fnukad 24-09-2013 (ifjf'k"V&12) }kjk ,l-Vh-,Q- Hkksiky dks miyC/k djokbZ xbZ gSA 15- e.My }kjk lafLFkr rduhdh fo'ks"kK lfefr }kjk miyC/k djokbZ xbZ 876 vH;fFkZ;ksa dh lwph ftuds jksy uacj ifjofrZr gksus dh iqf"V muds }kjk dh xbZ gS] dk feyku ,l-Vh-,Q- Hkksiky ,oa dzkbZe czkap] bankSj }kjk miyC/k djokbZ xbZ dqy 363 vH;fFkZ;ksa dh lwph ls djus ij ik;k x;k fd 363 vH;fFkZ;ksa esa ls 345 vH;FkhZ (ifjf'k"V&13)] 876 vH;fFkZ;ksa dh ifjofrZr jksy uacj lwph esa miyC/k gSA ;g 345 vH;fFkZ;ksa dh lwph e.My ds i= dz- O;kie@6071@2013] fnukad 27- 09-2013 ds }kjk ,l-Vh-,Q- Hkksiky dks Hkh miyC/k djokbZ xbZ gSA 16- dk;kZy; lgk;d iqfyl egkfujh{kd (,l-Vh-,Q-) eq[;ky; Hkksiky ds i= dzekad&lefu@,lVh,Q@eq[;ky;@2013&(,e&119) Hkksiky fnukad 07-10-2013 (ifjf'k"V&14) ds }kjk Hkh iwoZ esa mYysf[kr 363 vH;fFkZ;ksa dh lwph dh iqf"V fuEukuqlkj dh xbZ gS %&
(i) vkjksih MkW0 txnh'k lkxj us Jh fufru eksfgUnzk dks 317 ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa ds jksy uacj lsV djokus gsrq fn;s FksA Jh fufru eksfgUnzk }kjk 317 esa ls 298 ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa ds jksy uacj lsV djuk crk;k x;k gSA
(ii) vkjksih lq/khj jk; rFkk larks"k xqIrk us Jh fufru eksfgUnzk dks 52 vH;fFkZ;ksa ds jksy uacj lsV djokus gsrq fn;s FksA Jh fufru eksfgUnzk }kjk 52 esa ls 48 ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa ds jksy uacj lsV djuk crk;k x;k gSA
(iii) vkjksih MkW0 txnh'k lkxj] Jh lq/khj jk; rFkk larks"k xqIrk vkfn ds }kjk Jh fufru eksfgUnzk dks ih-,e-Vh- ijh{kk 2013 esa ftu ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa ds jksy uacj ftl izdkj lsV djus gsrq fn;s x;s FksA O;kolkf;d ijh{kk e.My }kjk mlh vuqlkj jksy uacj ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa dks vkoafVr fd, x, gS] ftlls Li"V gS fd mDr ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa }kjk vkjksfi;ksa ds ek/;e ls vuqfpr rjhds ls ijh{kk esa ykHk izkIr fd;k x;k gSA 17- bl laca/k esa e.My ds }kjk cuk;s x;s fu;eksa dk Hkh voyksdu ,oa ijh{k.k fd;k x;kA 18- jksy uacj ifjofrZr djokus laca/kh "kM;a= esa 'kkfey gksus] vkjksfi;ksa ls lEidZ djus rFkk jksy uacj tujs'ku mijkar ifjofrZr fd;s tkus ds dkj.k e- iz- O;kolkf;d ijh{kk e.My }kjk ih-,e-Vh- ijh{kk 2013 ds vk;kstu dh fu;e iqfLrdk ds fu;eksa (ifjf'k"V&15) dk mYya?ku 345 vH;fFkZ;ksa }kjk gksuk ik;k x;k gSA 19- mijksDr rF;ksa ij lfefr }kjk ijh{k.k] fo'ys"k.k ,oa lexz fopkj mijkUr ik;k x;k fd ,l-Vh-,Q- Hkksiky ,oa dzkbZe czkap] bankSj }kjk e.My dks miyC/k djokbZ xbZ vH;fFkZ;ksa dh lwph ,oa rduhdh fo'ks"kK lfefr }kjk miyC/k djokbZ xbZ vuq'kalkvksa vuqlkj 345 vH;FkhZ ,sls gSa tks fd nksuksa lwfp;ksa esa miyC/k gS ftlls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd ;g vH;FkhZ jksy uacj ifjofrZr djokus laca/kh "kM;a= esa 'kkfey gS] buds }kjk bl izdj.k ds vkjksfi;ksa ls lEidZ fd;k x;k gS rFkk 36 vH;fFkZ;ksa ds jksy uacj tujs'ku mijkar ifjofrZr fd;s x;s gSA bl izdkj 345 vH;fFkZ;ksa dks vuqfpr ykHk igqapk;s tkus dh iqf"V orZeku esa miyC/k nLrkostksa ls gksrh gSA QyLo:i 345 vH;fFkZ;ksa dh vH;fFkZrk e0iz0 O;kolkf;d ijh{kk e.My ds vkns'k dzekad&e0iz0 O;kie@6297@2013 fnukad 09-10-2013 ds }kjk rRdky izHkko ls fujLr dh xbZ (ifjf'k"V&16)A 20- dk;kZy; lgk;d egkfujh{kd] ,l-Vh-,Q- e-iz- Hkksiky ds i= dz- l-e-fu-@,l-Vh-,Q-@eq[;ky;@2013@(,e&213)] Hkksiky fnukad 22-11-2013 (ifjf'k"V&17) }kjk MkW0 latho f'kYidkj ds dCts ls izkIr ih-,e-Vh- ijh{kk 2013 ds 92 vH;fFkZ;ksa dh lwph miyC/k djokbZ xbZ gSA bl lwph dk feyku fcUnq dzekad&9 esa mYysf[kr 876 vH;fFkZ;ksa dh lwph tks fd ifjf'k"V&9 esa layXu gS] ls fd;k x;k ,oa ik;k x;k fd leLr 92 vH;FkhZ 876 vH;fFkZ;ksa dh feleSp lwph esa miyC/k gSA bu 92 vH;fFkZ;ksa dh lwph dk feyku fcUnq dzekad&13 esa mYysf[kr ifjf'k"V&13 esa layXu 345 mu vH;fFkZ;ksa dh lwph ls fd;k x;k] ftudh vH;fFkZrk e-iz- O;kolkf;d ijh{kk e.My }kjk vkns'k dz- e-iz-
O;kie@6297@2013 fnukad 09-10-2013 }kjk fujLr dh tk pqdh gS ,oa ik;k x;k gS fd 92 vH;fFkZ;ksa esa ls 22 vH;FkhZ (ifjf'k"V&18) ,sls gS ftudh vH;fFkZrk iwoZ esa gh fujLr dh tk pqdh gSA 21- 92 vH;fFkZ;ksa dh lwph esa ls 'ks"k 70 vH;FkhZ (ifjf'k"V&19) ,sls ik;s x;s gS tks fd iwoZ esa vH;fFkZrk fujLr fd;s x;s 345 vH;fFkZ;ksa dh lwph esa miyC/k ugha gSA mijksDr rF;ksa ij lfefr }kjk ijh{k.k] fo'ys"k.k],oa lexz fopkj mijkar ik;k x;k fd ,l-Vh-,Q- Hkksiky }kjk e.My dks orZeku esa miyC/k djokbZ xbZ 92 vH;fFkZ;ksa dh lwph ,oa rduhdh fo'ks"kK lfefr }kjk miyC/k djokbZ xbZ] vuq'kalkvksa vuqlkj 70 vH;FkhZ ,sls gS tks fd nksuksa lwfp;ksa esa miyC/k gS rFkk budh vH;fFkZrk iwoZ esa fujLr ugha dh gSA blls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd ;g vH;FkhZ jksy uacj ifjofrZr djokus laca/kh "kM;a= esa 'kkfey gS] buds }kjk bl izdj.k ds vkjksfi;ksa ls laidZ fd;k x;k gS rFkk vH;fFkZ;ksa ds jksy uacj tujs'ku mijkar ifjofrZr fd;s x;s gSA bl izdkj 70 vfrfjDr vH;fFkZ;ksa dks vuqfpr ykHk igqapk;s tkus dh iqf"V orZeku esa miyC/k nLrkostksa ls gksrh gSA 22- lfefr }kjk jksy uacj ifjofrZr djokus laca/kh "kM;a= esa 'kkfey gksus] vkjksfi;ksa ls laidZ djus rFkk jksy uacj tujs'ku mijkar ifjofrZr fd;s tkus ds dkj.k e- iz- O;kolkf;d ijh{kk e.My }kjk ih-,e-Vh- ijh{kk 2013 ds vk;kstu dh fu;e iqfLrdk ds fu;eksa (ifjf'k"V&15) dk mYya?ku 70 vH;fFkZ;ksa }kjk gksuk ik;k x;k gSA
(i) v/;k;&4] funsZ'k ,oa ijh{kk lapkyu fu;e ds] *egRoiw.kZ* fn'kk&funsZ'k vuqlkj %& **vkWuykbZu vkosnu i= esa Hkjh xbZ tkudkjh dk lR;kiu dkmalfyax@izos'k ds le; ewy nLrkostksa ds vk/kkj ij lacaf/kr foHkkx@laLFkk }kjk fd;k tk;sxkA vr% ckn esa ;g irk pyrk gS fd lQy vkosnd }kjk vkWuykbZu vkosnu i= Hkjrs le; xyr vFkok vlR; tkudkjh vFkok fdlh tkudkjh dk Nqik;k gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa ;fn ;g ik;k x;k fd dksbZ mEehnokj >wBh@xyr tkudkjh nsdj ;k lqlaxr rF;ksa dks Nqik dj izos'k ikus esa lQy gks x;k gS ;k izos'k ds i'pkr fdlh Hkh le; ;g ik;k x;k fd vkosnd dks fdlh xyrh ;k pwdo'k izos'k fey 37 x;k gS] rks vkosnd dks fn;k x;k izos'k laLFkk izeq[k@izos'k izkf/kdj.k@e/;izns'k O;kolkf;d ijh{kk e.My }kjk mlds v/;;u dky ds nkSjku rqjar fcuk fdlh lwpuk ds jn~n fd;k tk ldsxkA**
(ii) blh izdkj fcUnq dz- 4-12 **vuqfpr lk/ku** vuqlkj %&
(d) ijh{kk d{k esa vU; ijh{kkFkhZ ls fdlh Hkh izdkj dk lEidZA ([k) vius LFkku ij fdlh vU; O;fDr ls ijh{kk fnykuk ;k ijh{kkFkhZ ds LFkku ij vU; dksbZ O;fDr mifLFkr gksukA
(x) ijh{kk d{k esa vius ikl fdlh Hkh izdkj dh izfrcaf/kr lkexzh j[kukA (?k) ijh{kk ds nkSjku fpYykuk] cksyuk] dkukQwlh djuk] bZ'kkjs djuk o vU; izdkj ls lEidZ lk/kukA (M-) vU; ijh{kkFkhZ dh mRrj'khV ;k iz'u iqfLrdk ls vU; fdlh izdkj ls udy djukA
(p) vU; ijh{kkFkhZ ds lkFk mRrj'khV ;k iz'u iqfLrdk dh vnyk&cnyh djukA (N) izfrcaf/kr lkexzh ik;s tkus ij ijh{kkFkhZ }kjk mls lkSaius ls badkj djuk ;k mls Lo;a u"V djukA
(t) udy izdj.k ls lacaf/kr nLrkostksa@izi=ksa ij gLrk{kj djus ls euk djukA (>) le{k vf/kdkjh ds funsZ'kksa dh vogsyuk@voKk djuk ;k muds funsZ'kksa dk ikyu u djukA (´) l{ke vf/kdkjh ds funsZ'kkuqlkj mRrj'khV ;k vU; nLrkost okil ugha djuk ;k okil djus ls euk djukA (V) ijh{kk dk;Z esa yxs deZpkfj;ksa@vf/kdkfj;ksa dks ijs'kku djuk] /kedkuk ;k 'kkjhfjd pksV igqapkukA"
mijksDr fcUnqvksa ij dh xbZ foospuk ds vk/kkj ij lfefr bl fu"d"kZ ij igqaprh gS fd 70 vH;fFkZ;ksa dh lwph esa mYysf[kr vH;fFkZ;ksa }kjk ijh{kk fu;eksa dk mYya?ku Li"Vr% n`f"Vxkspj gksrk gSA vr% lfefr leLr 70 vH;fFkZ;ksa dh vH;fFkZrk rFkk ifj.kke fujLr fd;s tkus dh vuq'kalk djrh gSA gLrk@&30-11-13 gLrk@&30-11-13 gLrk@&30-11-13 (ds- ds- lksuh) (vkj-,l- eqtkYnk) (MkW- vkyksd fuxe) mi fu;a=d foRr vf/kdkjh la;qDr fu;a=d gLrk@&30-11-2013 gLrk@&30-11-13 (MkW- ,l-ds- xka/kh) (MkW- lat; dqekj tSu) la;qDr fu;a=d izHkkjh fu;a=d"
(emphasis supplied) (xxii) After receipt of this report, the Director placed the matter before the Chairman with recommendation to take action against 70 additional 38 candidates identified by the Joint Controllers Committee. The Chairman approved the said proposal and issued directions to initiate action against the said 70 candidates. As a result, the Director processed the matter further and finally issued the order on 06th December, 2013, which reads thus:
"e-iz- O;kolkf;d ijh{kk e.My] Hkksiky **p;u Hkou** fpukj ikdZ (bZLV) esu jksM+ ua- 1] Hkksiky&462011 dz-e- iz- O;kie@7254@2013 Hkksiky] fnukad 06-12-2013 @@vkns'k@@ e.My }kjk fnukad 07-07-2013 dks vk;ksftr ih-,e-Vh- ijh{kk 2013 ds miyC/k O;ofLFkr MsVk ds ykWftd ds laca/k esa dEI;wVj fo"k;&fo'ks"kKksa ds }kjk iznku dh xbZ feleSp fjiksVZ rFkk ,l-Vh-,Q- ls izkIr fjiksVZ ds ifjizs{; esa ih-,e-Vh- 2013 dh lexz xgu Nkuchu ,oa fu"d"kZ gsrq ,d 5 lnL;h; lfefr xfBr dh xbZA lfefr }kjk lacaf/kr ufLr;ksa] vfHkys[kksa ,oa fu;eksa dk ijh{k.k djus ds mijkar viuk foLr`r izfrosnu izLrqr fd;k x;kA izLrqr izfrosnu dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA bl izfrosnu esa lfefr us jksy uacj esa gsjkQsjh] jksy uacj dk vH;fFkZ;ksa dks vuqfpr :i ls vkoaVu] fcuk l{ke vf/kdkjh ds vkns'k ds fujLr vkosnuksa ds vk/kkj ij jksy uacj tkjh fd;k tkuk ik;k x;k ,oa e.My }kjk cuk;s x;s ijh{kk fu;eksa dk Hkh mYya?ku gksus dk Hkh mYys[k fd;k x;k gSA lfefr us ih-,e-Vh- ijh{kk 2013 ds vk;kstu dh fu;e iqfLrdk ds v/;k;&4] funsZ'k ,oa ijh{kk lapkyu fu;e ds **egRoiw.kZ** fn'kk&funsZ'k dk mYys[k fd;k gS] ftlds vuqlkj **vkWuykbZu vkosnu i= esa Hkjh xbZ tkudkjh dk lR;kiu dkmalfyax@izos'k ds le; ewy nLrkostksa ds vk/kkj ij lacaf/kr foHkkx@laLFkk }kjk fd;k tk;sxkA vr% ckn esa ;g irk pyrk gS fd lQy vkosnd }kjk vkWuykbZu vkosnu i= Hkjrs le; xyr vFkok vlR; tkudkjh vFkok fdlh tkudkjh dk Nqik;k gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa ;fn ;g ik;k x;k fd dksbZ mEehnokj >wBh@xyr tkudkjh nsdj ;k lqlaxr rF;ksa dks Nqik dj izos'k ikus esa lQy gks x;k gS ;k izos'k ds i'pkr fdlh Hkh le; ;g ik;k x;k fd vkosnd dks fdlh xyrh ;k pwdo'k izos'k fey x;k gS] rks vkosnd dks fn;k x;k izos'k laLFkk izeq[k@izos'k izkf/kdj.k@e/;izns'k O;kolkf;d ijh{kk e.My }kjk mlds v/;;u dky ds nkSjku rqjar fcuk fdlh lwpuk ds jn~n fd;k tk ldsxkA** blh izdkj fu;e ds fcUnq dz- 4-12 ds vUrxZr ijh{kk d{k esa vU; ijh{kkFkhZ ls fdlh Hkh izdkj dk lEidZ] vius LFkku ij fdlh vU; O;fDr ls ijh{kk fnykuk ;k ijh{kkFkhZ ds LFkku ij vU; dksbZ O;fDr mifLFkr gksuk] ijh{kk ds nkSjku fpYykuk] cksyuk] dkukQwlh djuk] 39 bZ'kkjs djuk o vU; izdkj ls lEidZ lk/kuk]vU; ijh{kkFkhZ dh mRrj'khV ;k iz'u iqfLrdk ls vU; fdlh izdkj ls udy djuk] vU; ijh{kkFkhZ ds lkFk mRrj'khV ;k iz'u iqfLrdk dh vnyk&cnyh djus dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gSA mijksDr rF;ksa ij lfefr }kjk ijh{k.k] fo'ys"k.k ,oa lexz fopkj mijkar ik;k x;k fd ,l-Vh-,Q- Hkksiky }kjk e.My dks miyC/k djokbZ xbZ vH;fFkZ;ksa dh lwph ,oa rduhdh fo'ks"kK lfefr }kjk miyC/k djokbZ xbZ vuq'kalkvksa vuqlkj 70 vH;FkhZ ,sls gSa tks fd nksuksa lwfp;ksa esa miyC/k gSa ftlls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd ;g vH;FkhZ jksy uacj ifjofrr djokus laca/kh "kM;a= esa 'kkfey gSa] buds }kjk bl izdj.k ds vkjksfi;ksa ls lEidZ fd;k x;k gS rFkk vH;fFkZ;ksa ds jksy uacj tujs'ku mijkUr ifjofrZr fd;s x;s gSA bl izdkj 70 vH;fFkZ;ksa dks vuqfpr ykHk igqapk;s tkus dh iqf"V dh xbZ gSA izfrosnu esa mYysf[kr jksy uacj ds ykWftd laca/kh izfrosnu] iqfyl ds }kjk izkIr nLrkost lfefr dk izfrosnu ,oa e.My }kjk cuk;s x;s fu;eksa ls ;g Li"V gks tkrk gS fd 876 vH;fFkZ;ksa ds jksy uacj fcuk fdlh dkj.k vuqfpr <ax ls ifjofrZr dj fn;s x;s gSa] ftuesa ls 70 vU; vH;fFkZ;ksa ds ukeksa dh iqf"V lfefr }kjk dh xbZ gSA ;g vH;FkhZ e.My }kjk iwoZ esa tkjh vkns'k dzekad&e0iz0O;kie@6297@2013 fnukad 09-10-2013 ds }kjk fujLr fd;s x;s 345 vH;fFkZ;ksa ds vfrfjDr gSA ;gka ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd bu 70 jksy uacjksa esa ,d iSVuZ mHkjdj vkrk gS ftlesa e/;izns'k ds vH;FkhZ dks vU; izns'k ds vH;FkhZ ds lkFk lqfu;ksftr <ax ls dze esa jksy uacj vkoafVr fd;k x;k gSA fdlh Hkh js.Me izfdz;k ds ikyu djus ls ,slk iSVuZ mHkjuk laHko ugha gSA lfefr ds izfrosnu ds ifjizs{; esa vfHkys[kksa dk ijh{k.k djus ds mijkUr djus ds mijkUr ;g lek/kku gks x;k gS fd 70 vH;fFkZ;ksa dks vuqfpr rjhds ls jksy uacj vkoafVr dj ijh{kk fu;eksa dk mYya?ku djrs gq, ykHk igqapk;k x;k gSA vr% bu 70 vH;fFkZ;ksa (ifjf'k"V&1) dh vH;fFkZrk rRdky izHkko ls fujLr dh tkrh gSA layXu % mijksDrkuqlkj ifjf'k"V&1 gLrk-@& lapkyd e-iz- O;kolkf;d ijh{kk e.My Hkksiky"
(emphasis supplied) (xxiii) Indeed, this decision has still not been placed before the Executive Committee as it is stated that no meeting of the Executive Committee could be convened since then. It is, however, stated across the Bar by the counsel for the Board that as and when the next Executive Committee meeting will be convened, the proposal and the said matter will 40 be placed for consideration of the Executive Committee and for ratification. (xxiv) The Joint Controller (Exam.) moved a proposal on 28th December, 2013 to blacklist the examination centers where the unfair means were resorted to by the candidates and presumably in connivance with the officials thereat. After processing the said proposal, the Controller (Exam) issued order on 1st February, 2014 to blacklist the named examination centers. The said order reads thus:
"e0iz0 O;kolkf;d ijh{kk e.My] Hkksiky dzekad@e0iz0@O;kie@5&i&1@751@2014 Hkksiky]fnukad 1@2@14 vkns'k izns'k ds 'kkldh;] Lo'kklh ,oa futh fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;ksa esa 'kS{kf.kd l= 2012&13 ,oa ¼vifBr½ varxZr fpfdRlk] nar fpfdRlk] i'kqfpfdRlk ,oa eRL; foKku ls lacaf/kr ikB~;dzeksa esa izos'k gsrq e.My }kjk vk;ksftr izh0 esfMdy VsLV 2012 ,oa izh0 esfMdy VsLV 2013 ds varxZr ijh{k.k mijkar ;g ik;k x;k dh fuEufyf[kr ijh{kk dsUnzksa ij lafnX/k vH;FkhZ yxkrkj nks o"kksZ ls lfEefyr gq,%& ¼1½ 'kkldh; deyk usg: xYlZ gk;j lsds.Mjh Ldwy Vh0Vh0 uxj] Hkksiky ¼2½ 'kkldh; dLrwjck gk;j lsds.Mjh Ldwy ukFkZ Vh0Vh0 uxj] Hkksiky ¼3½ 'kkldh; vfgY;k vkJe ,.M pUnzorh xYlZ gk;j lsds.Mjh Ldwy&1] iksyks xzkmUM]bUnkSj ¼4½ 'kkldh; eYVhiiZl eYgkj vkJe] gk;j lsds.Mjh Ldwy&24 fryd iFk] jkeckx] bUnkSj ¼5½ 'kkldh; 'kkjnk xYlZ gk;j lsds.Mjh Ldwy cM+k x.kifr bUnkSj ¼6½ 'kkldh; uwru gk;j lsds.Mjh Ldwy] fpeuckx] bUnkSj izh0 esfMdy VsLV 2012 ,oa izh0 esfMdy VsLV 2013 ds varZxr mDr dsUnzksa ij ijh{kk ds lqpk: ,oa O;ofLFkr laiknu esa ifjyf{kr gqbZ vfu;ferrkvksa ds dkj.k e.My dh Nfo vke tuekul esa /kwfey gqbZ vr% eaMy }kjk Hkfo"; esa vk;ksftr dh tkus okyh ijh{kkvksa esa mijksDr dsUnzksa dks dkyh lwph esa 'kkfey fd;k tkrk gSA lkFk gh bu ijh{kk 'kgjksa ds leUo;dksa dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd mDr dsUnzksa esa dk;Zjr~ oh{kdksa ,oa i;Zos{kdksa dks Hkfo"; esa e.My dh fdlh Hkh ijh{kk esa dk;Z ij u yxk;k tk;sA fu;a=d e-iz- O;kolkf;d ijh{kk e.My Hkksiky"
05. Suffice it to note that on the basis of the above said orders dated 41 9th October, 2013 and 6th December, 2013, the colleges in which the concerned candidates had taken admissions on the basis of entrance examination results declared on 13th July, 2013 came to be cancelled. As aforesaid, all these petitions essentially not only challenge the orders passed by the Board, but, also the action of the concerned college in cancelling their admissions.
06. (i) Let us now turn to the grounds of challenge as canvassed by the respective counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Amitabh Gupta, learned counsel appearing in W.P. Nos. 20908/2013 & 21518/2013 argued that the impugned decision taken by the Director to cancel the examination results is without authority of law. The Board alone could have taken such a drastic decision. Further, the ex post facto ratification of such a decision is impermissible. The impugned order is based on the report of committees whose constitution is not in consonance with the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Vyavsayik Pariksha Mandal Adhiniyam, 2007 (I) [hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2007 (I)]". The Board could not have entrusted the inquiry to any Committee. It is then submitted that, at any rate, after the declaration of results by the Board on 13th July, 2013, it had become functus officio. In that, the Board could not have enquired into the issue of eligibility of the students who have already been declared as passed in the subject examination. That Authority vests in the Board only when the examination process is on going and not after the declaration of the results. To buttress this submission, reliance has been placed on the provisions of 42 the Act of 2007 (I) and terms specified in the Brochure issued by the Board in relation to the examination in question. It is then contended that the irregularities referred to in the impugned orders of the Board are purely founded on the report of STF and not the opinion of the Experts Committee appointed under the orders of the Chairman. Further, the opinion of the Experts Committee was false and concocted on the basis of communication received from STF dated 27.9.2013. Before the Experts Committee could meet and form its opinion the Board wrote to STF about involvement of only 876 candidates vide letter dated 27.9.2013. That figure corresponds with the figure mentioned in the charge-sheet. At any rate, the opinion of the Experts Committee was entirely different and limited to the acts of commission and omission of swapping of roll numbers. It is then contended that the Board has acted as per the dictation of the STF for taking action against 345 students by one fiat, vide order dated 9th October, 2013. The constitution of the Committee and including the Computer Experts Committee was only a farce of inquiry. It is also contended that from the notings made in the file, which were made available to the petitioners under the Right to Information Act, it leads to an inevitable conclusion that the impugned decision taken by the Board is vitiated. Notably, the Minutes of the Executive Committee dated 19.11.2013 are not even signed. It necessarily follows that there is no ratification by the Executive Committee. He further contends that the opinion of the Committee as well as the decision of the Board proceeds on suspicion deduced from circumstances 43 and not actual fact of candidate having indulged in unfair means. No such conclusion could be reached keeping in mind the Law relating to circumstantial evidence. It is then contended that the impugned decision is on the face of it in violation of the principles of natural justice. In that, no opportunity whatsoever was given to any student, whose examination results came to be cancelled vide impugned decision dated 9th October, 2013. It is also submitted that out of total 415 candidates against whom action has been taken; only 115 candidates had taken admission in the concerned Medical Colleges and out of them, only 65 candidates have approached this Court by way of writ petitions. Rest of the candidates have reconciled with the impugned order passed by the Board for the reasons best known to them.
(ii) In anticipation of the argument to be canvassed on behalf of the Board, Shri Amitabh Gupta submitted that post decisional hearing to be given to the affected candidates, in the fact situation of the present case, will be impermissible. In other words, the impugned order will have to be set aside as a whole and not conditionally.
(iii) To buttress the above submissions, Shri Gupta has relied on the following Supreme Court decisions in the case of The Punjab University, Chandigarh Vs. Vijay Singh Lamba and others1 (Para 7), Rashmi Metaliks Limited and another Vs. Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority and others2 (Para 10), State of M.P. and others Vs. Hukum 1 (1976) 3 SCC 344 2 (2013) 10 SCC 95 44 Chand Mills Karmchari3, State of Andhra Pradesh and another Vs. Dr. Mohanjit Singh and another4, Shekhar Ghosh Vs. Union of India and another5, and M/s Bishamber Dayal Chandra Mohan etc. etc. v. State of U.P. and others etc. etc.6 (para 27).
07. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing in W.P. No.21297/2013 argued that the academic record of the petitioner has been exemplary from school level. It is unfathomable that student with such academic record would indulge in unfair means by engaging scorer. He further submitted that even on a fair and close reading of the report of the Computer Experts Committee, it is not possible to decipher as to what logic was applied by the Committee to reach at the conclusion as recorded in its report dated 7.7.2013. Further, there is nothing to indicate that all the members were present in the meeting. Rather, the said meeting was hastened in absence of the outstation member. He submits that to do substantial justice to the students, the Board ought to have and therefore, be directed to conduct fresh examination of all students, at least for 415 candidates against whom action has been taken by the Board. He submitted that Clause 4.6 of the Brochure permits the candidate to opt for change of roll number within five days. Thus understood, it is preposterous to proceed against the candidates on the allegation of swapping of roll numbers. He further submitted that there is no legal evidence to even remotely suggest that the roll number of petitioner for whom he was appearing has ever been changed 3 1996 (7) SCC 81 4 1988 (Supp.) SCC 562 5 2007 (1) SCC 331 6 AIR 1982 SC 33 45 after it was generated.
08. Ms. Durgesh Thapa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.21562/2013 & 21566/2013 submits that the petitioners were not involved in copying, cheating or impersonation. No such contemporaneous report was submitted by any invigilator. On the other hand, the petitioners were allowed to participate during the counselling which was prelude to granting admission to the concerned petitioners. She submits that nine candidates against whom action has been taken vide impugned decisions are on death bed and one student has died. All this has happened because of the high handed action of the STF. She submits that the petitioners for whom she is appearing, have already been admitted to medical course. Therefore, the impugned decision of the Board should be set aside and their admission be kept intact. She submits that the Board could have been constituted only with the approval of the Medical Council of India. Further, the examination results were required to be submitted to Council under the control of Central Government. That has not been done. She has relied on the decision in the case of Rama Shankar Singh and others vs. the Principal, Darbhanga Medical College and others,7 to buttress the above submissions. Learned counsel also adopted the arguments of the previous Advocates and relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ravindra Kumar Rai vs. State of Maharashtra and others8, Medical Council of India vs. State of Karnataka9, State of 7 AIR 1969 Patna 11 8 AIR 1998 SC 1227 46 Kerala vs. Kumari T.P. Roshana and another10, and Mriduldhar (Minor) and another Vs. Union of India and others11.
09. Shri Aditya Sanghi, learned counsel appearing in four writ petitions (W.P. Nos.20050/2013, 21506/2013, 21534/2013 & 203/2014) broadly adopted the submissions made by Shri Gupta in the leading writ petition. In addition, he submits that from the reply affidavit filed by the Board, the allegation against the petitioners for whom he is appearing was that they employed scorers for improving their examination performance; and secondly, being involved in interpolation of roll numbers. According to him, each of the petitioners for whom he is appearing had scored distinction in the previous examinations including in entrance test examination conducted in the year 2012. It is, therefore, unfathomable that such a student would engage in employing scorer. According to him, the impugned decisions are founded on mere suspicion against the concerned candidates. There is no legal evidence to substantiate their involvement in the alleged unfair means. The petitioners for whom he is appearing are meritorious candidates and should not be made to suffer for the wrong committed by some one else. He also submitted the petitioners for whom he is appearing are released on bail by the criminal court. According to him, the entire action is vitiated being in breach of principles of natural justice. He submitted that it is not open to the Board to argue that no useful purpose would be served by giving opportunity to the affected candidates. To 9 AIR 1998 SC 2423 10 1979 (1) SCC 572 11 (2005) AIR SCW 471 = (2005) 2 SCC 65 47 buttress the above submissions, he has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Olga Tellis and others Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation and others12 and Priya Gupta Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others13 (paragraphs 48 to 50) and quotation from the Principles of Administrative Law by Justice G.P. Singh, 5th Edition Page 274 to 275. He submitted that the petitioners be allowed to continue with the course for which they were already admitted. Their admissions could at best be made subject to the outcome of the criminal case pending against them, to do substantial justice.
10. Shri D.C. Gupta, learned counsel appearing in four writ petitions (W.P. Nos. 21505/2013, 21514/2013, 21533/2013 and 21536/2013) besides adopting the arguments of Shri Aditya Sanghi, additionally contended that each of the petitioners for whom he is appearing were meritorious candidates and have excellent academic records. Because of the impugned action taken by the Board, the candidates were shell shocked and even attempted to commit suicide. Further, in the charge-sheet filed against the petitioners for whom he is appearing, the allegations are that they indulged in copying from the students sitting on the front seat. There is no other allegation against them. Moreover, no legal evidence was placed before the Experts Committee or the Director/Chairman of the Board suggestive of petitioner, in any manner, being responsible for swapping of the roll numbers. He submitted that it is relevant to note that twenty petitioners 12 AIR 1986 SC 180 13 (2012) 7 SCC 433 48 scored less marks than the scorers. Moreover, two scorers were absent. This goes to show that the genuine candidates have been erroneously found having indulged in unfair means. He submits that the petitioners for whom he was appearing had participated in the other pre-entrance professional courses examination and secured 89 percent. He vehemently submitted that the impugned decision of the Board in cancelling the examination process of the petitioners be set aside and the admission given to the concerned petitioners in professional course be kept in tact.
11. Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing in five writ petitions (W.P. Nos. 1067/2014, 1069/2014, 1842/2014, 1843/2014 and 1929/2014), in addition, argued that the petitioners finally took admission against payment seats in private Medical College. In that case, cancellation of entrance examination results by the Board cannot obliterate the right accrued to those petitioners consequent to admission against payment seats in a private College. Moreover, the students sitting in front and behind the petitioners in the same examination did not even qualify. In that eventuality, the logic that the petitioners engaged in unfair means is faulty and no reasonable man would come to that conclusion. He further submitted that no opportunity was given to the petitioners before cancellation of examination results and as a consequence of which admission has also been cancelled resulting in civil consequences. He has reiterated the arguments canvassed by earlier Advocates that the only basis on which the Board has proceeded is the information received from the STF and no independent inquiry has been 49 conducted.
12. Shri Manikant Sharma, learned counsel appearing in four matters (W.P. Nos. 21827/2013, 21828/2013, 21830/2013 and 21831/2013) submitted that in three matters, the facts are identical. Each of the petitioners obtained marks below cut off marks. They were not admitted in Government Colleges. Thus, no benefit accrued to the said petitioners from the entrance examination conducted by the Board. Moreover, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.21827/2013 had cleared the National Examination. Each petitioner was meritorious student with excellent academic record. They have secured distinction. Hence, it is unfathomable that such student would employ scorer for improving his performance in the examination. He further submitted that the Board has not mentioned separate grounds qua the respective candidates. A blanket order has been passed applying the same brush to all the candidates without specifically indicating the acts of commission and omission of respective candidates whose examination results have been cancelled. He submits that identical ground for cancellation of entrance examination results of such large number of candidates cannot be countenanced and more so when there is neither legal evidence nor any contemporaneous report of Supervisor or Invigilator suggestive of involvement of the concerned candidate in the commission of unfair means. It is argued that act of copying is an overt act. It is not covert act. In absence of complaint from any examination center about copying, no action could be taken by the Board. He then argued that although the STF 50 list contains names of 92 candidates, vide impugned order dated 6th December, 2013, action is taken only against 70 candidates. The Board has resorted to pick and choose and has selectively proceeded against only some of the candidates. No explanation is forthcoming as to why 22 candidates from the STF list were left out. He further argued that the petitioners had submitted on-line applications and had received roll number as well as admit card. The allocation of that roll number remained unchanged. The petitioners did not apply for cancellation of roll numbers as was allotted to them. Thus, it is preposterous to assume that those candidates indulged in swapping of roll numbers. He further submitted that the Board has asserted that the candidates were involved in copying; whereas the respondent No.5 asserts that candidates were party to the conspiracy of change of roll numbers. Relying on the Brochure issued by the Board inviting on line application, it is argued that the action could be taken only when the examination is on going. After declaration of results, the Board ceases to have any authority to proceed against the candidates who had appeared in that examination. He submitted that the Examination Halls were fitted with CCTV Cameras. That evidence has been completely overlooked which would go to show that the petitioners were not involved in copying. He further submitted that mass scale irregularities came to light on 6th July, 2013. The arrest of 20 boys who had come from other States was made on 6th July, 2013. The Board remained a silent spectator and did not postpone the examination. Instead, it proceeded to conduct the examination as per 51 schedule. Further, the Board proceeded to declare the results of all the candidates. No action was taken by the Board till December, 2013. It is only after political personalities were called for interrogation by the Investigating Officer, the Board moved into action and made a farce of inquiry to justify cancellation of examination results of the candidates who were meritorious. Those candidates have been made scapegoat. He further submitted that the constitution of the Computer Experts Committee was a farce of inquiry. He submitted that the petitioner in Writ Petition No.21380/2013 was a meritorious candidate and has been admitted in Government College having secured 71.8% marks in Class 12th and distinction in three subjects. It is further argued that the Board has failed to adhere to procedure prescribed in Clause 4.12 of the Brochure, assuming that, that procedure applied to the present case. No material is forthcoming suggestive of the fact that the petitioner was connected with any accused persons. Further, there is nothing in the impugned decision to substantiate that the petitioner got his roll number changed from old roll number to re-allocated roll number.
13. (i) Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate appearing in two writ petitions (W.P. Nos.21525/2013 and 321/2014) invited our attention to the scheme of Act of 2007 (I). He submitted that as per that scheme, the examination ends with declaration of results. After declaration of results, the Board becomes functus officio. As a result, finality must be attached to the results declared on 13th July, 2013. He submitted that unlike the State Government, the Board does not have perpetual existence. It has 52 assigned objectives as provided by the statute. By virtue of Section 3 of the Act of 2007 (I), the Board is incorporated. No Regulations have been framed by the Board in exercise of power conferred on it by the Act of 2007 (I). For that reason, reference can be made only to Clause 4.12 of the Brochure which requires report of Supervisor, Invigilator etc. to ignite the process by the Board to declare the candidate having incurred disqualification because of indulging in unfair means. That is the quintessence for initiating action. The same is lacking in the present case. The Board in the present case had very limited option. It could only refer the matter to local Police for initiating criminal action. No other civil action, much less of cancellation of examination result of the candidates, was permissible. Relying on Clause 4.22 of the Brochure, he submitted that the role of Board is limited to conducting examination and declaration of results. Having declared the results, it could not have suo motu started any action on the basis of subsequent information gathered regarding commission of unfair means during the examination. In all fairness, he disagreed with the submission made by the previous Advocates that the Chairman/Board could not have constituted Computer Experts Committee to aid and advice and to facilitate the Board/Chairman to take decision. He submitted that the Board has intrinsic authority vested in it to discharge its executive duties. He then submitted that there were apparent discrepancies in the approach adopted by the Experts Committee. Having found that, the mismatch was over 75%, the Board/Chairman ought to have cancelled the 53 entire examination and not limited to 415 candidates. He submits that if the Board after cancellation of examination could not complete fresh process before the cut off date specified by the Supreme Court, could have applied to the Supreme Court for extension of time. In other words, the Board was selectively proceeding against 415 candidates out of mismatch of 30195 candidates. He further submitted that some of the petitioners have taken admission in Private Colleges against the management quota. The admission so granted to them cannot be undone nor inquired into. At best, that could be possible only under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Niji Vyavsayik Shikshan Sanstha Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Evam Shulk Ka Nirdharan Adhiniyam, 2007 [hereinafter referred to "the Act of 2007(II)"].
(ii) He submitted that assuming without admitting that the Board/Chairman had authority to cancel the admission process after declaration of results even then the decision taken by the said authority cannot affect the admission given to the petitioners in Private Colleges against the management quota. For that reason, the decision of the College in cancelling the admission of such students cannot be sustained.
(iii) He has invited our attention to the provisions of the Admission Rules, 2008 framed in exercise of powers conferred under Section 12 of the Act of 2007 (II). He submits that since no Rules have been framed under the Act of 2007 (I) to govern the situation under consideration, the Board was duty bound to act reasonably. He submitted that the impugned decision of the Board does not separately disclose the acts of commission or omission 54 of the concerned petitioner for taking action against them. In that, whether it is a case of copying or of employing scorer to enhance the marks in the examination and if so, the manner in which it has been done by the concerned candidate. Further, no explanation is forthcoming about the role of Supervisors, Invigilators and of any action taken against them. He submitted that the final decision was based on the finding of some Committee (Samiti). It is not clear whether reference is to Computer Experts Committee or some other Committee. There is no material to indicate about the manner in which analysis was done and by whom for arriving at the conclusion of involvement of the named candidates. The conclusion is based on fact which has not been inquired into. He submits that commission of unfair means must be detected in the examination hall. That fact cannot be assumed. More so, when the sitting plan on record mentions the safe distance between two candidates. Besides, the question papers distributed to the candidates were not identical. The question of copying by the student from scorer is completely ruled out. He submits that mentioning of name of the candidate in some material recovered during the investigation by the police cannot be the basis to take such a drastic action against the candidate.
(iv) He further submitted that one of the petitioners for whom he is appearing, secured 141 marks whereas the so called scorer secured 143 marks. This presupposes that the petitioner did not engage any scorer. He submitted that the order of cancelling the examination and more so, of admission to professional courses already granted to any student is a drastic 55 order to be passed. That cannot be done on the basis of suspicion, but only on clear proof of concerned student having engaged in unfair means during the examination. Further, the allegations must be substantiated with legal evidence. He submitted that before taking final decision, it was necessary to find out as to who indulged in change of roll numbers to benefit selective candidates and whether the candidate was himself responsible for the same.
(v) He submitted that the Board had enough time to cancel the entire examination having realized that mass scale unfair practice was resorted to. The Board, in the first place, should have deferred the examination and in any case, should not have declared the results till the entire inquiry was over. It had sufficient time on hand as the admission process was required to be completed only before 30th September, 2013, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Mriduldhar's case.
(vi) He submitted that it is not open to the Board to contend that post decisional hearing can be given to the candidates to overcome the untenable decision making process of not giving opportunity to the candidates against whom action has been taken which entails in civil consequences. He submitted that adhering to the principles of natural justice is a sine qua non of fair and reasonable approach to be adopted by the Board and especially when its decision entails in civil consequences. The Board has not resorted to even inquisitorial dispensation before taking final decision. He submitted that in the fact situation of the present case, the whole examination ought to have been cancelled and not limited to cancelling the candidature of only 56 415 candidates. Further, the impugned decision of the Board is in the nature of quasi judicial decision. While discharging quasi judicial function, the Board was obliged to adhere to the principles of natural justice. He has also placed reliance on Section 10 of the Evidence Act to contend that assuming that actionable wrong was committed, that act could not be made the basis of taking decision after declaration of results, not being a relevant fact sans legal evidence. He further submitted that in the event of setting aside of the impugned decision of the Board dated 9th October, 2013 or 6th December, 2013 as the case may be, in order to do complete justice to the petitioners the Court must hold that status quo ante is restored to the date of admission in the Medical Colleges and, the concerned petitioner be permitted to pursue the medical courses. To buttress the above submissions, reliance has been placed on Mriduldhar (Minor) (supra), Sudhir Kumar Mishra and other Vs. Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur and another14, Varkey Joseph Vs. State of Kerala15 (Para 12), Shekhar Ghosh Vs. Union of India and another (supra) (Para 14, 17, 20 & 22), The Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. and others Vs. Kumari Chitra Srivastava and others16 (Para 8), The Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Subhas Chandra Sinha and others17 (para 13), Board of High School and Intermediate Education, UP Allahabad Vs. Ghanshyam Das Gupta and others18 (Para 2, 11 & 12), Indra Methi and others Vs. Board of 14 1978 MPLJ 9 (FB-MP) = AIR 1978 (M.P.) 65 (F.B.) 15 (1993) Supp. 3 SCC 745 16 (1970) 1 SCC 121 17 (1970) 1 SCC 648 18 AIR 1962 SC 1110 57 Secondary Education Rajasthan, Ajmer and others19, State of Gujarat Vs. Mohammed Atik and others20 (Para 14), Satyabrata Biswas and others Kalyan Kumar Kisku and others21 (Para 19 & 20), State of M.P. vs. Thakur Bharat Singh22, Asha vs. Pt. B.D.Sharma University of Health Sciences and others23, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others vs. Ram Ratan Yadav24, Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. & others25, West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education & others v. Roupshanara Momtaz & another26, Reshmi George vs. State of Kerala and another27, Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. Allahabad and another Vs. Bagleshwar Prasad and another28, Bihar School Examination Board vs. Subhas Chandra Sinha (supra), and Central Bureau of Investigation vs. V.C. Shukla and others29. In the rejoinder-reply, learned counsel reiterated that a PIL was filed challenging the constitution of the existing Board. In that proceeding statement was made that the Act of 2007 (I) has been enacted and on that basis the said petition was disposed of. The State, however, has till date not issued notification under Section 3 of the Act of 2007 (I) to establish the statutory Board. Therefore, the existing Board cannot function and all actions of the present Board are non-est. He also submitted that the State has enacted 19 AIR 1975 Rajasthan 116 20 (1998) 4 SCC 351 21 (1994) 2 SCC 266 22 AIR 1967 SC 1170 23 (2012) 7 SCC 389 24 (2003) 3 SCC 437 25 AIR 2011 SC 2903 26 AIR 1991 Calcutta 310 27 AIR 1997 Kerala 188 28 AIR 1966 SC 875 29 AIR 1998 SC 1406 58 Universities Act of 1973 and, therefore, the subject of admission including pre-admission examination can be controlled only by the provisions of that Act and the Ordinance issued thereunder. The question of exercising executive powers under Article 162 of the Constitution qua subject of admission cannot be sustained. He relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Prabhakar Ramkrishna Jodh vs. A.L. Pande30 wherein it is held that Ordinance has the force of Law. He alternatively submitted that the action, if at all, could be taken by the Director of Medical Education who had conducted the counselling or by the University where the candidate is admitted. He submitted that the impugned orders passed by the Director of the Board cannot be the sole basis to cancel the admission of the candidate.
14. In W.P. No.20342/2013 and W.P. No. 18738/ 2013, Shri K.K. Goutam, Advocate; in W.P. No.18728/2013 and 2345/2014 Shri Ramji Mishra, Advocate; in W.P. No.19465/2013 Shri Prabhakar Singh, Advocate; in W.P. No.21297/2013 Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Advocate; in W.P.No.21530/2013 Shri Ishan Soni, Advocate; in W.P. No.21554/2013 Shri R.N. Dwivedi, Advocate have adopted the arguments of Shri Rajendra Tiwari, Senior Advocate.
15. Mr. Vijay Tulsiyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in three matters (W.P. Nos.21522/2013, 21516/2013 and 2618/2014) in addition submitted that the said petitioners had taken admission in private colleges against the management quota. He adopted the arguments of the previous Advocates and contented that post decisional hearing is not 30 1970 MPLJ 983 59 permissible in the fact situation of the present case. The order must go as a whole for infraction of principles of natural justice. In the alternative, he submitted that if the Court were to accept the stand of the Board that the deficiency of violation of principles of natural justice could be cured by providing post decisional hearing by the Board, in that case the petitioners be allowed to continue with the studies until the final decision is taken by the Board. He has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Charanlal Sahu vs. Union of India31 (Para 109).
16. Shri Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No.18750/2013 submitted that the petitioner in the said petition is one amongst the 70 candidates against whom order was passed on 6th December, 2013. According to this petitioner, no benefit has been derived by this petitioner. He was at Sr. No.122 and, therefore, did not get admission in Government College. He took admission in Private College. The allegation that this petitioner used scorer is without any basis. The name of the scorer has not been disclosed in the impugned decision or in the reply filed by the Board.
17. Shri Pushpendra Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P. Nos.21545/2013 and 19100/2013 contended that the Examination results could be cancelled only on the ground of impersonation as is stipulated in Clause 4.12 of the Brochure. The counsel has further adopted the arguments advanced by Shri Rajendra Tiwari, Senior Advocate in the respective matter.
31 (1990) 1 SCC 613 60
18. Shri Amit Khatri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. No. 18708/2013 adopted the arguments of previous counsel but pointed out that the petitioner in this case has taken admission in Private College.
19. In Writ Petition Nos. 18738/2013, 20318/2013, 21502/2013, 21503/2013, 21504/2013, 21507/2013, 21508/2013, 21510/2013, 21511/2013, 21513/2013, 21515/2013, 21517/2013, 21519/2013, 21520/2013, 21523/2013, 21526/2013, 21529/2013, 21531/2013, 21537/2013, 334/2014, 367/2014, 494/2014, 1668/2014, 1673/2014, 177/2014, 2381/2014, 2382/2014 and 2820/2014, no counsel addressed us separately, Therefore, we assume that they have adopted the arguments already made on behalf of the petitioners in other matters.
20. Shri P.K. Kaurav, learned counsel appearing for the Board refuted the arguments canvassed on behalf of the petitioners as under:-
(i) Initially, he supported the impugned orders on the basis of provisions of the Act of 2007 (I). He submitted that the legislative scheme left no manner of doubt that the Director was competent to take the final decision. He further submitted that the impugned action, in fact, was taken by the Chairman of the Board. The Chairman has been invested with wide executive powers. Out of abandon caution, the decision of the Chairman, manifested in the impugned order dated 9th October, 2013, was placed before the Executive Committee for its approval and ratification. He had submitted that the Executive Committee could take decisions on matters, as Section 19(4) of the Act of 2007 (I) authorizes it to exercise such powers 61 that can be exercised by the Board. He submitted that the decision dated 6th December, 2013 could not be placed before the Executive Committee as it has not met since the passing of that order. He assured the Court that even that decision will be placed before the Executive Committee for its approval and ratification in due course. He submitted that there was no lack of authority in the Director to pass the impugned orders. He then submitted that the matter could not be placed before the Board as the Board was yet to be constituted by the State Government, which submission was made on the basis of written instructions received by him during the course of his arguments from the Principal Secretary, Department of Technical Education, Government of Madhya Pradesh.
(ii) As aforesaid, when it was revealed that the Board is yet to be established by issuance of Notification under Section 3 of the Act of 2007 (I), on further instructions taken from the Department, he modified his stand and instead contended that the reply-affidavit, filed on behalf of the Board to oppose these writ petitions, was not complete and does not refer to the correct factual position.
(iii) He then submitted that the entire argument of petitioners founded on the Act of 2007 (I) is incorrect and ill-advised. Inasmuch as, unless notification under Section 3 of the Act of 2007 (I) is issued, it is not open to contend that the Board has been established in terms of the Act of 2007 (I). He relied on the provisions of Section 3 and Section 25 of the Act of 2007 (I) to buttress this submission. Section 3 of the Act postulates that 62 the Board would come into existence with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification issued under sub-section (1) and only thereafter it would have perpetual succession and a common seal with power to acquire and hold property and do all other things necessary for the purposes of its constitution and may sue or be sued in its corporate name. That is evident from sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act of 2007 (I). Thus, it is only after issuance of notification under Section 3(1) of the Act of 2007 (I), the existing Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board constituted by the State in exercise of its executive powers, would get merged in the new Board by virtue of Section 25 of the Act. In other words, until notification under Section 3(1) of the Act of 2007 (I) is issued, the existing Professional Examination Board, established by the State Government in exercise of its executive powers, would continue to function. He submits that, in the present case, the action has been initiated by the officials of the existing Professional Examination Board, constituted by executive order issued in the name of Governor on 22.01.2004. He submitted that it is indisputable that the primary responsibility of conducting pre-admission professional courses examinations, is that of the State Government. In discharge of that obligation, the State Government constituted Professional Examination Board, vide Notification dated 17.04.1982 issued in the name of Governor, as per the decision of the Chief Minister approved by the Cabinet of Ministers. The said Notification was published in the Official Gazette on 19th April, 1982. The same reads, thus:63
"Ek/;izns'k jkti=
¼vlk/kkj.k½
izkf/kdkj ls izdkf'kr
[dzekad 133] Hkksiky] lkseokj] fnukad 19 vizSy 1982 &ps= 29 'kds 1904 tu'kfDr fu;kstu foHkkx] Hkksiky] fnukad 17 vizSy] 1982 dz- 1325&1717&c;kyhl&82&jkT; 'kklu fpfdRlk] bathfu;fjax rFkk d`f"k egkfo|ky;ksa esa rFkk iksyhVsfDusDl esa izos'k iwoZ ijh{kkvksa ds vk;kstu ,oa rRlaca/kh vko';d dk;Zokgh ,oa O;oLFkk ds fy;s **O;kolkf;d ikB~;dze izos'k ijh{kk e.My** dk xBu djrk gS %& 2- mi;qZDr e.My esa fuEukuqlkj v/;{k ,oa lnL; gksaxs %& ¼1½- Jh ds- ds- pdzorhZ] lapkyd] yksd f'k{k.k v/;{k ¼2½- lapkyd] fpfdRlk f'k{kk lnL;
¼3½- lapkyd] rduhdh f'k{kk lnL;
¼4½- lapkyd] d`f"k lnL;
¼5½- MkW- ch- ih- frokjh] Mhu d`f"k egkfo|ky;] tcyiqj lnL;
¼6½- MkW- ,l- ds- ,l- xkSj] Mhu] d`f"k egkfo|ky;] bankSj lnL;
¼7½- MkW- ,y- ds tks'kh] Mhu] d`f"k egkfo|ky;]lhgksj lnL; ¼8½- MkW- vkj- ih- HkkxZo] Mhu] esfMdy] dkyst] Hkksiky lnL; ¼9½- Mk- ih- ,y- V.Mu] Mhu] esfMdy dkyst] bUnkSj lnL;
¼10½- MkW- ds- ih- esgjk] Mhu] esMhdy dkyst] jk;iqj lnL; ¼11½- Mk- ,l- ds- nklxqIrk] lapkyd] th- ,l- vkbZ- lnL;
Vh-,l- bUnkSj ¼12½- Jh ,y- ,y- tSu] izkpk;Z] bathfu;fjax egkfo|ky;] lnL;
tcyiqj ¼13½- Mk- ch- ,y- esgjks=k] izkpk;Z] ,e-,-lh-Vh-] Hkksiky lnL; v/;{k dh fu;qfDr jkT; 'kklu }kjk dh tkus rd Jh ds- ds- pdzorhZ dk;Zdkjh v/;{k jgsaxs-
3- O;kolkf;d ikB~;dze izos'k ijh{kk e.My ds xBu vkns'k ds jkti= esa izdkf'kr gksus ij orZeku izh&esMhdy VsLV cksMZ rFkk bathfu;fjax VsLV cksMZ lekIr gks tkosaxs- mudh leLr 'kfDr;ka rFkk muds drZO;ksa dk fuoZgu O;kolkf;d ikB~;dze izos'k ijh{kk e.My }kjk fd;k tk;xk- e.My }kjk yh tkus okyh ijh{kk bl izdkj vk;ksftr dh tkos fd o"kZ 1982 dk ijh{kkQy tqykbZ 1982 ds e/; rd fuf'pr :i ls ?kksf"kr fd;k tk lds-
4- O;kolkf;d ikB~;dze izos'k ijh{kk e.My jkT; 'kklu ds tu'kfDr fu;kstu foHkkx ds v/khu dk;Z djsxk- jkT; 'kklu dks ;g vf/kdkj gksxk fd og e.My dks vius dk;Z lapkyu ds laca/k esa le;≤ ij vko';d funsZ'k tkjh dj lds- jkT; 'kklu dk ;g vf/kdkj Hkh gksxk fd og e.My ds dk;Z lapkyu ds fy;s fu;e cuk lds-
5- e.My Lor% ,d bdkbZ gksxk vkSj mls taxe rFkk LFkkoj nksuksa izdkj dh lEifRr vftZr djus rFkk /kkj.k djus dk vf/kdkj izkIr gksxk- e.My vius 64 uke ls okn izLrqr dj ldsxk vkSj blh uke ls mlds fo:) okn izLrqr fd;s tkosaxs-
6- e.My }kjk fd;s x;s vFkok djus ls NksM+ fn;s x;s fdlh dk;Z ds fy;s jkT; 'kklu mRrjnk;h ugha gksxk-
7- tu'kfDr fu;kstu foHkkx lacaf/kr foHkkxksa ls ijke'kZ ds i'pkr e.My ds v/;{k rFkk lnL;ksa esa ifjorZu dj ldsxk-
8- e.My vius uke dk [kkrk [kksysxk] orZeku esa dk;Zjr ih-,e-Vh- cksMZ rFkk ih-bZ-Vh- cksMZ esa miyC/k lEink ,oa nkf;Ro e.My dks gLrkarfjr gks tkoasxs-
9- e.My ds dk;Z lapkyu gsrq vukorhZ O;; ds fy;s :i;s 3 yk[k rFkk fjoksfYoax Q.M ds crkSj C;kt jfgr _.k fn;k tkosxk-
e/;izns'k ds jkT;iky ds uke ls rFkk vkns'kkuqlkj] ,-Ogh- doh'oj] fo'ks"k lfpo"
Later on, the said Board was reconstituted by an executive order issued in the name of Governor vide notification dated 30th July, 1983, which was later on published in the Official Gazette. The said Notification reads, thus:
"e/;izns'k 'kklu tu'kfDr fu;kstu foHkkx vf/klwpuk Hkksiky fnukad 30@07@83 dzekad@6805@5724@82@42&bl foHkkx dh vf/klwpuk dzekad 1325@1717@42@22] fnukad 17&4&82 esa vkaf'kd la'kks/ku djrs gq;s] jkT; 'kklu fpfdRlk] bUthfu;fjax] d`f"k egkfo|ky;ksa rFkk iksyhVsfDud laLFkkvksa esa izos'k iwoZ ijh{kkvksa ds vk;kstu ,oa rRlaca/kh leLr vko';d dk;Zokgh ,oa O;oLFkk djus ds fy;s **O;kolkf;d ikB~;dze izos'k ijh{kk e.My** dk iquxZBu djrk gSA mi;qZDr e.My esa v/;{k lfgr fuEukuqlkj lnL;ksa dk lekos'k fd;k tkrk gS %& ¼1½- v/;{k---------------------------------'kklu }kjk euksuhr lnL;
¼1½- lfpo] e-iz- 'kklu] tu'kfDr fu;kstu foHkkx ;k mudk izfrfuf/k tks mi lfpo ls uhps Lrj dk u gksA ¼2½- lfpo] e- iz- 'kklu] foRr foHkkx ;k mudk izfrfuf/kA ¼3½- fpfdRlh; f'k{kk lapkyd] e- iz- HkksikyA ¼4½- rduhdh f'k{kk lapkyd] e- iz- HkksikyA 65 ¼5½-
d`f"k lapkyd] e/;izns'k HkksikyA ¼6½-
d`f"k egkfo|ky;ksa esa ls ,d MhuA ¼7½-
fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;ksa esa ls ,d MhuA ¼8½-
bathfu;fjax egkfo|ky;ksa esa ls ,d izkpk;ZA ¼9½-
iksyhVsfDuDl esa ls ,d izkpk;ZA e.My ds fu;a=d e.My dh cSBdksa vkfn esa e.My ds lfpo dk dk;Z djsaxsA e/;izns'k ds jkT;iky ds uke ls rFkk vkns'kkuqlkj] gLrk-
fnudj dsnkjukFk] mi lfpo e/;izns'k 'kklu] tu'kfDr fu;kstu foHkkx"
The reconstitution of the Board was as per the decision of the Chief Minister which was ratified by the Cabinet of Ministers. In supersession of this notification, the said Board was reconstituted and named as "Professional Examination Board" in terms of executive order issued in the name of the Governor. The said Notification reads, thus:
"e/;izns'k 'kklu tu'kfDr fu;kstu foHkkx %%vkns'k%% Hkksiky] fnukad& 30@07@97 dzekad ,Q&40&2@83@42&1 bl foHkkx dh vf/klwpuk dzekad 6805@5724@82@42&1] fnukad 30&7&83 esa la'kks/ku djrs gq;s] jkT; 'kklu O;kolkf;d ijh{kk e.My dk iquxZBu djrk gSA mi;qZDr e.My esa v/;{k lfgr fuEukuqlkj lnL;ksa dk lekos'k fd;k tkrk gS %& 1- v/;{k] O;kolkf;d ijh{kk eaMy v/;{k 2- izeq[k lfpo@lfpo] tu'kfDr fu;kstu lnL;
3- v/;{k] ek/;fed f'k{kk eaMy lnL;
4- lfpo] foRr foHkkx lnL;
5- vk;qDr] yksd f'k{k.k lnL;
6- vk;qDr] vkfne tkfr dY;k.k foHkkx lnL;
7- vk;qDr mPp f'k{kk lnL;
8- lapkyd] jkstxkj ,oa izf'k{k.k] tcyiqj lnL;
9- lapkyd] jkT; 'ksf{kd vuqla/kku ,oa izf'k{k.k ifj"kn lnL;66
10- lapkyd] rduhdh f'k{kk lnL;
11- lapkyd] fpfdRlk f'k{kk lnL;
12- Mhu] d`f"k ladk;] d`f"k fo'ofo|ky;] tcyiqj lnL;
¼'kklu }kjk ukekafdr½
13- Mhu] i'kq fpfdRlk ladk; d`f"k fo'ofo|ky;] lnL;
tcyiqj ¼'kklu }kjk ukekafdr½
14- foHkkxk/;{k] eSustesaV ladk; fo'ofo|ky; lnL;
¼'kklu }kjk ukekafdr½
e/;izns'k ds jkT;iky ds uke ls rFkk vkns'kkuqlkj] gLrk-
¼MkW0 vkj0 ds0 nqcs½ mi lfpo] e/;izns'k 'kklu] tu'kfDr fu;kstu foHkkx"
(emphasis supplied) Once again the Board was reconstituted after the approval by the Cabinet of Ministers by issuing executive order dated 22nd January, 2004 issued in the name of Governor. This order was issued after approval by the Chief Minister and the Cabinet of Ministers. The said order reads, thus:
"e/;izns'k 'kklu rduhdh f'k{kk ,oa izf'k{k.k foHkkx %%ea=ky; %% vkns'k Hkksiky fnukad dzekad ,Q&40&2@83@42&1 bl foHkkx ds lela[;d vkns'k fnukad 30&7&97 esa la'kks/ku djrs gq;s] jkT; 'kklu }kjk O;kolkf;d ijh{kk e.My ds iquxZBu dk fuEukuqlkj fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS%& 1- v/;{k] O;kolkf;d ijh{kk eaMy v/;{k 2- izeq[k lfpo@lfpo] rduhdh f'k{kk ,oa izf'k{k.k lnL;
3- v/;{k] ek/;fed f'k{kk eaMy lnL;
4- izeq[k lfpo@lfpo] Ldwy f'k{kk lnL;
5- izeq[k lfpo@lfpo] foRr lnL;
6- izeq[k lfpo@lfpo] mPp f'k{kk lnL;
7- izeq[k lfpo@lfpo] fpfdRlk f'k{kk lnL;
8- vk;qDr vkfne tkfr dY;k.k lnL;
9- lapkyd] rduhdh f'k{kk lnL;
10- Mhu] d`f"k ladk;] d`f"k fo'ofo|ky;] tcyiqj lnL;
67
¼'kklu }kjk ukekafdr½
11- jsDVj] jktho xka/kh izkS|ksfxdh fo'ofo|ky;] lnL;
Hkksiky
12- e0 iz0 ds fo'ofo|ky;ksa esa ls ,d ds lnL;
eSustesaV ladk; dk foHkkxk/;{k
¼'kklu }kjk ukekafdr½
13- lapkyd] e0 iz0 O;kolkf;d ijh{kk eaMy] lnL;&lfpo Hkksiky 2@& O;kolkf;d ijh{kk eaMy ds Hkkoh Lo:i ds fu/kkZj.k ds fy, ijh{k.k dj izLrko eaf=eaMy ds le{k izLrqr fd;k tk;sA e/;izns'k ds jkT;iky ds uke ls rFkk vkns'kkuqlkj] lgh@& ¼MkW0 vkj0 ds0 nqcs½ vij lfpo e/;izns'k 'kklu] rduhdh f'k{+kk foHkkx"
(iv) It is submitted that all the above orders, constituting the Professional Examination Board, have been published in the Official Gazette. The Board reconstituted, in terms of order dated 22nd January, 2004, was still functional and was made responsible to conduct pre-entrance examinations for admissions to professional courses. Even the subject examination, in respect of which the impugned orders have been passed on 9th October, 2013 6th December, 2013, has been conducted by this Professional Examination Board. In other words, the impugned orders have been passed by the officials of "Professional Examination Board"
constituted by the State Government in exercise of its executive powers for discharging its obligation of conducting pre-entrance examination for admission to professional courses. Notably, besides producing the above said Notifications, the compilation tendered during the course of arguments also contain the true copies (photostat) of proposal for constitution of above 68 noted Board and all official notings, including the noting of approval by the Chief Minister and Cabinet of Ministers.
(v) He has further invited our attention to the Chart mentioning the names of Chairman appointed from time to time since the constitution of the Board by the State in exercise of executive powers since 1982.
Similarly, the Chart mentioning the names of persons appointed as Directors from time to time is also made part of the additional compilation. As regards the appointment of the incumbent Chairperson, reliance is placed on the order, issued in the name of Governor appointing the then Chairperson - Dr. Devraj Virdi, dated 31st July, 2013, at page 213 of the compilation. The same reads, thus:
"e/;izns'k 'kklu lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx ea=ky;
%% vkns'k %% dzekad bZ 1@330@2012@5@1 Hkksiky] fnukad 31 tqykbZ] 2013 Jh Mh- ds- lkeUrjk;] Hkkizls ¼1982½ v/;{k] O;olkf;d ijh{kk eaMy] e0 iz0 Hkksiky dh lsok;sa Hkkjr ljdkj esa izfrfu;qfDr ij lkSais tkus ds QyLo:i v/;{k O;olkf;d ijh{kk eaMy ds in dk izHkkj MkW0 nsojkt fcjnh] Hkkizls ¼1982½ fo-d-v- lg v/;{k] e0 iz0 ek/;fed f'k{kk e.My] Hkksiky dks] vfrfjDr :i ls] vius orZeku drZO;ksa ds lkFk&lkFk] vkxkeh vkns'k rd lkSaik tkrk gSA e/;izns'k ds jkT;iky ds uke ls rFkk vkns'kkuqlkj] vkj- ij'kqjke eq[; lfpo e/;izns'k 'kklu"
The said Dr. Devraj Virdi was later on replaced by the incumbent Chairperson Shri A.P. Shrivastava vide order dated 17th February, 2014. The same reads thus:
69
"e/;izns'k 'kklu lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx ea=ky;
@@ vkns'k @@ dzekad bZ&1@71@2014@5@,d Hkksiky] fnukad 17 Qjojh] 2014 uhps rkfydk ds [kkuk&2 esa n'kkZ, Hkk-iz-ls- vf/kdkfj;ksa dks muds uke ds le{k [kkuk&3 esa n'kkZ, x, in ij vLFkk;h :i ls vkxkeh vkns'k rd] LFkkukiUu :i ls inLFk fd;k tkrk gS %& dz- vf/kdkjh dk uke rFkk Ukohu inLFkkiuk [kkuk 3 esa vafdr in vlaoxhZ; gksus dh n'kk orZeku inLFkkiuk esa laoxhZ; in ftlds led{k ?kksf"kr fd;k x;kA 1 2 3 4 1 Jh ,-ih- JhokLro ¼1984½ v/;{k] izeq[k lfpo izeq[k lfpo] e/;izns'k 'kklu] okf.kfT;d dj O;kolkf;d ijh{kk eaMy e-iz- 'kklu foHkkx 2 Jherh f'k[kk nqcs ¼1987½ Lakpkyd] izeq[k lfpo izeq[k lfpo] e/; izns'k 'kklu] dqVhj ,oa xzkeks|ksx vkj-lh-Ogh-ih- ujksUgk iz'kklu vdkneh] e- iz- 'kklu foHkkx rFkk izca/k lapkyd] Hkksiky e/; izns'k [kknh ,oa xzkeks& |ksx cksMZ ¼vfrfjDr izHkkj½ 3 Jherh lq/kk pkS/kjh ¼1991½ izca/k lapkyd izeq[k lfpo izca/k lapkyd] e/; izns'k LVsV dks&vkWijsfVo Ms;jh e/;izns'k [kknh ,oa xzkeks|ksx cksMZ rFkk e-iz- 'kklu QsMjs'ku fyfeVsM fo-d-v- &lg&vk;qDr] js'ke ¼vfrfjDr izHkkj½ 4 Jherh e/kq [kjs ¼1997½ izca/k lapkyd] e/; izns'k jkT; foRr laHkkxh; dfe'uj fo-d-v-&lg&lfpo] fuxe] bankSj yksd lsok vk;ksx] bankSj ¼bl foHkkx ds vkns'k dzekad bZ&1@24 @2014@5@,d] fnukad 31 tuojh] 2014] ftlds }kjk Jherh e/kq [kjs dh inLFkkiuk lfpo] jktLo foHkkx rFkk izeq[k jktLo vk;qdr ds in ij dh xbZ gS] dks la'kksf/kr djrs gq,½ 5 Jh ch- pUnz'ks[kj ¼2002½ izca/k lapkyd] e/; izns'k] LVsV mi lfpo dysDVj] dks&vkWijsfVo Ms;jh QsMjs'ku fyfeVsM ckyk?kkV e-iz- 'kklu 6- Jh Ogh- fdj.k xksiky DysDVj] & ¼2008½ vfrfjDr izca/k lapkyd] ckyk?kkV e/; izns'k VªsM ,.M bUosLVesaV QsflfyVs'ku dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM ¼Vªk;Qsd½ 2- mijksDrkuqlkj Jh ,- ih- JhokLro }kjk v/;{k] O;kolkf;d ijh{kk eaMy dk dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus ij MkW- nsojkt fcjnh] Hkkizls ¼1982½] v/;{k] 70 e/; izns'k ek/;fed f'k{kk eaMy rFkk v/;{k] O;kolkf;d ijh{kk eaMy dsoy v/;{k] O;kolkf;d ijh{kk eaMy ds vfrfjDr izHkkj ls eqDr gksaxsA 3- Jh eksgEen lqyseku] Hkkizls ¼1989½] izeq[k lfpo] e/; izns'k 'kklu] mtkZ foHkkx dks vius orZeku drZO;ksa ds lkFk lkFk vkxkeh vkns'k rd izeq[k lfpo] e/;izns'k 'kklu] okf.kT;] m|ksx ,oa jkstxkj foHkkx dk izHkkj vfrfjDr :i ls lkSaik tkrk gSA 4- Jh vf'ouh dqekj jk;] Hkkizls ¼1990½] izeq[k lfpo] **dkfeZd** e/; izns'k 'kklu] lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx dks vius orZeku drZO;ksa ds lkFk&lkFk vkxkeh vkns'k rd izeq[k lfpo] e/; izns'k 'kklu] okf.kfT;d dj foHkkx dk izHkkj vfrfjDr :i ls lkSaik tkrk gSA 5- mijksDrkuqlkj Jherh e/kq [kjs }kjk izca/k lapkyd] e/; izns'k jkT; foRr fuxe] bankSj dk dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus ij Jh ds- lh- xqIrk] Hkkizls ¼1992½] Je vk;qDr] e/; izns'k bankSj rFkk izca/k lapkyd] e/; izns'k jkT; foRr fuxe] bankSj dsoy izca/k lapkyd] e/; izns'k jkT; foRr fuxe] bankSj ds vfrfjDr izHkkj ls eqDr gksaxsA 6- Jh r:.k dqekj fiFkkSM+s] Hkkizls ¼2009½ vfrfjDr izca/k lapkyd] e/; izns'k mtkZ fodkl fuxe rFkk lapkyd] O;kolkf;d ijh{kk eaMy ¼vfrfjDr izHkkj½ dks dsoy vfrfjDr izca/k lapkyd] e/; izns'k mtkZ fodkl fuxe ds izHkkj ls eqDr fd;k tkrk gSA Jh fiFkkSM+s dh ewy inLFkkiuk vc lapkyd] O;kolkf;d ijh{kk eaMy ds in ij ekuh tk,xhA e/;izns'k ds jkT;iky ds uke ls rFkk vkns'kkuqlkj] vWUVksuh ts-lh- fMlk eq[; lfpo e/; izns'k 'kklu"
(vi) In the same manner, our attention has been invited to the order dated 30th July, 2013, issued in the name of the Governor, appointing Shri John Kingsley as Director of the existing Board. The same reads, thus:
^^e/;izns'k 'kklu lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx ea=ky;
%% vkns'k %% dzekad bZ&1@223@2013@5@,d v Hkksiky] fnukad 30 tqykbZ] 2013 Jh tkWu fdaXlyh ,-vkj-] Hkkizls ¼2004½] fe'ku lapkyd] lexz lkekftd lqj{kk&lg&lapkyd] iapk;rh jkt dks muds orZeku drZO;ksa ds lkFk&lkFk vkxkeh vkns'k rd lapkyd O;olkf;d ijh{kk eaMy] e0 iz0 dk izHkkj vfrfjDr :i ls lkSaik tkrk gSA e/;izns'k ds jkT;iky ds uke ls rFkk vkns'kkuqlkj] vkj- ij'kqjke eq[; lfpo e/;izns'k 'kklu^^ The said Director was replaced by the incumbent Director Shri Tarun 71 Kumar Pithode on 1st October, 2013 by an order issued in the name of the Governor. The same reads thus:
"e/;izns'k 'kklu lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx ea=ky;
%% vkns'k %% dzekad bZ&1@302@2013@5@,d Hkksiky] fnukad 01 vDVwcj] 2013 Jh r:.k dqekj fiFkkSM+s] Hkkizls ¼2009½ vfrfjDr izca/k lapkyd] mtkZ fodkl fuxe dks vius orZeku drZO;ksa ds lkFk&lkFk vkxkeh vkns'k rd lapkyd] e/;izns'k O;kolkf;d ijh{kk eaMy dk izHkkj vfrfjDr :i ls lkSaik tkrk gSA e/;izns'k ds jkT;iky ds uke ls rFkk vkns'kkuqlkj] vWUVksuh ts-lh- fMlk eq[; lfpo e/;izns'k 'kklu"
(vii) It is also pointed out that when the appointment of any IAS officer was made as Director or Chairperson of the Board, that order was issued by the General Administration Department of the Government of Madhya Pradesh and in other cases by the Technical Education Department of the State.
(viii) Suffice it to note that until the stage of arguments and, in particular, the reply given by the Board, all concerned proceeded on the erroneous premise that the examination in question was conducted by the Board established under the Act of 2007 (I).
(ix) Reverting to the submissions of the Board on other issues on merits, it is submitted that the Chairman had full powers to deal with matters under consideration including inherent powers to constitute Experts Committee to provide assistance for taking final decision in the matter in view of the technical issues involved. The final decision, however, is that of 72 the Chairman, on whose directions the impugned orders have been issued by the Director. He further submits that the declaration of results would not divest the existing Board constituted by the State Government in exercise of its executive powers, to take action against the candidates who had appeared in the concerned examination conducted by that Board. For, the action is in relation to the examination process conducted by that Board, which had exclusive power to conduct those examinations and deal with matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. The fact that the results have been declared does not whittle down the powers of the Board or divest the Board of its obligation to decide issues in respect of matters connected with the examination conducted by it. The declaration of result would make no difference. He submits that action taken by the said Board is in connection with the unfair means within the meaning of the stipulation provided in the Brochure issued by it, inter alia, Sub-Clauses (Ka), (Gha), (Da), (Cha) of Clause 4.12 of Chapter IV. He submits that receipt of the report from the Supervisor or Centre Superintendent or Invigilator is not a prerequisite to invoke that power. The said Board could independently take action with regard to unfair means referred to in Clause 4.12.
(x) He submits that it is amply clear from the office files that the Director made recommendation to the Chairman of the said Board on the basis of reports of the Computer Experts Committee and the Committee of Controllers and other material. That recommendation was approved by the Chairman after considering all aspects of the matter, who could legitimately 73 take the final decision thereon.
(xi) Refuting the ground of breach of natural justice, he submits that the Supreme Court has consistently held that when it is a case of mass- copying, which in the present case it is, the question of giving personal notice or opportunity to each candidate involved therein, does not arise. Even though, large number of candidates are likely to be affected by such action.
(xii) He elaborated on the mechanism adopted by the Computer Experts Committee in identifying the candidates on the basis of mismatch of roll numbers and also the mechanism adopted by the Committee of Controllers in finally identifying the candidates against whom action was required to be taken. To explain the process adopted by the Computer Experts Committee, the learned counsel for the Board produced the list of 1370 candidates to whom roll number was assigned by resorting to randomization process. However, the second list containing the generated roll numbers of the said candidates was also created and the third list was that of the uploaded roll numbers of those candidates. He also explained the methodology of allotment of slots for creating roll numbers which is followed by the Board. In addition, he has presented a chart giving graphic description as to how conspiracy was hatched to benefit the identified candidates. We deem it apposite to reproduce the said Chart and note appended thereto. The same reads, thus:-
74
Student- Wrong Match
Student- Student- Matchin Mismatc Blank Right
Student-Scorer Student-Scorer Scorer Marks Match Answer Agent/List Sr.
W.P. No. Scorer Form Scorer g h Answe Match College Allotted Remarks
S.N /Father's Name Address Expert's PMT Answer Percentag No.
No. Roll No. Answer Answers rs Answers
o. R.No. s e
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
1 21502/13 26, Sant Kripa
Anjali Nagar Nr, DRP
Jagdish Sagar
Waskale/Chandra Line Khandawa 80011260 525610 528039 117 M.G.M. Indore Form No. in Agent's
(100)
Singh (Student) Road Khargon List. Visible in
M.P. Missmatched R. No.
177 23 0 104 73 88.5
Village List of 876 Candidates.
Touseef Haquiqatpur Eligible but not Both in the list of 345
Jagdish Sagar
Ahmed/Nasim Maunath 80016525 525609 527717 122 participated in Students
(99)
Ahmed (Scorer) Bhanjan Mau UP counseling
275101
2 21503/13 Suman 421, Sai Kripa Sanjeev Rs 10 lakhs paid as per
Kumawat/Hanuma Colony Bombay Shilpkar (08) Arbindo Inst. entry in Sudhir Rai's
80012984 503424 503026 148
an Pr. Kumawat Hospital Ring and Sudhir Rai Med. Sc. Indore diary/ Scorer has not
(Student) Road Indore (02) taken admission and
has not filed a case
185 15 0 131 54 92.5 Form No. in Agent's
Sanjeev
Ravindra Ku. List. Visible in
2 T 2 Talwandi Shilpkar (07) People's
Yadav /Nanhkau 80022058 503423 503087 143 Missmatched R. No.
Kota Rajasthan and Sudhir Rai College Bhopal
Yadav (Scorer) List of 876 Candidates.
(01)
Both in the list of 345
Students
3 21504/13 Seema Village Utwas Form No. in Agent's
Jagdish Sagar
Daabi/Bherulal Pandurna dist. 80012403 525710 521211 114 M.G.M. Indore List. Visible in
(96)
Daabi (Student) Ujjain Missmatched R. No.
167 31 2 102 65 83.5
Ramesh Eligible but not List of 876 Candidates.
Shakti Nagar Jagdish Sagar
Kumar/Mani 80035390 525709 527260 125 participated in Both in the list of 345
Lucknow U.P. (95)
Shankar (Scorer) counseling Students
4 21505/13 Ketki Pandit/ C.S. 2/1 A.B. Road Jagdish Sagar G.R. Med. Form No. in Agent's
80015811 524420 530649 146
Pandit (Student) Indore (26) College Gwalior List. Visible in
Missmatched R. No.
Yogesh Ku. 175 25 0 130 45 87.5 Eligible but not
385, Daraganj Jagdish Sagar List of 876 Candidates.
Pal/Dudh Nathpal 80034746 524419 524339 150 participated in
Allahabad U.P. (25) Both in the list of 345
(Scorer) counseling
Students
75
Student-
Wrong Match
Student- Student- Scorer Matchin Mismatc Blank Right
Student-Scorer Student-Scorer Marks Match Answer Agent/List Sr.
W.P. No. Scorer Form Scorer Expert's g h Answe Match College Allotted Remarks
/Father's Name Address PMT Answer Percentag No.
S.N No. Roll No. R.No. Answer Answers rs Answers
s e
o.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
5 21515/13 Abhishek Settled in 22 Lakhs and
28, Nirman Jagdish Sagar G.R. Med.
Saxena/M.K. 80010272 526500 525461 146 has paid advance of Rs
Nagar Ujjain (168) College Gwalior
Saxena (Student) 6.50 lakhs to accused
Gangaram Prajapati.
Calll details also
Allotted Chirayu
184 16 0 131 53 92 available Form No. in
Bhishm Village Jagsar Medical
Jagdish Sagar Agent's List. Visible in
Pitamah/Rajkumar Lakhimpur, 80016891 526499 527980 149 College but not
(167) Missmatched R. No.
(Scorer) Khaire, UP reported for
List of 876 Candidates.
admission
Both in the list of 345
Students
6 Krutika 8, Janakpurti Call details with
Jagdish Sagar Arvindo Inst.
Hada/Jaswant Society Dahod 80023507 526580 525701 146 Jagdish Sagar and
(181) Med. Sc. Indore
Singh (Student) Gujrat Gangaram Prajapati
available Form No. in
21516/13 196 4 0 132 64 98 Allotted Chirayu
Agent's List. Visible in
Saleem Ahmed/ Naya Gaon Medical
Jagdish Sagar Missmatched R. No.
Gulam Mustafa Chitrakut Satna 80022783 526579 523588 146 College but not
(180) List of 876 Candidates.
(Scorer) M.P. reported for
Both in the list of 345
admission
Students
7 21517/13 Arpit Sisodiya/ Peoples Scorer allotted seat in
32, Jeet Nagar Jagdish Sagar
Narpat Singh 80004711 525880 856416 119 Medical MP in 2012 but has not
Alkapuri Ratlam (109)
Sisodiya (Student) College taken admission and
was arrested hence
Akshya
absent Arrested in two
Ku.
117, K/21/Sect-1 cases/ involved in 2012
Akshya Ku. Yadav/ ABSENT ABS Absent,
R.S. Puram also Form No. in
Yadav/Laxman Laxman Jagdish Sagar arrested a day
Sarvodaya 80012809 525879 526579 Agent's List. Visible in
Singh Yadav Singh (108) before the
Nagar Kanpur Missmatched R. No.
(Scorer) Yadav exam
U.P. List of 876 Candidates.
(Scorer
Both in the list of 345
)
Students
76
Student-
Wrong Match
Student- Student- Scorer Matchin Mismatc Blank Right
Student-Scorer Student-Scorer Marks Match Answer Agent/List Sr.
W.P. No. Scorer Form Scorer Expert's g h Answe Match College Allotted Remarks
/Father's Name Address PMT Answer Percentag No.
S.N No. Roll No. R.No. Answer Answers rs Answers
s e
o.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
21518/13 Ritu Bala
14-A Shriyantra Jagdish Sagar M.G.M. College Form No. in Agent's
Patel/Mukut Singh 80005303 527560 530598 131
Nagar Indore (232) Indore List. Visible in
Patel (Student)
Missmatched R. No.
8 Govind Ku. 169 31 0 117 52 84.5
117 K-Block Eligible but not List of 876 Candidates.
Pandey/Shyamdh Jagdish Sagar
Geeta Nagar 80023699 527559 524761 145 participated in Both in the list of 345
ar Pandey (231)
Kanpur U.P. counseling Students
(Scorer)
9 21519/13 Elisha Form No. in Agent's
104, Manavta Jagdish Sagar Arvindo Inst.
Demor/Markus 80005898 525700 529614 93 List. Visible in
Nagar Indore (94) Med. Sc. Indore
Demor (Student) Missmatched R. No.
Vivek Ku. 154 46 0 83 71 77 List of 876 Candidates.
Eligible but not
Tiwari/Awdesh 117, Shivpuri Jagdish Sagar Both in the list of 345
80030183 525699 523838 108 participated in
Narayan Tiwari Kanpur U.P. (93) Students
counseling
(Scorer)
10 21506/13 Pradeep Form No. in Agent's
Kamaliya/T.S. 52, Gopal Colony Jagdish Sagar M.G.M. College List. Visible in
80009498 526424 524530 127
Kamaliya Jhabua M.P. (162) Indore Missmatched R. No.
(Student) 169 31 0 110 59 84.5 List of 876 Candidates.
Deewakar Both in the list of 345
24, Mthurapur Jagdish Sagar Eligible but not
Yadav/Ramesh 80026360 526423 528727 138 Students
Jaunpur U.P. (161) participated
yadav (Scorer)
Ankit Gram Pura, Teh. Settled in 15 lakhs and
Jagdish Sagar
Patidar/Narayan Kukshi dist. Dhar 80002105 527460 528590 143 B.K.M.C. Sagar 4.5 lakhs paid as
(222)
Partidar (Student) M.P. advance Arrested/ On
Bail Form No. in
11 21507/13 199 1 0 131 68 99.5 Agent's List. Visible in
Muneesh Eligible but not
Sharda Nagar Jagdish Sagar Missmatched R. No.
Kumar/Naresh 80024688 527459 528358 144 participated in
Kanpur U.P. (221) List of 876 Candidates.
Chandra (Scorer) counseling
Both in the list of 345
Students
Saloni Badole/ Form No. in Agent's
108, Mandwada Jagdish Sagar M.G.M. College
R.C. Badole 80015661 527488 521077 115 List. Visible in
Barwani (238) Indore
21508/13- (F/ST/Student) Missmatched R. No.
12 148 52 0 103 45 74
18738/13 Brijesh List of 876 Candidates.
851, Mitra Vihar Jagdish Sagar Gandhi Med.
Mishra/Dwarka 80026136 527487 530909 150 Both in the list of 345
Katni (237) College Bhopal
Mishra (Scorer) Students
77
Student-
Wrong Match
Student- Student- Scorer Matchin Mismatc Blank Right
Student-Scorer Student-Scorer Marks Match Answer Agent/List Sr.
W.P. No. Scorer Form Scorer Expert's g h Answe Match College Allotted Remarks
/Father's Name Address PMT Answer Percentag No.
S.N No. Roll No. R.No. Answer Answers rs Answers
s e
o.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Rajkumar 2, Arjun Nagar
Jagdish Sagar Settled in Rs 16 lakhs
Yogi/Ganesh Yogi Radhaganj 80033327 526105 528957 142 B.K.M.C. Sagar
(133) and 8 lakhs paid in
(Student) Devas
advance. Call details
with Jagdish Sagar
available Form No. in
13 21510/13 169 31 0 122 47 84.5
Amit Ku. Shahzadpur Eligible but not Agent's List. Visible in
Jagdish Sagar
Gupta/Guru pr. Ambedkar 80024957 526104 522676 141 participated in Missmatched R. No.
(132)
Gupta (Scorer) Nagar, UP counseling List of 876 Candidates.
Both in the list of 345
Students
Neha Form No. in Agent's
Jarman/Hare Shiksha Colony Jagdish Sagar M.G.M. College List. Visible in
80008696 526924 530232 140
Singh Jarman Dhar (198) Indore Missmatched R. No.
(Student) List of 876 Candidates.
14 21511/13 190 10 0 125 65 85 Both in the list of 345
Ashutosh Eligible but not Students
New Palisia Jagdish Sagar
Morya/Lalmani 80014699 526923 522389 138 participated in
Indore (197)
Morya (Scorer) counseling
Anaam Syed/ Form No. in Agent's
55, A.B. Road Jagdish Sagar C.D.S. Indore
Mubarak Ali 80006577 526030 527474 128 List. Visible in
Devas (127) (Dentist)
(Student) Missmatched R. No.
15 21513/13 185 15 0 116 69 92.5
Ehsan Eligible but not List of 876 Candidates.
56, Rajendra Jagdish Sagar
Ahmed/Rose Ali 80014968 526029 529704 131 participated in Both in the list of 345
Nagar Indore (126)
(Scorer) counseling Students
595, Patel
Akanksha Form No. in Agent's
Complex Bus Jagdish Sagar M.G.M. College
Patel/Puran Lal 80005618 525670 527920 115 List. Visible in
Stand pati Dist. (92) Indore
Patel (Student) Missmatched R. No.
16 21514/13 Barwani 182 18 0 105 77 91
List of 876 Candidates.
Vinod Ku./ 117 Sharda Eligible but not
Jagdish Sagar Both in the list of 345
Sangram Yadav Nagar, Kanpur, 80010497 525669 528129 121 participated in
(91) Students
(Scorer) UP counseling
78
Student-
Wrong Match
Student- Student- Scorer Matchin Mismatc Blank Right
Student-Scorer Student-Scorer Marks Match Answer Agent/List Sr.
W.P. No. Scorer Form Scorer Expert's g h Answe Match College Allotted Remarks
/Father's Name Address PMT Answer Percentag No.
S.N No. Roll No. R.No. Answer Answers rs Answers
s e
o.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Munmun Settled in Rs 25 lakhs
19, Sewa Sadan Arvindo Inst.
Jain/Vikas Jain 80012548 537440 538032 141 Sudir Rai (30) to be paid by accused's
Khandawa Med. Sc. Indore
(Student) father Form No. in
21522/13 Agent's List. Visible in
17 188 12 0 129 59 94
19465/13 Admitted in Missmatched R. No.
Atul Ku. / Akhilesh W.No. 03
80033521 537439 537515 146 Sudir Rai (29) Chirayu Med. List of 876 Candidates.
Kumar (Scorer) Chandauli U.P.
Bhopal Both in the list of 345
Students
Priyanka
Form No. in Agent's
Dewda/Mangu Badi Chhaupati Jagdish Sagar N.S.C.B.
80017826 525155 529901 150 List. Visible in
Singh Dewda Badnawar Dhar (54) Jabalpur
Missmatched R. No.
18 20050/13 (Student) 195 5 0 136 59 97.5
List of 876 Candidates.
Mustaq Village Makka Eligible but not
Jagdish Sagar Both in the list of 345
Ahmad/Nizamuddi purba Bahraiach 80027367 525154 527830 150 participated in
(53) Students
n (Scorer) UP 271830 counseling
Shivani
Shrivastava/ Form No. in Agent's
Sect-c BHEL Sanjeev People Med.
Rajendra Ku. 80039894 503544 502828 127 List. Visible in
Bhopal Shilpkar (48) College
Shrivastava Missmatched R. No.
19 21827/13
(Student)
159 41 0 108 51 79.5 List of 876 Candidates.
Shahnawaz MIG-26,Meenal Admitted in Both in the list of 345
Sanjeev
Ahmed/ Majid Ali Residency 80030249 503543 505295 142 Index College Students
Shilpkar (47)
(Scorer) Bhopal Indore
Harsha Durga Colony Peoples Form No. in Agent's
Sanjeev
Yadav/Tara Singh Ashok Nagar 80028535 503448 508050 126 Medical List. Visible in
Shilpkar (16)
yadav (Student) M.P. College Bhopal Missmatched R. No.
List of 876 Candidates.
20 21828/13 75 113 12 56 19 37.5
Javed Meenal Both in the list of 345
Sanjeev
Akhtar/Shamshuh Residency 80021082 503447 502102 68 Not Eligible Students. Main
Shilpkar (15)
aq (Scorer) Bhopal intention to help
student
79
Student-
Wrong Match
Student- Student- Scorer Matchin Mismatc Blank Right
Student-Scorer Student-Scorer Marks Match Answer Agent/List Sr.
W.P. No. Scorer Form Scorer Expert's g h Answe Match College Allotted Remarks
/Father's Name Address PMT Answer Percentag No.
S.N No. Roll No. R.No. Answer Answers rs Answers
s e
o.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Samishta
W.No. 16 Form No. in Agent's
Sharma/Anil Sanjeev People Med.
Ashok Nagar 80027320 503472 507925 114 College
List. Visible in
Sharma Shilpkar (24)
M.P. Missmatched R. No.
(Student)
21 21831/13 147 52 1 102 45 73.5 List of 876
Manvendra Village Eligible but
Candidates. Both in
Pradhan/Ram Meranpur Sanjeev not
80024261 503471 504284 144 the list of 345
Pradhan Gzagipur, UP Shilpkar (23) participated in
Students
(Scorer) 233303 counseling
Dharmendra
Form No. in Agent's
Prajapati/R.K. Teh. Kotma Sanjeev M.G.M. College
80019296 503418 506982 133 Indore
List. Visible in
Prajapati Dist. Anuppur Shilpkar (06)
Missmatched R. No.
(Student)
22 203/14 182 15 3 122 60 91 List of 876
Yogesh Ku. Eligible but
Teh. Bansoor Candidates. Both in
Yadav/ Sanjeev not
Alwar 80000622 503417 504646 138 the list of 345
Mukhram yadav Shilpkar (05) participated in
Rajasthan Students
(Scorer) counseling
Shrikant
Pandey/Yogesh
45-B Mishra Sanjeev R.D. Gardi Form No. in Agent's
Chandra 80017997 503430 508169 141 College Ujjain
Nagar Indore Shilpkar (10) List. Visible in
Pandey
Missmatched R. No.
(Student)
23 367/14 185 15 0 126 59 92.5 List of 876
Allotted
Candidates. Both in
Amit Singh/Shri Chirayu Med.
C-173 Kohe Sanjeev the list of 345
dutta Singh 80022807 503429 504218 142 Col. Bhopal
Fiza Bhopal Shilpkar (9) Students
(Scorer) but did not
join
Adikshak N.S.C.B. Med. Form No. in Agent's
Priya yadav/S.B. Jagdish
Banglow 80020989 526430 531051 126 College List. Visible in
Yadav (Student) Sagar (160) Jabalpur
Bhopal Missmatched R. No.
24 494/14 183 17 0 107 76 91.5 List of 876
Vivek Eligible but did
Tulsi Nagar Jagdish Candidates. Both in
Yadav/Sandev 80032330 526429 526073 123 not participate
Indore Sagar (159) in counseling the list of 345
Singh (Scorer)
Students
80
Student-
Wrong Match
Student- Student- Scorer Matchin Mismatc Blank Right
Student-Scorer Student-Scorer Marks Match Answer Agent/List Sr.
W.P. No. Scorer Form Scorer Expert's g h Answe Match College Allotted Remarks
/Father's Name Address PMT Answer Percentag No.
S.N No. Roll No. R.No. Answer Answers rs Answers
s e
o.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Chandrashekhar
Teh. Ater Distt. Jagdish G.R. Medi. Form No. in Agent's
Hindaliya/Balwa 80001985 525270 529051 131
Bhind Sagar (70) Gwalior List. Visible in
nt (Student)
Missmatched R. No.
25 21562/13 Paritosh 154 44 2 99 55 77 List of 876 Candidates.
Doorbash Eligible but did
Awasthi/Kamles Jagdish Both in the list of 345
Nagar 80028836 525269 528415 113 not participate
h Awasthi Sagar (69) in counseling Students
Raibareli U.P.
(Scorer)
Sanjeev
MIG 36 Meenal Form No. in Agent's
yadav/Ramkisha Sanjeev
Residency 80034501 504202 508210 145 B.K.M.C. Sagar List. Visible in
n Yadav Shilpkar (84)
Bhopal Missmatched R. No.
26 21830/13 (Student) 187 13 0 133 54 93.5 List of 876 Candidates.
Ashish Eligible but did Both in the list of 345
Nehru Nagar Sanjeev
Singh/Hariram 80022024 504201 507380 150 not participate Students
Bhopal Shilpkar (83) in counseling
Singh (Scorer)
Sugam Form No. in Agent's
Teh. Dahi Distt. Jagdish Gandhi Med.
Alawa/Summer 80002009 527960 527764 107 College Bhopal List. Visible in
Dhar Sagar (248)
Singh (Student) Missmatched R. No.
27 21534/13 Vikas 199 1 0 98 101 99.5 List of 876 Candidates.
Eligible but did Both in the list of 345
Sharma/Ramkri Nai Saradak Jagdish
80021914 527959 530197 108 not participate Students. Assisted
shna Sharma Gwalior Sagar (247) in counseling Sugam
(Scorer)
Mayur Settled in Rs 12 lakhs,
Masani/Santosh Garden No. Jagdish S.S. Med. paid 2 lakhs advance,
80001563 525310 525185 119 College Rewa Call details available
Ku. Masani 106 Mahu M.P Sagar (74)
Arrested but on bail
(Student)
Form No. in Agent's
28 20318/13 Ashish Ku. 188 12 0 108 80 94 List. Visible in
Upadhyay/Dhar Eligible but did Missmatched R. No.
Hitkari Colony Jagdish
mendra 80022160 525309 522476 125 not participate List of 876 Candidates.
Kanpur M.P. Sagar (73) in counseling
Upadhyay Both in the list of 345
(Scorer) Students
81
Student-
Wrong Match
Student- Student- Scorer Matchin Mismatc Blank Right
Student-Scorer Student-Scorer Marks Match Answer Agent/List Sr.
W.P. No. Scorer Form Scorer Expert's g h Answe Match College Allotted Remarks
/Father's Name Address PMT Answer Percentag No.
S.N No. Roll No. R.No. Answer Answers rs Answers
s e
o.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Pratibha Nandan Nagar N.S.C.B. Med. Form No. in Agent's
Jagdish
Singh/Devaram Dhar Road 80000618 527500 525281 123 College List. Visible in
Sagar (224) Jabalpur
(Student) Indore Missmatched R. No.
29 20342/13 Vishnu 159 41 0 112 47 79.5 Eligible but List of 876
Prabhakar/Jagdi Sharda Nagar Jagdish did not Candidates. Both in
80011129 527499 524112 133
sh Prasad Kanpur U.P. Sagar (223) participate in the list of 345
(Scorer) counseling Students
Shrasti
Form No. in Agent's
Raghuwanshi/Pr Shastri Ward
Jagdish People's List. Visible in
adeep kareli Dist. 80016913 524880 526030 122 College Bhopal
Sagar (30) Missmatched R. No.
Raghuwanshi Narsinghpur
30 18750/13 193 7 0 107 86 96.5 List of 876
(Student)
Candidates. Both in
Keshri Eligible but not
Sharda Nagar Jagdish the list of 345
Gupta/Keshav 80030281 524879 528390 118 participated in
Kanpur U.P. Sagar (29) counseling
Students
Gupta (Scorer)
Vikash Singh/ Form No. in Agent's
Awani Gram Jagdish Gandhi Med.
Suresh Singh 80003289 525330 522764 133 College Bhopal
List. Visible in
Khargon Sagar (76)
(Student) Missmatched R. No.
31 21566/13 Rakesh 197 3 0 121 76 98.5 List of 876
Eligible but
Singh/Mrignendr Geeta Nagar Jagdish Candidates. Both in
80028340 525329 526302 133 not taken
a Singh Kanpur U.P. Sagar (75) the list of 345
admission
(Scorer) Students
Mansi Settled in Rs 26
Old Meenal
Kabishwar/Muke Sudhir Rai G.R. Medical lakhs call details
Residency 80017488 547600 547712 149 College Gwalior
sh Kabishwar (46) available Form No.
Bhopal
(Student) in Agent's List.
Visible in
32 18728/13 188 12 0 134 54 94
Eligible but Missmatched R. No.
Anil Kumar/ Raipur
Sudhir Rai not List of 876
Laxman Sah Chouraha 80045466 547599 548135 152
(45) participated in Candidates. Both in
(Scorer) Sasaram, Bihar
counseling the list of 345
Students
82
Student-
Wrong Match
Student- Student- Scorer Matchin Mismatc Blank Right
Student-Scorer Student-Scorer Marks Match Answer Agent/List Sr.
W.P. No. Scorer Form Scorer Expert's g h Answe Match College Allotted Remarks
/Father's Name Address PMT Answer Percentag No.
S.N No. Roll No. R.No. Answer Answers rs Answers
s e
o.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Akash
Kulhari Colony Sanjeev People's Coll. Form No. in Agent's
Singh/Mahendra 80037919 504172 507899 130 Med. Bhopal
Churu Shilpkar(74) List. Visible in
Singh (Student)
Missmatched R. No.
Bajrang b/O
33 1843/14 133 50 17 94 39 66.5 Eligible but List of 876
Kumawat/ Vivekanand
Sanjeev not Candidates. Both in
Shrawan Sr.Sec. School 80030284 504171 507705 115
Shilpkar(73) participated in the list of 345
Kumawat Danta Sikar
counseling Students
(Scorer) Rajasthan
Priyal Awasthi/ Form No. in Agent's
Rachana Sanjeev People's Coll.
O.P. Awasthi 80000357 503550 506785 110 List. Visible in
Nagar Bhopal Shilpkar(50) Med. Bhopal
(Student) Missmatched R. No.
34 21545/13 Ravi Shankar ABS List of 876
H.No. 21,
Choubey/Virend Sanjeev Candidates. Both in
Bhanpur 80030217 503549 506097 ABS Absent
ra Ku. Choubey ABSENT Shilpkar(49) the list of 345
Bhopal
(Scorer) Students
Aditi Rawat/ Sun City Form No. in Agent's
Jagdish M.G.M. Med.
M.S. Rawat Mahalaxmi 80006083 526460 530824 137 College Indore
List. Visible in
Sagar (164)
(Student) Nagar Indore Missmatched R. No.
35 21537/13 173 27 0 117 56 86.5 List of 876
Arvind Eligible but not
Lakhanpur Jagdish Candidates. Both in
Ku/Tikaram 80019014 526459 521216 136 participated in
Kanpur U.P. Sagar (163) counseling the list of 345
(Scorer)
Students
Pulkit 595, Patel Form No. in Agent's
Jagdish G.R.Med.
Patel/Punnalal Complex 80005588 525574 527679 99 College Gwalior
List. Visible in
Sagar (82)
Patel (Student) Badwani Missmatched R. No.
36 21536/13 Hari Shankar 155 45 0 86 69 77.5 List of 876
Eligible but did
Mishra/Ramlakh Shipuri Kanpur Jagdish Candidates. Both in
80024405 525573 527900 111 not participate
an Mishra U.P. Sagar (81) in counseling the list of 345
(Scorer) Students
83
Student-
Wrong Match
Student- Student- Scorer Matchin Mismatc Blank Right
Student-Scorer Student-Scorer Marks Match Answer Agent/List Sr.
W.P. No. Scorer Form Scorer Expert's g h Answe Match College Allotted Remarks
/Father's Name Address PMT Answer Percentag No.
S.N No. Roll No. R.No. Answer Answers rs Answers
s e
o.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Kshitij Kaneria/ Form No. in Agent's
Kundan Nagar Jagdish G.R.Med.
Ghanshyam 80005932 528500 522542 145 College Gwalior
List. Visible in
Badwani Sagar (276)
(Student) Missmatched R. No.
37 21533/13 Kaushal 193 7 0 132 61 96.5 List of 876
75-A Tilak Eligible but did
Ku./Deep Jagdish Candidates. Both in
Nagar Indore 80026394 528499 529932 148 not participate
Chandra Sagar (275) in counseling the list of 345
452001
(Scorer) Students
W.No. 24, Form No. in Agent's
Saksham Rai/ N.S.C.B Med.
Maharajpur Jagdish List. Visible in
Anil Rai 80016717 524468 529818 146 College
Dist. Mandla Sagar (18) Jabalpur Missmatched R. No.
(Student)
M.P. List of 876
38 20908/13 179 21 0 120 59 84.5
Candidates. Both in
Hemant Ku.
Sharda Nagar Jagdish M.G.M. Med. the list of 345
Rai/Shailendra 80028868 524467 524249 132 College Indore
Kanpur U.P. Sagar (17) Students. Cell phone
Ku. Rai (Scorer)
number in diary
Shubhangini
Kushwaha/Ravi Kashraward Jagdish M.G.M. Med. Form No. in Agent's
80007945 526960 526521 158 College Indore
ndra Kushwaha Khargon M.P. Sagar (194) List. Visible in
(Student) Missmatched R. No.
39 21526/13 Jagmohan 197 3 0 144 53 98.5 List of 876
Singh Banarsi Market Eligible but did Candidates. Both in
Jagdish
Yadav/Ran Maipuri, UP 80027131 526959 524871 158 not participate the list of 345
Sagar (193) in counseling
Chouhan Singh 205265 Students
(Scorer)
374/64 Block Call details available
Priyanka Chambal Form No. in Agent's
Jagdish M.G.M. Med.
Buaa/Monoharla Sagar Colony 80007821 527050 523032 139 College Indore
List. Visible in
Sagar (204)
l Buaa (Student) Nagda dist. Missmatched R. No.
40 21529/13 193 7 0 124 69 96.5
Ujjain List of 876
Suraj Eligible but did Candidates. Both in
Sharda Nagar Jagdish
Pandey/P.K. 80030238 527049 530096 139 not participate the list of 345
Kanpur U.P. Sagar (203) in counseling
Pandey (Scorer) Students
84
Student-
Wrong Match
Student- Student- Scorer Matchin Mismatc Blank Right
Student-Scorer Student-Scorer Marks Match Answer Agent/List Sr.
W.P. No. Scorer Form Scorer Expert's g h Answe Match College Allotted Remarks
/Father's Name Address PMT Answer Percentag No.
S.N No. Roll No. R.No. Answer Answers rs Answers
s e
o.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Jagrat Form No. in Agent's
M.G.M. Med.
Biloniya/Ganpat Katju Nagar Jagdish List. Visible in
80012312 525300 530902 144 College
Singh Biloniya Ratlam M.P. Sagar (72) Missmatched R. No.
Indore
41 21530/13 (Student) 196 4 0 129 67 98 List of 876
Uvaish Eligible but did Candidates. Both in
Hitkari Nagar Jagdish
Ahmed/Basir 80013422 525299 523230 142 not participate the list of 345
Kanpur U.P. Sagar (71) in counseling
Ahmed (Scorer) Students
Mahesh
Badamalehar Form No. in Agent's
Ahirwar/ Gulli Jagdish M.G.M. Med.
Chhatarpur 80032654 527018 522765 145 College Indore
List. Visible in
Ahirwar Sagar (200)
M.P. Missmatched R. No.
(Student)
42 21531/13 194 6 0 131 63 97 List of 876
Mohd.
Geetanjali Eligible but not Candidates. Both in
Hasib/Abdul Jagdish
Apartment 80013853 527017 523123 144 participated in the list of 345
Rahman Sagar (199) counseling
Indrore Students
(Scorer)
Pooja T6 PCMS People's Coll. Form No. in Agent's
Sanjeev
Yadav/G.S. Hostel Bhanpur 80032357 503538 507553 104 Med. Science List. Visible in
Shilpkar (46) Bhopal
Yadav (Student) Bhopal 462001 Missmatched R. No.
43 1067/14 145 49 6 91 54 72.5 Eligible but List of 876
Sadab Village
Sanjeev not Candidates. Both in
Alam/Khurshid Lakhmapur 80016972 503537 507457 129
Shilpkar (45) participated in the list of 345
Alam (Scorer) Azamgarh U.P.
counseling Students
Pragyashree Form No. in Agent's
Mungwani
Baghel/Shriram Sanjeev Gandhi Med. List. Visible in
Naka Seoni 80045883 503556 502191 157 College Bhopal
Baghel Shilpkar (52) Missmatched R. No.
M.P.
44 21297/13 (Student) 198 2 0 144 54 99 List of 876
Ashok Meenal People's Coll. Candidates. Both in
Sanjeev
Ku./Shrikrishna Residency 80035616 503555 505763 158 Med. Science the list of 345
Shilpkar (51)
Kumar (Scorer) Bhopal Bhopal Students
85
Student-
Wrong Match
Student- Student- Scorer Matchin Mismatc Blank Right
Student-Scorer Student-Scorer Marks Match Answer Agent/List Sr.
W.P. No. Scorer Form Scorer Expert's g h Answe Match College Allotted Remarks
/Father's Name Address PMT Answer Percentag No.
S.N No. Roll No. R.No. Answer Answers rs Answers
s e
o.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Sudhir Rai Settled in Rs 15 lakhs
Sankat
Sumit sinha/A.K. (10) and M.G.M. Med. and paid Rs 2 lakhs as
Mochan Road 80004069 504130 508311 156 College Indore
Sinha (Student) Sanjeev advance Form No. in
Chattarpur
Shilpkar (62) Agent's List. Visible in
45 21520/13 191 9 0 139 52 95.5 Missmatched R. No.
Sudhir Rai
Alok Ku. Yadav/ People's Coll. List of 876 Candidates.
Bhanpur (09) and
K.K. Yadav 80033509 504129 506044 153 Med. Science Both in the list of 345
Bhopal Sanjeev
(Scorer) Bhopal Students
Shilpkar (61)
Nidhi
Jyoti Nagar Jagdish M.G.M. Med. Form No. in Agent's
Sulya/Ritesh 80006109 526440 521770 136 College Indore
Khargon Sagar (166) List. Visible in
Sulya (Student)
Missmatched R. No.
46 21523/13 178 22 0 124 54 89 Eligible but List of 876 Candidates.
Pradeep
Senthara Jagdish not Both in the list of 345
Ku./RamSwroop 80010776 526439 526721 144
Murenna M.P. Sagar (165) participated in Students
(Scorer)
counseling
Vandana
Arvindo Inst. Form No. in Agent's
Prajapati/Mohan Chandrawatiga Jagdish
80005806 529020 530379 141 Med. Sci. List. Visible in
Lal Prajapati nj Indore Sagar (305)
Indore Missmatched R. No.
47 21525/13 (Student) 190 10 0 127 63 95 List of 876 Candidates.
Shamsheer Kanungo Eligible but not Both in the list of 345
Jagdish
Alam/ Mahmood Bakhal Indore 80008761 529019 529160 143 participated in Students
Sagar (304) counseling
Alam (Scorer) 452007
137, Rs 2 lakhs paid as per
Siddharth kaim/ Ramkumar Jagdish Sagar's dairy
Jagdish G.R. Med. Coll.
Jitendra Kem Mandhare 80016739 526188 529525 154 Gwalior Form No. in Agent's
Sagar (156)
(Student) Mishrilal Nagar List. Visible in
48 18708/13 196 4 0 140 56 98 Missmatched R. No.
Dewas
Mohd. Eligible but not List of 876 Candidates.
Totla Nagar Jagdish Both in the list of 345
Ajaz/Mumtaj 80006016 526187 524340 156 participated in
Indore Sagar (155) counseling Students
Ahmed (Scorer)
86
Student-
Wrong Match
Student- Student- Scorer Matchin Mismatc Blank Right
Student-Scorer Student-Scorer Marks Match Answer Agent/List Sr.
W.P. No. Scorer Form Scorer Expert's g h Answe Match College Allotted Remarks
/Father's Name Address PMT Answer Percentag No.
S.N No. Roll No. R.No. Answer Answers rs Answers
s e
o.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Aditiya Singh People's Coll. Settled in Rs 25
MS Road Sudhir Rai
Rajpoot 80006283 547620 547025 120 Med. Sec. lakhs and Rs 5 lakh
Morena, MP (48) Indore
(Student) paid in advance on
bail Form No. in
Agent's List. Visible
49 19100/13 135 59 6 100 35 67.5 Eligible but
58 Sandalpura in Missmatched R.
Amardeep Sudhir Rai not
Mahavir 80044685 547619 547510 138 No. List of 876
Kumar (Scorer) (47) participated in
Colony Patna Candidates. Both in
couseling
the list of 345
Students
Sudhir Rai
Mandira Sindh/ Form No. in Agent's
119., Mahakal (14) and G.R. Med. Coll.
Gajendra sindhe 80020723 504166 504083 145 Gwalior
List. Visible in
Road Ujjain Sanjeev
(Student) Missmatched R. No.
Shilpkar (72)
50 334/14 56 139 5 36 20 28 List of 876
Sudhir Rai
Candidates. Both in
Akash Bhardwaj Sharda Nagar (13) and
80036066 504165 507414 39 Not Eligible the list of 345
(Scorer) Kanpur Sanjeev
Students
Shilpkar (71)
Surbhi
Meenal People's Coll. Form No. in Agent's
Dalal/Suresh 80003234 Sanjeev
Residency 504160 506860 129 Med. Sec. List. Visible in
Ku. Dalal 2 Shilpkar (70) Bhopal
Bhopal Missmatched R. No.
(Student)
51 1069/14 181 19 0 112 69 90.5 List of 876
Eligible but
Candidates. Both in
Pushpendra Ku. Rachana Sanjeev not
80033558 504159 505721 131 the list of 345
/ Scorer) Nagar Bhopal Shilpkar (69) participated in
Students
couseling
Abhinav
Palak Kukreja/ People's Coll. Form No. in Agent's
Homes Sanjeev
Arvind Kukreja 80032300 503532 507739 148 Med. Sec. List. Visible in
Ayodhya By Shilpkar (44) Bhopal
(Student) Missmatched R. No.
Pass Bhopal
52 1673/14 188 12 0 135 53 94 List of 876
Anshuman
People's Coll. Candidates. Both in
Mishra/ Satya Gandhi Nagar Sanjeev
80030374` 503531 506107 154 Med. Sec. the list of 345
dev Mishra Bhopal Shilpkar (43) Bhopal Students
(Scorer)
87
Student-
Right Match
Student- Student- Scorer Matchin Mismatc Blank Wrong
Student-Scorer Student-Scorer Marks Match Answer Agent/List Sr.
W.P. No. Scorer Form Scorer Expert's g h Answe Match College Allotted Remarks
/Father's Name Address PMT Answer Percentag No.
S.N No. Roll No. R.No. Answer Answers rs Answers
s e
o.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Neha Miranpur Katra People's Coll. Form No. in Agent's
Sanjeev
Bee/Shakeel Shahjanhpur 80035526 504220 504585 144 Med. Sec. List. Visible in
Shilpkar (90) Bhopal
Beg (Student) UP 242301 Missmatched R. No.
53 1668/14 199 1 0 132 67 99.5 List of 876
Arvind Yadav/ Eligible but not
Kamla Nagar Sanjeev Candidates. Both in
Ramji Yadav 80021937 504219 503767 144 participated in
Bhopal Shilpkar (89) couseling the list of 345
(Scorer)
Students
Sukhveer Form No. in Agent's
Post Dhod People's Coll.
Singh/S.S. Sanjeev List. Visible in
Sikar 80024845 504190 504225 136 Med. Sec.
Kawaiy Shilpkar (80) Bhopal Missmatched R. No.
Rajashtan
54 1929/14 (Student) 168 23 9 121 47 84 List of 876
Suresh Ku./ Samdari Candidates. Both in
Sanjeev Chiryau Med.
Thakar Ram Barnar 80014694 504189 502351 142 the list of 345
Shilpkar (79) Coll. Bhopal
(Scorer) Rajashthan Students
Abhishek It is alleged that 5
chouchan/Dines Kalandri Vihar Jadish Sagar R.D. Gardi Lac paid to Sudhir
80039957 528928 524733 139 Med. Ujjain
h Chouchan Agra U.P. (301) Rai FormNo. in
(Student) Agent's List. Visible
55 1842/14 75 125 0 60 15 37.5 in Missmatched R.
JC Bose No. List of 876
Jitendra yadav Jadish Sagar R.D. Gardi
Hostel, YN 80039325 528929 526412 78 Med. Ujjain
Candidates. Both in
(Scorer) (302)
Road Indore the list of 345
Students
Jharan
Civil Hospital Sudhir Rai(8) Form No. in Agent's
Dewekar/Ravi Gandhi Med.
Campus 80017075 504124 505975 151 and Sanjeev Coll. Bhopal
List. Visible in
Diwekar
Ratlam M.P. Shilpkar (60) Missmatched R. No.
(Student)
56 2345/14 172 28 0 120 52 86 List of 876
Sudhir Rai Eligible but
Old Candidates. Both in
Nitesh Verma (07) and not
Haidarganj, 80022011 504123 507920 133 the list of 345
(Scorer) Sanjeev participated in
Lucknow Students
Shilpkar (59) counseling
88
Student-
Right Match
Student- Student- Scorer Matchin Mismatc Blank Wrong
Student-Scorer Student-Scorer Marks Match Answer Agent/List Sr.
W.P. No. Scorer Form Scorer Expert's g h Answe Match College Allotted Remarks
/Father's Name Address PMT Answer Percentag No.
S.N No. Roll No. R.No. Answer Answers rs Answers
s e
o.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Manish People's Coll. Form No. in Agent's
Gurgaon Sanjeev
Yadav/Y.S. 80032467 504208 503049 128 Med. Sec. List. Visible in
Hariyana Shilpkar (86)
Yadav (Student) Bhopal Missmatched R. No.
57 2381/14 Sheesharan List of 876
Eligible but not
Yadav/ Kota, Sanjeev Candidates. Both in
80022023 504207 539862 117 participated in
Madanlal Yadav Rajasthan Shilpkar (85) counseling the list of 345
(Scorer) Students
Arvind Sudhir Rai
Form No. in Agent's
Singh/Kushwah Kalarash (20) and L.N. Med.
80005962 504196 502853 138 College Bhopal
List. Visible in
a Singh Murenna Sanjeev
Missmatched R. No.
(Student) Shilpkar (82)
58 290/14 175 24 1 121 54 87.5 List of 876
Sudhir Rai
Mahesh People's Coll. Candidates. Both in
People's (19) and
Kumar/Anokhela 80033597 504195 504238 142 Med. Sec. the list of 345
College Bhopal Sanjeev
l (Scorer) Bhopal Students
Shilpkar (81)
Paras HIG 61 New
Form No. in Agent's
yadav/Jahan Meenal Sanjeev People,s Med.
80032429 504226 504487 137 College Bhopal
List. Visible in
Singh yadav Residency Shilpkar (92)
Missmatched R. No.
(Student) Bhopal
59 2382/14 193 7 0 124 69 96.5 List of 876
Pankaj Ku.
Narayana Eligible but not Candidates. Both in
Singh/Sharda Sanjeev
Hargarh Sadar 80024304 504225 504748 140 participated in the list of 345
Prasad Singh Shilpkar (91) counseling
Mirzapur U.P. Students
(Scorer)
89
Student-
Right Match
Student- Student- Scorer Matchin Mismatc Blank Wrong
Student-Scorer Student-Scorer Marks Match Answer Agent/List Sr.
W.P. No. Scorer Form Scorer Expert's g h Answe Match College Allotted Remarks
/Father's Name Address PMT Answer Percentag No.
S.N No. Roll No. R.No. Answer Answers rs Answers
s e
o.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Rahul Jain/ Ghuwara P.S.
M.G.M Med. It is alleged that 5 Lac
Hajarilal Jain Bhagwa 80009986 537550 537992 156 Sudhir Rai (34)
Coll. Indore paid to Sudhir Rai
(Student) Chattarpur
FormNo. in Agent's List.
VILL-WENA
60 1822/14 36 164 0 27 9 18 Visible in Missmatched R.
Ranjeet POST-WENA
M.G.M Med. No. List of 876
Kumar/CHHOTE PS-WENA 80025995 537549 537284 34 Sudhir Rai (33)
Coll. Indore Candidates. Both in the
PRASAD (Scorer) NALANDA
list of 345 Students
BIHAR 803110
Rohit
Panchil Colony M.G.M Med.
Jaiswal/Rajkumar 80000652 524938 522887 153 J.Sagar (42)
Indore Coll. Indore
Jaiswal (Student)
117/636 Q
Form No. in Agent's List.
BLOCK
Visible in Missmatched R.
SHARDA
61 286/14 ANIL 196 4 0 139 57 98 No. List of 876
NAGAR Eligible but not
SINGH/AMAR Candidates. Both in the
KAKADEO 80024439 524937 526656 154 J.Sagar (41) participated in
NATH SINGH list of 345 Students
KANPUR 208025 counseling
(Scorer)
Soni Colony
Rahul Ashok Nagar
Raghuvanshi/Gaut M.P. Sanjeev Gandhi Medical
80008097 503460 504103 152
am Singh Shilpkar (20) college. Bhopal
(Student)
Form No. in Agent's List.
184 ZONE 1 Visible in Missmatched R.
62 321/14 M.P.NAGAR 197 3 0 139 58 98.5 No. List of 876
People's
BHOPAL Candidates. Both in the
ABHISHEK College of
BHOPAL list of 345 Students
YADAV Sanjeev Medical
462023 80026003 503459 506441 153
/RAMNARAYAN Shilpkar (19) Sciences &
SINGH (Scrorer) RC,Bhanpur,
Bhopal
90
Note
1. 62 Students have filed writ petitions before this Hon'ble Court. All these students have secured admission in either government or private medical colleges. They appeared in the PMT Exam 2013 with the help of a scorer/solver.
Out of the 62 scorers who were to assist the students, one was arrested just before the exam i.e. on 6.7.13. Out of the remaining 61 scorers/solvers, one was absent and the corresponding student of such scorer/solver received 119 marks and could not get admission in a government medical college. Out of the remaining 60 scorers, 53 were eligible for participating in the counselling process but there are only 2 scorers/solvers who have taken admission and filed writ petitions before this Hon'ble Court. The remaining 5 scorers have scored less than 100 marks but their corresponding students have received very high marks which goes to show that they were mainly involved in assisting the students.
2. Out of 62 student and scorer/solver pairs, 6 student and scorer/solver pairs have the same marks, 27 student and scorer/solver pairs have a difference of less than 5 marks and in case of 4 students and scorer/solver pairs the difference in marks is less than 10 marks.
3. All the students and scorer/solvers have been allotted tampered roll numbers and included in the list of 876 mismatched candidates.
4. All the 124 candidates (students+ scorers/solvers) have been mentioned in crime number 539/13.
5. All the students and scorers/solvers are mentioned in either Sudhir Rai, Jagdish Sagar or Sanjeev Shilpkar's list and are also mentioned in the list of mismatched roll numbers of 876 candidates prepared by the expert committee constituted by MP Professional Examination Board.
6. Out of the 62 students, 5 students are from outside MP while the remaining 57 are from within MP. Out of the 62 scorers, 38 scorers/solvers are from outside MP and 24 scorers/solvers are from within MP.
7. That out of the 62 students that have filed writ petitions, in only 5 cases, the percentage of matching answers between the answers selected by the student and the answer selected by the scorer/solver is less than 50%. In 29 cases the percentage of matching answers is greater 91 than 90% and the highest being 99.5%. In 13 cases, the percentage of matching answers between the student and the scorer is greater than 80%. Thus there are 42 out of 60 cases where the percentage of matching answers exceeds 80%. In another 7 cases the percentage is greater than 70%.
8. Therefore it is evident from the above-mentioned data that the more than half the scorers/solver were eligible to participate in the counselling process and subsequently take admission in the MBBS course. However except in two cases, the scorers have opted to not take part in the counselling process and if they have taken admission, they have not reported at the college for taking admission. Further in 49 cases, the student and scorers have attempted the same answers and these two facts together clearly shows that the scorers/solvers have taken part in the PMT examination 2013, only with an intention to aid and assist the students to take admission and all the students whose admission has been cancelled have managed to get admission into some or the other college and were pursuing the MBBS course until their candidature was cancelled. It is also clear that all these students were in contact with the three persons involved in the Vyapam MBBS scam and in 12 cases, the STF has already found that money was paid by the students/parents of the students or were in constant communication with the three key persons engaged in the scam. As the matter is still under investigation and the criminal trial is ongoing, details of payment by other students would also emerge and the facts would become clearer. Therefore on the basis of the aforesaid, the action of the answering respondent in cancelling the candidature of the petitioners is correct and there is a strong case against them."
(xiii) He has invited our attention to the Activity Chart to bring home the point that Nitin Mohindra, Senior System Analyst, who is now facing criminal action, had breached the time-line specified; and including the norms regarding allocation of roll-numbers. Instead of following the scheme of randomised numbers generated by the computer, the erring officials of the 92 Board resorted to other manual method to generate roll numbers in relation to the identified candidates, which was impermissible. Why that deviation was made for those selective candidates, no explanation is forthcoming. Further, the roll numbers were so allocated so that the sitting arrangement matches with the plan given by conspirators and kingpin such as Jagdish Sagar and others. Inasmuch as, the pattern emerging from the record conclusively indicates that the scorer was allotted roll number to occupy the front seat and the genuine candidate was allotted roll number to ensure that he would occupy rear seat behind the scorer. This was done to facilitate copying and assist the genuine candidates to score high marks.
(xiv) He further submits, that the fact that some material has not been referred to in the report or the impugned decision, it would not render the same illegal or bad in law. He submits that it is well settled that all material need not be referred to in the impugned order and, more so, it was open to the Board to rely on further and even subsequent material to support its decision in public interest, being case of mass-copying. He submits that the Authority acted on the basis of information received from different sources and including the reports of the Committees. The totality of the circumstances was at the back of the mind of the Chairman who took the final decision.
(xv) Our attention has been invited to the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Recognised Examination Act, 1937 to contend that the decision taken by the Chairman on which basis the impugned orders have been 93 issued under the signature of Director, cannot be termed as without authority or illegal especially when the decision is not based on some material but substantial material to indicate the complicity of the candidates against whom action has been taken. He pointed out the following indisputable and incriminating facts emerging from the material available with the Board, which leads to an inevitable conclusion that the identified candidates had indulged in unfair means;
(a) firstly, there was mismatch in the roll-numbers of the concerned candidates. The roll-numbers given to them were not as per the norm of randomised numbers generated by the computer as specified by the Board;
(b) secondly, Nitin Mohindra, Senior System Analyst took away all the record in the system (computer data) on a pendrive and rearranged the same on the Computer at his residence to realign the roll-numbers of the concerned candidates and the scorers as per the plan given by the conspirators. He did not upload the roll-
numbers within the time-frame prescribed in the Activity Chart. There was delay of three days in that behalf. The hard disk from the residence of Nitin Mohindra has been recovered by the police during the investigation, which reinforces the above position;
(c) thirdly, names of students, mentioned in the diary of racketeers recovered by the police corresponds with the names of candidates 94 against whom action has been taken on account of mismatch of their roll-numbers;
(d) fourthly, the sitting arrangement of the candidate and the scorer was identical to the plan suggested by the racketeers/conspirators, which is evidenced from the diary recovered from them;
(e) fifthly, high percentage of matching of correct as well as wrong answers given by the scorer and the concerned candidate has been noticed from their respective answer-sheets;
(f) sixthly, names of all the 415 candidates have been found in the STF list as involved in the commission of offence;
(g) seventhly, over 90% of the scorers, though eligible, did not take admission nor participated in the counselling despite securing higher marks than the genuine candidates;
(h) eighthly, the forms of scorers were filled through common web portal obviously controlled by the conspirators; and
(i) ninthly, substantial number of scorers were from outside the State of Madhya Pradesh.
(xvi) These indisputable facts, submits learned counsel, were sufficient to justify the decision of the Authorities and to conclude that the identified candidates, against whom action has been finally taken by the Board, were involved in organised mass-copying and resorted to unfair means during the examination. He relied on the provisions of the Information Technology Act 2000 and the meaning of expression 95 'decryption' to justify the mechanism adopted by the Computer Experts Committee in identifying the candidates who indulged in unfair means. He relied on the allegations against Nitin Mohindra in the pending criminal case, which, according to him, discloses the conspiracy hatched on a very large scale and involving huge money transactions. From the totality of circumstances, according to him, no other conclusion could be reached by any reasonable person, but, that the identified candidates had engaged in organised mass-copying. That fact is reinforced from the material collected during the investigation and shared with the Board; and corresponds with the mismatch list of candidates prepared by the Computer Experts Committee by applying allotment logic formula referred to in their report. (xvii) He further submits that the argument of some of the petitioners that those petitioners who have taken admissions in private medical colleges cannot be disturbed as a consequence of cancellation of Entrance Examination Results by the Board, is also devoid of merits. Inasmuch as, as per the official record the said candidates have taken admissions in the respective private colleges against the Government seats, which were allotted on the basis of merits determined in the Common Entrance Test conducted by the Board. In other words, if the candidate is found to be ineligible to appear in the said examination or having incurred disqualification as a result of which his entrance examination results are cancelled, as a necessary consequence, even the admission in the private medical college obtained on the basis of results of that examination cannot 96 be continued. He submits that 50% Management seats are filled up on the basis of merits from amongst the candidates who have appeared in the Common Entrance Test conducted by the college or institution through single window arrangement by the State Government or by Agency authorised by the Government. Only admissions taken on the basis of the said examination will be governed by the Act of 2007 (II) and the Rules of 2008 framed thereunder.
(xviii) To buttress the above submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on Sudhir Kumar Mishra and others v. Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur and another (supra); The Bihar School Examination Board vs Subhas Chandra Sinha (supra) (para 10, 12 to 14); Goa Shipyard Ltd. vs. Babu Thomas32 (para 13); Sahiti and others vs. Chancellor, Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences and others33 (para 30 and 32); Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. Allahabad and another Vs. Bagleshwar Prasad and another (supra) (para 5, 6, 11 & 12); Bihar School Examination Board vs. Subhash Chandra Sinha (supra) (para 2, 3, 6, 10 to 14); Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education vs K.S.Gandhi and others34 (para 10, 16, 17, 23 to 26, 28, 30, 37, 38, 40); Division Bench of this Court in the case of M.P. Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal vs. Ku. Shashi Tomer and others35 (para 5 to 7); Ram Preeti Yadav vs. U.P. Board of High School 32 (2007) 10 SCC 662 33 (2009) 1 SCC 599 34 (1991) 2 SCC 716 35 2004 (1) MPLJ 455 (DB) 97 and Intermediate Education and others36 para (2 and 13), Aligarh Muslim University and others v. Mansoor Ali Khan37 (para 8, 22, 23); State of Maharashtra and others vs Jalgaon Municipal Council and others38 (para 32); M.C. Mehta vs Union of India and others Re: Inder Mohan Besiwal Re: Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd39 (para 21), Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Vs. Pindiga Sridhar and others40 (para 7); Chief General Manager, Calcutta Telephones District, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited 41 and others vs Surendra Nath Pandey and others (para 12 and 16); Union of India and others Vs. Anand Kumar Pandey and others42 (para 43
9); B. Ramanjii and others Vs. State of A.P. and others (para 2, 7 and
8); Madhyamic Shiksha Mandal, M.P. vs Abhilash Shiksha Prasar Samiti and others44 (para 2); Biswa Ranjan Sahoo and others vs 45 Sushanta Kumar Dinda and others (para 3); Chairman, J&K State Board of Education vs. Feyaz Ahmed Malik and others46 (para 18 and
20); Chairman, All India Railway Recruitment Board and another vs. K. Shyam Kumar and others 47 (para 11, 12, 16, 18, 20, 36 to 48).
21. After having considered the rival submissions, the moot 36 (2003) 8 SCC 311 37 AIR 2000 SC 2783 38 (2003) 9 SCC 731 39 (1999) 6 SCC 237 40 (2007) 13 SCC 352 41 2012 (1) SLJ 73 42 (1994) 5 SCC 663 43 (2002) 5 SCC 533 44 (1998) 9 SCC 236 45 (1996) 5 SCC 365 46 (2000) 3 SCC 59 47 (2010) 6 SCC 614 98 question that arises for consideration is: whether the existing Board has been lawfully constituted and was competent to enquire into matters pertaining to pre-admission professional examination conducted by it? No doubt, the thrust of challenge of the petitioners was founded on the provisions of the Act of 2007 (I). Even the respondents, including the Board, while opposing the said grounds responded as if the existing Board was functioning and exercising powers under the Act of 2007(I). That stand, obviously, was taken in the written response filed by the Board without proper research and, in fact, contrary to the factual situation emerging from the official record. It is only during the course of arguments, while responding to the queries posed by the Court, effort was made to dig out the relevant official records to justify the existence of the present Board and its authority. Indeed, the extracts of the office notings and the original record have not been expressly adverted to in the reply-affidavit filed by the Board, which, as aforesaid, was prepared without proper research and perhaps in haste on instructions of the uninformed officials. The draftsman of the affidavit did not think it necessary to enquire into all the relevant facts before filing the return of the Board. That omission or lapse, however, cannot be the basis to answer the issue under consideration disregarding the factual position emanating from the office notings and the original official record maintained in the ordinary course of business. To do substantial justice and expound the correct factual and legal position on the issue under consideration, in our opinion, is the bounden duty of the Court. For that, the 99 Court can look into the office notings in the original official record and not answer the issue merely on the basis of incorrect stand taken in the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the Board. We, therefore, hold that in larger public interest the Board must be allowed to modify its stand consistent with the official record and to place the same on record before the Court.
22. We may note that the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 20908/2013 & 21518/2013 have taken out I.A. Nos. 4154/2014 and 4155/2014. However, these applications have been filed on 24/03/2014, during the course of rejoinder-reply - at the fag end (last day) of the long drawn hearing - praying for permission to file rejoinder. In that rejoinder, objection has been raised about taking on record compilation of documents submitted on behalf of the Board during the course of hearing. In the first place, it needs to be noted that the compilation of documents, is none other than the true copies (Photostat) of the relevant extracts of office notings in the original official record maintained in the ordinary course of business of the existing Board. Indubitably, for ascertaining the truth, the Court has enough authority to summon the official record and examine the same. If so, when the Board wanted to rely on such original official record to buttress its modified submission and to reassure the Court about the correctness thereof, then, certainly, the Court can and must take that into account to do substantial justice and in larger public interest, to expound the correct factual and legal position. That record will facilitate the Court to ascertain the question of legitimacy of the existing Board and its authority. Further, 100 when the compilation of the relevant extract of the official notings in the official record was produced before the Court, with the leave of the Court, copy thereof was simultaneously made over to the counsel appearing for the petitioners. In fact, the counsel for the petitioners relied on the same documents to further their submissions. Hence, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners whatsoever. For all these reasons, we, unhesitatingly, reject the hypertechnical objection of Mr. Amitabh Gupta regarding taking on record the compilation of relevant extracts of the office notings in the original official record and the public Notifications issued from time to time.
23. Reverting to the question of status of the existing Board, it becomes clear from the official record that the State Government, in exercise of powers under Section 3(1) of the Act of 2007 (I), has so far not issued public Notification to establish the Board within the meaning of that Act. Indeed, the Act of 2007 (I) received assent of the Governor on 31st August, 2007. But it was brought into force by issuance of Notification under Section 1(3) of that Act on 11th October, 2007 with effect from 15th October, 2007. The fact that the Act has come into force, it does not necessarily follow that the Board referred to in Section 4 of the Act of 2007 (I) has been established. That could happen "only" on issuance of a formal Notification under Section 3(1) of the Act of 2007 (I) by the State Government, for establishing the Board with effect from such date, as may be specified in the Notification. As long as this Notification is not issued, it 101 would be preposterous and impermissible to assume that the existing Board has been merged in the Board under the Act of 2007 (I) or has become non- existent, in fact or in law.
24. Notably, by virtue of Section 25 of the Act of 2007 (I) all assets and liabilities of the existing Professional Examination Board of the State Government would vest in the Board so established under Section 3 of the Act of 2007 (I) and thence all the employees belonging to or under the control of the existing Board would be deemed to be the employees of the Board so established.
25. A priori, the employees/officials of the existing Board could function and exercise all powers as already vested in them. At the same time, the employees/officials of the existing Board could not exercise powers with reference to the provisions of the Act of 2007 (I) and for the same reason their action cannot be tested on the touchstone of provisions of the Act of 2007 (I). In other words, the fact that the Board within the meaning of the Act of 2007 (I) has not been established even after lapse of seven years from coming into force of the Act of 2007 (I), that does not mean that the existing Board was illegitimate and has had no authority to conduct the pre-admission professional examinations. That authority vests in the existing Board by virtue of the public Notification issued in the name of Governor dated 22nd January, 2004. Extracts of the office notings in the original files produced in the form of compilation reinforces that the said public Notification was issued after approval by the Chief Minister and 102 Cabinet of Ministers.
26. The history of the existing Board, can be traced to public Notification dated 30th July, 1983 issued in the name of Governor after the approval of the Chief Minister and which decision was ratified by the Cabinet of Ministers. The Manpower Planning Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh issued order dated 30th July, 1997 in the name of the Governor to change the name of the Board constituted vide Notification dated 30th July, 1983 to "Professional Examination Board" and reconstituted the Board as indicated therein. In due course, on 21st August, 1997, the post of Director of the Professional Examination Board was created. By issuance of order dated 22nd January, 2004 in the name of the Governor, the Professional examination Board was reconstituted and the Director of the Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board was nominated as Member Secretary of the said Board. Indeed, individual members have changed from time to time. In terms of the order dated 22nd January, 2004, the Chairmanship and the Membership of the Board was made ex officio. In other words, officials holding designated posts would automatically become ex-officio members of the existing Board. This Board has not been constituted by the State with reference to any enactment; but, in exercise of its executive powers under Article 162 of the Constitution. In the case of Thakur Bharat Singh (supra), the Court examined the sweep of Article 162 and 73 of the Constitution. It held that the Articles are concerned primarily with distribution of executive power between Union on one hand 103 and the States on the other, and not with validity of its exercise. The State or its officers in exercise of executive authority cannot infringe rights of citizens merely because Legislature of the State has power to legislate in regard to subject on which executive order is passed. For the view we have taken that the constitution of the existing Board is justly made in exercise of executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution and further that the said Board could deal with all matters connected with and incidental to the examination to be conducted by it; and that authority has been justly exercised in the present case, this decision will be of no avail to the petitioners.
27. The Apex Court in the case of Dr. Amberesh Kumar vs. Principal, I.L.R.M. Medical College and others48, has held that the executive powers of the State Government under Article 162 of the Constitution are very wide. In paragraph 19, the Court observed that the State Government in exercise of its executive power can make an order relating to matter referred to in entry 25 of the Concurrent List in absence of the law made by the State Legislature. The exercise of such power cannot be assailed on the ground that it is beyond the competence of the State Government to make such order provided it does not encroach upon or infringe the power of the Central Government as well as the Parliament provided in respect of any entry in List 1.
28. In the case of State of Andhra Pradesh and another vs. Lavu 48 1986 (Supp.) SCC 543 104 Narendranath and others etc.49, the Court restated the legal position that the Executive has power to make any regulation having the effect of a law so long as it does not contravene any legislation already covering the field and the Government order issued in exercise of such powers in no way would affect the rights of the candidates.
29. In the case of M/s Bishamber Dayal Chandra Mohan (supra), the Apex Court has relied on its earlier decision in the case of Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur and others vs. The State of Punjab50. In that case, the Apex Court held that the executive power of a modern State is not capable of any precise definition. The Court noted that the provisions in the Constitution do not contain definition as to what the executive function is or gives an exhaustive enumeration of the activities which would legitimately come within its scope. It was observed that "Ordinarily the executive power connotes the residue of governmental functions that remain after legislative and judicial functions are taken away". The Court then went on to observe in paragraph 20 as under:
"20. Even assuming that the impugned teleprinter message is not relatable to the two Control Orders, the State Government undoubtedly could, in exercise of the executive power of the State, introduce a system of verification on movement of wheat from the State of Uttar Pradesh to various other States at the check-posts on the border and place restrictions on inter-district movement of wheat by traders on private account within the State. The executive power of a modern State is not capable of any precise definition. In Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab, Mukherjea, C.J., dealt with the scope of Arts. 73 and 49 1971 (1) SCC 607 50 AIR 1955 SC 549 105 162 of the Constitution. The learned Chief Justice observed that neither of the two Articles contains any definition as to what the executive function is or gives an exhaustive enumeration of the activities which would legitimately come within its scope. It was observed: "Ordinarily the executive power con- notes the residue of governmental functions that remain after legislative and judicial functions are taken away". It is neither necessary nor possible to give an exhaustive enumeration of the kinds and categories of executive functions which may comprise both the formulation of the policy as well as its execution. In other words, the State in exercise of its executive power is charged with the duty and the responsibility of carrying on the general administration of the State. So long as the State Government does not go against the provisions of the Constitution or any law, the width and amplitude of its executive power cannot be circumscribed. If there is no enactment covering a particular aspect, certainly the Government can carry on the administration by issuing administrative directions or instructions, until the legislature makes a law in that behalf. Otherwise, the administration would come to a standstill."
In paragraph 22, the Court reiterated the following position:
"22. The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was enacted by Parliament in exercise of concurrent jurisdiction under Entry 33 List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution as amended by the Constitution (Third Amendment) Act, 1954. The exercise of such concurrent jurisdiction would not deprive the State legislature of its jurisdiction thereunder. The State legislature, therefore, could still make a law on the subject regulating trade and commerce in, and the production, supply and distribution of 'foodstuffs' and the only question that would arise is one of repugnancy dealt with in Art. 254 of the Constitution. The executive power of the State being co-extensive with its legislative power under Entry 33, List III, it relates to all matters covered by the subject 'foodstuffs', trade and commerce in, and the production, supply and distribution thereof. This is, of course, subject to the limitation contained in Proviso to Art. 162 which 106 directs that in any matter with respect to which the legislature of a State and Parliament have power to make laws, the executive power of the State shall be subject to, and limited by, the executive power expressly conferred by the Constitution or by any law made by Parliament upon the Union or authorities thereof."
30. Notably, no enactment has been brought to our notice to even remotely suggest that the constitution of the Board by the State Government in exercise of its executive powers was repugnant to any express provision of law made by the Parliament or by the State Legislature. The fact that the Act of 2007 (I) envisages establishment of the Board does not mean that the constitution of the existing Board is repugnant to the provisions of the said Act. It is a different matter that the State ought to have established the Board under the Act of 2007 (I), soon after coming into force of that Act. However, from the office notings in the original office record relied by the counsel for the Board, it is noticed that the matter has been examined at different levels in the State Government and the State is actively considering amendment of Section 4 of the Act, as, in its opinion, inclusion of large number of persons as members of the Board would make the working of the Board unwieldy and nonconducive to efficient and effective dispensation.
31. Be that as it may, the primary obligation to conduct pre- admission professional examinations for ensuring free and fair admission process, is, undoubtedly, that of the State Government. This examination is not held under any of the existing Legislation such as the Universities Act 107 or any Central Legislation. That responsibility has been vested in the existing Board by the State, by constituting 'Professional Courses Examination Board', vide public Notification dated 22nd January, 2004. The examination conducted by the existing Board is also not governed by the stipulations in the Act of 1937, which, after the amendment of 1984, intends to regulate the recognized examinations by making provisions for prevention of leakage of questions set and for penal action for adoption of unfair means at such examinations and for certain matters connected therewith.
32. The Act of 1937 was enacted to provide for the prevention of leakage of questions set at recognized examinations and to provide for actions for adoption of unfair means at such examinations and for matters connected therewith. The preamble of the Act mentions that it had become expedient to enact the said Act dealing with the matters referred thereto. It was enacted with the previous sanction of the Governor General as required by sub-section (3) of Section 80-A of the Government of India Act. The term "recognized examination" is found in Section 2 of the said Act. Clause
(b) thereof reads thus:
"[(2) It extends to and shall be in force in the whole of Madhya Pradesh.] [2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, -
(a) xxx xxx xxx
(b) "recognised examination" means any of the examinations enumerated in the Schedule and includes an examination held under the authority of 108 any Government or by any body constituted under any enactment;"
It may be useful to refer to the expression "unfair means" found in clause (c) of sub-section (2) of the Act, which reads thus:
"(c) "unfair means" in relation to any recognised examination, means taking or giving or attempting to take or give any help other than one permissible, if any, under the rules applicable thereto from any material, written recorded or printed or from any person in any from whatsoever."
Section 3 of the Act stipulates restriction on copies of question paper and offer of information. Section 3-A, which was introduced by way of amendment vide M.P. Act No.20 of 1966, provides for prevention of leakage by persons entrusted with examination work. By the same amendment, Section 3-B was introduced stipulating restriction on fake papers at the recognized examination. Section 3-C to 3-E came to be introduced in the said Act by M.P. Act No.7 of 1984, in the said Act. Section 3-C provides for prohibition of loitering etc. near examination centre. Section 3-D provides for prohibition of use of unfair means at recognized examinations and Section 3-E stipulates that any person indulging in the acts specified therein shall be guilty of an offence of criminal intimidation in relation to recognized examination. Section 3-C to Section 3-E of the said Act reads thus:
"3-C. No person save where he is permitted by virtue of his duties so to do or where he is authorised by an officer not below the rank of a Centre Superintendent, shall, during the hours when a recognised examination is conducted at any examination centre and two hours preceding the 109 commencement of such examination on any date or dates on which such examination is conducted, commit any of the following acts within the premises of the examination centre or any public or private place within a distance of one hundred yards of the examination centre :-
(a) loiter;
(b) distribute or cause to be distributed or otherwise publicise or clause to be publicised any paper or any other matter relating to the examination;
(c) indulge in such other activity as is likely to be prejudicial to the conduct of examination or is likely to affect the secrecy thereof:
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply in respect of bona-fide activities of examinees appearing at the examination which is conducted at such examination centre.
3-D. (1) No person shall adopt or take recourse to unfair means at any recognised examination. (2) No person shall aid, abet or conspire in the use of unfair means at any recognised examination.
3-E. Whoever being an examinee, within the premises of an examination centre, by words or by gesture or by use of any weapon or an object which if used as a weapon of attack is likely to cause injury to any human being, criminally intimidates an officer in charge of an examination centre, by whatever name called, or any invigilator or any member of staff assisting such officer-in-charge in the conduct of any recognised examination or whoever in the like manner criminally intimidates any person otherwise concerned with the conduct of examination as paper setter or in any other capacity whatsoever shall be guilty of an offence of criminal intimidation in relation to recognised examination."
Section 4 of the same Act provides for penalty for contravention of Sections 3-A, 3-B, 3-C, 3-D or for commission of offence of criminal intimidation under Section 3-E. Section 5 stipulates that conviction of any person will be 110 treated as an act of moral turpitude disqualifying him for service or employment under the State. Section 6 provides that the offence under the said Act shall be tried summarily by any judicial magistrate of the first class specially empowered in that behalf by the State Government and the provision of section 262 to 275 (both inclusive) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, shall, as for as may be, apply to such trial. Section 7 provides for power of the State Government to amend schedule appended to the Act. The schedule to the Act is in relation to the examinations treated as recognized examinations conducted by specified Authorities. The said Schedule reads thus:
"THE SCHEDULE (See Section 2)
1. High School and Intermediate Examination of the Mahakoshal, Madhya Bharat and Ajmer Boards of Secondary Education.
2. A University Examination.
3. Cambridge Examination conducted by the Cambridge University Syndicate.
4. Short-hand and Type-writing Examination
5. Vernacular Middle Examinations.
6. Normal School Certificate Examination.
7. National Cadet Corps And Auxiliary Cadet Corps Examination.
8. Industrial Schools Test Trade Course Certificate Examination.
9. Physical Training Certificate Examination.
10. Examination conducted by the Prayag Mahila Vidyalaya or Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag.
11. Examinations conducted by the Registrar of Departmental Examinations, Education Department."111
Indeed, the examination conducted by the existing Board of pre-admission to professional courses is not part of the abovenoted Schedule.
33. Suffice it to hold that the existing Board has been legitimately constituted by the State Government vide notification dated 22nd January, 2004 - with some changes in the membership by subsequent orders/ notifications. The existing Board must continue to function in terms of those State Government orders/notifications until establishment of the new Board upon issuance of notification under Section 3(1) of the Act of 2007(I). Only upon issuance of that notification the existing Board would merge in the newly established Board and cease to exist. Until then, the existing Board is obliged to function and discharge the obligation of the State Government of conducting free and fair pre-admission examination for admission to professional courses and deal with all matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. No other Authority can discharge those functions.
34. As noted earlier, the present Board is not constituted under any enactment, but, in exercise of executive powers of the State under Article 162 of the Constitution. It is not an autonomous body. It has the status of being one of the wing of Government Department under the Ministry of Technical Education Department or Department of Manpower Planning, as the case may be.
35. The learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of 112 Professional Examination Board vs. Bhopal Municipal Corporation51, while considering the issue of imposition of property tax dealt with the question as to whether the existing Board is a part of the State. In paragraphs 6 and 7 of its decision the Court observed thus:
"6. After considering the rival contentions of both the sides this Court is of the opinion that the Board is a part of the State Government. It is a limb, agency, projection, wing or extended arm of the State. It is not separate from the body and soul of the State. It is well known how the corporate personalities come into existence whether as a 'corporation sole' or a 'corporation aggregate'. The well recognised modes of bringing into existence the Public Corporations are "by or under a statute". These are created by Acts of Parliament or State Legislatures. These are formed as Government Companies under the Companies Act, 1956 or Societies under the Societies Registration Act or even Co-operative Societies under the Co-operative Societies Act. Thus the veil of incorporation is woven around such Public Corporations and that makes them separate and distinct legal entities. It is through the act of 'incorporation' by or under a statute that a separate juridical person is born and it is endowed with a corporate personality. For example Reserve Bank of India, Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Damodar Valley Corporation, Life Insurance Corporation, Road Transport Corporations and Food Corporation of India have been formed by Acts of Parliament. Similar Corporations have been created by the Acts of State Legislature, e.g., Board of Secondary Education. The examples of Government Companies are State Trading Corporation and Hindustan Shipyard Limited. The Societies are formed under the Societies Registration Act, e.g.y Council of Scientific and Industrial Research.
7. Not a single instance could be pointed where a distinct corporate personality has been conferred on a body by an executive order of the Government. The Union or the State in exercise of their executive power under Articles 73 and 162 of the Constitution 51 (2003) 4 MPHT 95 113 can form the Boards or Bodies for carrying on the Governmental or public functions but these would only be extended arms or wings of the Government and would not be clothed with separate 'corporate shell' or legal entities. Such Boards or Bodies or by whatever name they are called would continue to be a part of the Government or its Department. The Telecommunication Department is the latest example. It was working as a Department of the Central Government but now it has been corporatised by forming 'Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited'. A posterior approach in this respect demonstrates that it could not have been done by just issuing an executive order. That is why the need arises for creating the corporate bodies "by or under a statute" and not through an executive fiat. Creation of these bodies other than through an act of incorporation would continue to keep them within the fold of the Government."
(emphasis supplied) We approve of this view.
36. In the case of State of Sikkim vs. Dorjee Tshering Bhutia and others52, the Sikkim Government by notification decided to make special recruitment to the service on the basis of written examination-cum-viva voce test. The notification mentioned 'exigency of service' as a ground for holding the special recruitment. That notification was challenged before the High Court which quashed the same. In this case, the Public Service Commission could not be made functional and was not constituted, as is the position in the present case. The Court found that there were justifiable reasons for delay in constituting the Commission. In that backdrop, the Court examined the validity of the notification issued by the State Government. The stand of the State Government was that the concerned 52 (1991) 4 SCC 243 114 Rules being inoperative and non-availability of Public Service Commission, the State Government was within its executive power to issue notification and proceed in the matter on that basis. While examining this stand, the Apex Court in Paragraph 14, 15 & 16 observed as thus:
"14. The executive power of the State under Article 162 of the Constitution of India extends to the matters with respect to which the legislature of the State has power to make laws. The Government business is conducted under Article 166(3) of the Constitution in accordance with the Rules of Business made by the Governor. Under the said Rules the Government business is divided amongst the ministers and specific functions are allocated to different ministries. Each ministry can, therefore, issue orders or notifications in respect of the functions which have been allocated to it under the Rules of Business.
15. The executive power of the State cannot be exercised in the field which is already occupied by the laws made by the legislature. It is settled law that any order, instruction, direction or notification issued in exercise of the executive power of the State which is contrary to any statutory provisions, is without jurisdiction and is a nullity. But in this case we are faced with a peculiar situation. The Rules, though enforced, remained unworkable for about five years. The Public Service Commission, which was the authority to implement the Rules, was not in existence during the said period. There is nothing on the record to show as to why the Public Service Commission was not constituted during all those five years. In the absence of any material to the contrary we assume that there were justifiable reasons for the delay in constituting the Commission. The executive power of the State being divided amongst various functionaries under Article 166(3) of the Constitution of India there is possibility of lack of co-ordination amongst various limbs of the Government working within their respective spheres of allocation. The object of regulating the recruitment and conditions of service by statutory provisions is to rule out arbitrariness, provide consistency and crystallise the 115 rights of employees concerned. The statutory provisions which are unworkable and inoperative cannot achieve these objectives. Such provisions are non-est till made operational. It is the operative statutory provisions which have the effect of ousting executive power of the State from the same field. When in a peculiar situation, as in the present ease, the statutory provisions could not be operated there was no bar for the State Government to act in exercise of its executive power. The impugned notification to hold special selection was issued almost four years after the enforcement of the Rules. It was done to remove stagnation and to afford an opportunity to the eligible persons to enter the service. In our view the State Government was justified in issuing the impugned notification in exercise of its executive power and the High Court fell into error in quashing the same.
16. The fact that the State Government purported to act under Rule 4(3) of the Rules in issuing the impugned notification is of no consequence. When the source of power can be validly traced then the State action in the exercise of such power cannot be struck down on the ground that it was labelled under a different provision."
(emphasis supplied)
37. A priori, the existing Board could exercise all powers as could be exercised by the State Government in discharging its obligation to conduct free and fair pre-admission examination to professional courses. That would encompass all matters connected with the examination conducted by it or incidental thereto. No other Authority can deal with these matters.
38. The next question is: even though the existence of the present Board may be traced to exercise of executive powers of the State Government, does it have the authority to enquire into matters pertaining to 116 examination conducted by it after declaration of results? In other words, does the Board become functus officio by declaration of results of the examination conducted by it?
39. The Notification, under which the present Board has been constituted, does not prescribe any procedure or limit the powers of the Board. Intrinsically, it posits complete authority in the Board to conduct examinations in professional courses and deal with all matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. No executive instructions have been issued by the State Government to limit the powers of the present Board in respect of matters concerning the conduct of pre-admission examinations in professional courses. Further, no express Regulation, instructions or practice directions have been issued by the existing Board, nor brought to our notice, which limits the authority of the said Board to enquire into matters connected with the examinations conducted by it after declaration of results. In absence of any express executive instructions much less legislation or enactment, Regulation or Rule having the force of law, limiting the existing Board of its authority to enquire into matters concerning the examinations conducted by it only till the declaration of results and not thereafter, the argument under consideration cannot be countenanced. Thus, the argument of the petitioners that the Board became functus officio after declaration of results and ceased to have authority to deal with matters connected with the examination conducted by it, will have to be negatived. As a matter of fact the petitioners are resting their claim of admission to the professional 117 courses on the basis of their performance in the examination conducted by this very Board.
40. Indisputably, the obligation to conduct free and fair pre- admission professional examinations is fully vested in the State Government and which has been entrusted to the existing Board. That power not only encompasses authority to conduct the examination but also enquire into all matters concerning therewith or incidental thereto. That authority does not cease with the declaration of results of such examination. Any other view would not only be a pedantic view but also against public policy. For, that may result in perpetrating injustice caused to the better deserving and meritorious candidates, but, also perpetrating fraud played on the public examination process. In Law, any act of fraud vitiates the entire action. The product of fraud must be visited with the finding that it is non-est in the eyes of Law and viewed seriously. That issue can be considered even in collateral proceedings. In the case of Ram Preeti Yadav (supra) the Apex Court observed that once fraud is proved it will deprive the persons of all advantages or benefits obtained thereby and further delay in detection or in taking action so as to invoke argument of equity would be completely misplaced. The Court also restated the legal position that in the case of mass copying, principles of natural justice need not be strictly complied with. In that case the appellant had taken employment as a teacher on the basis of results in B.A. examination as well as M.A. examination. Result of the concerned examination was cancelled on 16th October, 1996, though the 118 examination was conducted in the year 1984. Notwithstanding this fact, the Court opined that since the result of the examination was founded on commission of fraud that would deprive the appellant of all advantages or benefits obtained thereby.
41. Suffice it to observe that a candidate who indulges in unfair and fraudulent means during the "public examination" cannot be allowed to reap benefit of his own wrong merely because of the fortuitous situation of that fraud has been unravelled by the concerned Authority after declaration of result of the examination or for that matter inaction of the officials of the Board in acting with dispatch. Since the authority of the present Board is to conduct examinations and deal with all matters connected therewith and incidental thereto, it pre-supposes that it is only the Board, being an extended wing of the State, competent to enquire into the question regarding unfair and fraudulent means adopted during the examinations conducted by it - be it before declaration of results or, for that matter, after declaration of results. The fact that the candidate has already taken admission in some professional course on the basis of those results cannot be the basis to hold that the Board has become functus officio or it has ceased to have authority to pronounce on the matters connected with the examination conducted by it and, in particular, regarding unfair and fraudulent means adopted thereat, by an individual candidate or large number of candidates, as the case may be.
42. Let us now test the argument of the petitioners that the provisions of the Act of 2007 (I) limits the power of the Board. In the first 119 place, although the said Act has come into force, on account of non- establishment of the Board by issuance of Notification under Section 3(1) of the Act of 2007 (I), the provisions contained in that Act regarding functions and duties of the Board will be of no avail. That are not applicable to the existing Board. In any case, there is no "express provision" in the Act of 2007 (I) to limit the power of the Board to enquire into allegations of commission of unfair means during the examination only till declaration of results of the examination. Even for that reason, reliance on the provisions of the Act of 2007 (I) will be of no avail to the petitioners. We make it clear that we may not be understood to have interpretated any provision of the Act of 2007 (I). For, in our view, the provisions in the Act of 2007 (I) are inapplicable to the matter on hand. A priori, it is unfathomable to countenance the argument of the petitioners that the existing Board has had no authority to initiate enquiry after declaration of examination result.
43. The next question is: whether the impugned orders passed by the Director of the existing Board are without any authority? The State Government, as aforesaid, constituted the present Board to be headed by the Chairperson and other members. The Chairperson, obviously is the Administrative Head of the Board. No doubt, the impugned orders are issued under the signature of the Director of the Board. However, the relevant official notings in the original official files as produced by the respondents during the hearing, clearly indicate that initially the Director prepared the proposal and placed it before the Chairperson for his approval. 120 The Chairperson, in turn, on both the occasions not only approved the proposal, as was placed before him by the office but also directed the Director to take follow-up action. Thus understood, the impugned orders though issued under the signature of the Director are in furtherance of the final decision of the Chairperson. As the Chairperson is the Administrative Head of the existing Board, he occupies a pivotal position and carries with him implied powers to deal with all matters connected with and incidental to the examinations conducted by the Board. In the case of Sahiti (supra) the Apex Court while considering the provisions of the relevant enactment held that, the Vice Chancellor had pivotal position as the Principal Executive Officer and carried with him certain implied powers. The argument that there was no specific provision enabling the Vice Chancellor to order re- evaluation of the answer-scripts was rejected. It is further observed that the Court should consider whether the decision of the educational Authority is arbitrary, unreasonable, mala fide and whether the decision contravenes any statutory or binding Rules or Ordinance and in doing so the Court should show due regard to the opinion expressed by the Authority.
44. In the present case, from the office notings in the official record as produced, it is also evident that by an office order dated 17th March, 1997, the scope of work of the officials was delineated. The said order reads, thus:-
^^dzekad O;kie@ys[kk@900@97 Hkksiky] fnukad 17 ekpZ 1997 vkns'k foRrh; vkSj iz'kkldh; Lohd`fr fn;s tkus ds fy, 'kklu us ^^cqd vkQ Qk;usfUl;y ikolZ&1995^^ esa lHkh foHkkxksa ds fy, vf/kdkj 121 fn;s gaSA O;kie esa Hkh lk/kkj.kr% 'kkldh; fu;eksa ds vuqlkkj gh dk;Z fd;k tkrk gS vkSj mijksDr vf/kdkj ;gak Hkh yxHkx gekjs inukeksa dks ns[krs gq, mlh Lrj ij ykxw gksuk mi;qDr gS] tSlk fd 'kklu ds foHkkxksa ds fy, fd;k x;k gSA blh Hkkouk dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, e.My dh 46 cha cSBd fnukad 04-03-97 ds ,tsUMk dzekad&5 esa fy;s x;s fu.kZ;kuqlkj iz'kkldh; rFkk foRrh; vf/kdkjksa dk izR;k;kstu djus dh n`f"V ls 'kklu ls vU; foHkkxksa esa izpfyr izFkk ds vuqlkj] O;kie ds fuEukuqlkj vf/kdkfj;ksa dks muds uke ds le{k n'kkZ;s vuqlkj in dh 'kfDr;kW izR;k;ksftr dh tkrh gSa%&
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- l0dza0 uke vf/kdkjh ftl Lrj dh 'kfDr;ka nh xbZ mldk fooj.k
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1- v/;{k iz'kkldh; foHkkx
2- ofj"B fu;a=d foHkkxk/;{k
3- la;qDr fu;a=d {ks=h;@laHkkxh; izeq[k
4- mi fu;a=d ¼LFkk½ dk;kZy; izeq[k
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2@ ijh{kk laca/kh xksiuh; izdkj ds dk;Z ds fy, fu;a=d dks leLr vf/kdkj jgsaxsA blds fy, fu;a=d }kjk v/;{k ls vuqeksnu izkIr fd;k tkdj vkxkeh dk;Zokgh dh tk;sxhA 3@ dk;kZy; izeq[k dks r`rh; ,oa prqFkZ Js.kh ds lHkh deZpkfj;ksa ds vodk'k izdj.k] okf"kZd osruo`f}] R;kSgkj vfxze] vukt vfxze vkfn Lohd`r djus ds vf/kdkj gksaxs] ysfdu r`rh; ,oa prqFkZ Js.kh ds inksa ij fu;qfDr;ka foHkkxk/;{k ds vuqeksnu i'pkr~ dh tk ldsaxhA 4@ foHkkxk/;{k dks vf/kdkjh Lrj ds lHkh izdj.kksa ds fujkdj.k ds vf/kdkj jgsaxs] ysfdu vf/kdkjh Lrj ij fu;qfDr;ka@inksUufr vkfn v/;{k ds vuqeksnu ds ckn dh tk ldsaxhA 5@ foHkkx/;{k dks ufLr;ka fMohtuy gsM ds ek/;e ls izLrqr dh tk;saxhA 6@ ijh{kk laca/kh dk;ksZ esa va'kdkyhu j[ks tkus okys okfyfUV;j dk p;u fu;a=d ds lq>kokuqlkj v/;{k ds vuqeksnu mijkUr fd;k tk ldsxkA blds i'pkr~ D;ksafd ;s ikVZ& VkbZe ,EIykbZ gSa] vU; O;oLFkk LFkkiuk 'kk[kk djsxhA 7@ ufLr;ksa ij iz'kkldh; Lohd`fr fy;s tkus ds ckn foRrh; Lohd`fr gsrq izdj.k esa ys[kk ''kk[kk dk er izkIr dj l{ke Lrj dh Lohd`fr fey tkus ij] Hkqxrku ds fy, uLrh ys[kk 'kk[kk dks Hksth tk;sxh vkSj ys[kk 'kk[kk psd rS;kj dj la;qDr fu;a=d ¼ys[kk½ ls gLrk{kj djokdj dk;kZy; izeq[k ;k foHkkxk/;{k ¼tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks½ dks psd gLrk{kj gsrq HkstsxhA la;qDr fu;a=d ¼ys[kk½ dh vuqifLFkfr esa ys[kk 'kk[kk ds izfrfuf/k ds :i esa ys[kk vf/kdkjh gLrk{kj djsaxsA psd ges'kk nks vf/kdkfj;ksa ds la;qDr gLrk{kjksa ls gh tkjh fd;k tk;sxkA 8@ fdrus psd dkVs x;s vkSj fdrus izdj.k yafcr gSa] bldh tkudkjh izR;sd lIrkg ys[kk 'kk[kk foHkkxk/;{k ,oa v/;{k dks izLrqr djsxh] rkfd iz'kkldh; fu;a=.k cuk jgsA 9@ xksiuh; Hkqxrku ds psdksa] ij la;qDr fu;a=d ¼ys[kk½ ,oa fu;a=d }kjk gLrk{kj fd;s tk ldsaxsA 122 10@ la;qDr fu;a=d ¼ys[kk½ dks vkgj.k ,oa laforj.k vf/kdkjh dk mRrjnkf;Ro jgsxkA os v/;{k dh vuqefr ls dqN dk;Z ys[kkf/kdkjh dks izR;k;ksftr dj ldsaxsA 11@ Lohd`fr izkIr gksus ds ckn uLrh ys[kk 'kk[kk esa izkIr gksus ij Hkqxrku ,d lIrkg esa gks tkuk vko';d gSA 12@ mDr O;oLFkk ds ykxw gksus ij fu;a=d flQZ ijh{kk dk;Z ns[ksaxs vkSj ofj"B fu;a=d }kjk iz'kkldh; dk;Z ns[ks tk;saxsA ;s vkns'k rRdky izHkko ls ykxw gksaxsA ¼,p0th0 vksHkjk;½ v/;{k^^ From this arrangement, it is obvious that the Chairperson being the Administrative Head was overall incharge of all the affairs of the Board and was, thus, obliged to ensure that free and fair examinations are conducted by the Board and in the process, could take final decision on all matters connected therewith. No doubt in Clause 12 of the aforesaid order dated 17th March, 1997 it is mentioned that on coming into force of the abovesaid arrangement, the Controller will be incharge of the conduct of the examination and the Senior Controller will be incharge of administrative functions. That would not whittle down the overarching powers of the Chairperson to take final decision in relation to matters connected with the pre-admission professional courses examination to be conducted by the Board. The impugned decisions, in substance, declare that the concerned candidates indulged in organised unfair means during the subject examination thereby rendered themselves ineligible and for which reason their examination results have been cancelled. Suffice it to observe that the final decision has been taken at the highest level by the Chairperson and merely articulated in the form of impugned orders under the signature of the 123 Director. We, therefore, conclude that there is nothing wrong if the impugned orders are issued under the signature of the Director of the Board.
That would not render the impugned orders invalid.
45. Relying on the fact that one PIL filed against the respondents challenging the constitution of the existing Board was disposed of on the basis of statement made by the respondents to the Court that the Act of 2007 (I) has come into force, it was submitted that, however, till date requisite notification under Section 3 of that Act to establish the statutory Board has not been issued. For that reason, all the actions of the existing Board will have to be considered as non-est as it could not function any more thereafter. Further, the actions of the existing Board can be tested only on the basis of the provisions of the Act of 2007 (I). We have already dealt with the question about the legality of the Board. The fact that statement was made before the Court which was the basis for disposal of PIL challenging the constitution of the existing Board does not result in automatic dissolution of the existing Board. On the other hand, Section 25 of the Act of 2007 (I) itself expressly provides that the existing Board would merge in the statutory Board only upon issuance of notification under Section 3 to establish the statutory Board. The fact that such notification has not been issued does not mean that the existing Board would cease to exist. It is the creature of an executive order of the State Government, issued in exercise of its expansive executive powers. The Board is one of the wing of the State Government under the Department of the Ministry of Technical Education 124 Department or Department of Manpower Planning. For the same reason the argument under consideration deserves to be rejected.
46. The next question that arises for our consideration is: whether the decision making process, in the fact situation of the present case, is just and reasonable? Indeed, in absence of any Regulations or executive instructions the Authority is expected to act reasonably [see Full Bench decision of this Court in Sudhir Kumar Mishra (supra)].
47. In the case of Feyaz Ahmed Malik (supra) the Apex Court restated the consistent view on the approach to be adopted qua the decision of the expert body such as Universities/Boards. In paragraphs 18 to 20, the Court observed thus:
"18. While judging the authority or otherwise all steps taken by authorities of the Board to take action against candidates taking resort to mass malpractice it should be borne in mind that the Board is entrusted with the duty of maintaining higher standards of education and proper conduct of examinations. It is an expert body consisting of persons coming from different walks of life who are engaged in or interested in the field of education and have wide experience. The decision of such an expert body should be given due weightage by courts. This Court in the case of Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhash Chandra Sinha, (1970) 1 SCC 648 observed: (SCC pp. 652-53, para 14) "The universities are responsible for their standards and the conduct of examinations. The essence of the examinations is that the worth of every person is appraised without any assistance from an outside source. If at a centre the whole body of students receive assistance and manage to secure success in the neighbourhood of 100% when others at other centres are successful only at an 125 average of 50%, it is obvious that the University or the Board must do something in the matter. It cannot hold a detailed quasi- judicial inquiry with a right to its alumni to plead and lead evidence etc. before the results are withheld or the examinations cancelled. If there is sufficient material on which it can be demonstrated that the university was right in its conclusion that the examinations ought to be cancelled then academic standards require that the university's appreciation of the problem must be respected. It would not do for the Court to say that you should have examined all the candidates or even their representatives with a view to ascertaining whether they had received assistance or not. To do this would encourage indiscipline if not also perjury."
19. The Allahabad High Court in Rajiv Ratna Shukla v.
University of Allahabad, AIR 1987 All 208, made the following observations:
"Even otherwise the statute and ordinances provide for an authority known as Examination Committee to look into and decide such matter. As the Examination Committee after looking into the report was satisfied that the examinations were not conducted fairly it would be unfair for this Court to interfere in writ jurisdiction. It need not be mentioned that a finding recorded by a tribunal, administrative or quasi-judicial body, is a finding of fact if it is based on consideration of evidence howsoever meagre and insufficient it may be. The report of the Flying Squad coupled with the statement of Centre Superintendent was available with the Examination Committees. Even if another committee or this Court on the same material could have come to a different conclusion it could not furnish ground for interference. This Court cannot substitute its opinion for the opinion of committee. It could quash the order only if it finds that it was based on no material or the 126 Committee ignored some material which if considered could have resulted in a different conclusion. Since the decision of the Examination Committee does not suffer from any such error it is difficult to grant relief to petitioners.
We are not unconscious or oblivious of grave injustice which might be done to some of the students, maybe even majority, because of refusal by this Court to interfere but we cannot ignore the deterioration in the standard of discipline of academic institutions. How this should be regulated or controlled should best be left to the discretion of those who are entrusted with this responsibility. If this Court starts substituting its own opinion in place of opinion expressed by authorities it shall result in chaos. It is well known that due to conduct of others even innocent persons suffer but the sufferings of few has to be tolerated in the larger interest of the society. As is usual in such matters it is only the few who are responsible but to protect the bona fide or the genuine if a decision is given which erodes the discipline and vitiates the atmosphere of the academic institutions then it is better to restrain and refuse.
* * * As regards demands for inquiry and violation of principle of natural justice, suffice it to say, that on academic disciplinary proceedings exception is made where proceedings are substantially fair or it is impossible to hold inquiry. Cases of mass copying resulting in cancellation of the examination fall in this exception. By its very nature no inquiry could have been made. Decision in Madhulika Mathur case (1984 All LJ 618) (FB) has absolutely no relevance. Concept of reasonable opportunity assumes primacy where penal action is proposed to individual. Direction to hold re-examination cannot be put in that category. It was not like what had happened 127 in Gorakhpur University where examination was not treated as ineffective or vitiated. Ratio of that decision is that what was invalid could not be treated as valid for punishment without affording opportunity."
20. Coming to the case on hand, as noted earlier, the High Court has quashed the notification issued by the Board as ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution and ultra vires the Act. Further the High Court has discussed at length how the Board should proceed in the matter and has issued directions regarding the principles to be followed and matters to be borne in mind by the Board while framing Rules and has even issued directions as to what some of the provisions of the Rules should be. From the discussions in the impugned judgment it is clear that the High Court has taken upon itself the task of finding out a scheme to tackle the problem of mass malpractice in examination. In our considered view the approach of the High Court in the matter is erroneous and this has vitiated the judgment. In matters concerning campus discipline of educational institutions and conduct of examinations the duty is primarily vested in the authorities in charge of the institutions. In such matters the court should not try to substitute its own views in place of the authorities concerned nor thrust its views on them. That is not to say that the court cannot at all interfere with the decisions of the authorities in such matters. The court has undoubtedly the power to intervene to correct any error in complying with the provisions of the rules, regulations or notifications and to remedy any manifest injustice being perpetrated on the candidates. In judging the validity a notification containing provisions regarding steps to be taken when a report of mass- malpractice is received it is to be kept in mind whether the provisions contained in the notification are relevant for achieving the purpose for which the notification is issued and if it is found that the notification is relevant for and has a nexus with the purpose to be achieved then the notification cannot be said to be arbitrary and discriminatory. The High Court has failed to keep this principle in view while considering the validity of the notification in question. A notification cannot be struck down as discriminatory merely because in implementing the same injustice is likely to be 128 suffered by some candidates. The impugned judgment does not show that the decision to strike down the two notifications is based on grounds sound in law and justified on facts. It is our considered view that the judgment of the High Court is unsustainable and has to be quashed."
(emphasis supplied)
48. Keeping in mind the principle expounded in the abovesaid decision, we may now analyse the process adopted by the existing Board to find out whether the same is just and reasonable. From the office notings in the original files it is seen that the Board received communication from the Crime Branch in connection with the FIR registered after arrest of 20 suspects, who were to appear in the examination to be conducted by the Board on 7th July, 2013 and having indulged in unfair means during the said examination. The Crime Branch demanded certain information. In that context, the Director eventually prepared proposal on 30th August, 2013 for constituting Computer Experts Committee to find out the logic behind allocation of roll numbers to the concerned candidate, as demanded by the Crime Branch. The proposal was considered by the Chairperson on 5th September, 2013, who accorded approval thereto. The office notings in the original file reads thus:-
"i`"B dzekad uLrh dzekad O;kie@5&i&1@ fo"k;% e.My esa miyC/k O;ofLFkr MsVk ds ykftd ds lac/k esaA d`Ik;k vfrfjDr iqfyl egkfuns'kd ,l0Vh0,Q0 e0iz0 Hkksiky ds i= dzekad v-e-fu-@,l-Vh-,Q-@eq[;k-0@2013 ¼D-184½ fnukad 29- 8-2013 dk voyksdu djuk pkgsaA vfrfjDr iqfyl egkfuns'kd] ,l0Vh0,Q0 e0iz0] Hkksiky ds mij mYysf[kr i= esa ftyk vijk/k 'kk[kk bUnkSj }kjk e.My dks izsf"kr 129 i= dzekad fujh@vi@bZ@539@1140@13 fnukad 13-08-2013 ,oa i= dzekad vi0@bZ@1169@13 fnukad 17-08-2013 dk lanHkZ nsrs }kjk okLrfod ykftd vuqlkj tkudkjh pkgh xbZ gSA e.My }kjk iwoZ esa ftyk vijk/k 'kk[kk] bUnkSj dks i= dzekad 4495 fnukad 12-7-2013 }kjk izsf"kr ykftd dh tkudkjh vkjksihx.kksa }kjk dEI;wVj 'kk[kk izHkkjh dh gSfl;r ls rS;kj dj Hksth xbZ FkhA ;g mfpr gksxk fd e.My esa miyC/k MkVk ls okLrfod ykftd dk ijh{k.k ,oa rduhdh :i ls tkWp gsrq rduhdh lfefr dk xBu fd;k tkuk izLrkfor gSA rduhdh lfefr esa 'kgj ds rduhdh laLFkkuksa ;Fkk&NITTTR, MANIT, RGPV, rduhdh f'k{kk ls rduhdh f'k{kk esa miyC/k fo'ks"kK ,oa IT Deptt. ls dEI;wVj fo'ks"kKksa ds ,d&,d uke miyC/k djokus gsrq fy[kk tkuk mfpr gksxkA mDr fo'ks"kKksa dks dsUnzh; i;Zos{kd dks fn;s tkus okyk ekuns; nsuk mfpr gksxkA d`i;k mijksDr izLrko dk vuqeksnu iznku djuk pkgsaA gLrk-
Chairman ¼tkWu fdaXlyh½
Lakpkyd
30-08-2013
v/;{k Director
rduhdh fo'ks"kK miyC/k djokus gsrq NITTTR, MANIT, RGPV, IT Deptt. ,oa rduhdh f'k{kk foHkkx dks i= Hksts x;s] fdUrq NITTTR ,oa MANIT }kjk rduhdh fo'ks"kK miyC/k djokus esa vleFkZrk O;Dr dh xbZ gSA vr% fdzLi laLFkku dks rduhdh fo'ks"kK miyC/k djokus gsrq i= fy[kk x;k gSA d`i;k voxr gksuk pkgsaA gLrk-
¼tkWu fdaXlyh½ lapkyd 05-08-2013 v/;{k Director gLrk-@06-09-13** Pursuant to the said decision, a six members Computer Experts Committee was constituted to give its opinion.
49. The said Computer Experts Committee met on 7th September, 2013 and after analysing the computer data available with the Board, submitted their opinion in the form of Minutes dated 7th September, 2013, which has been reproduced in its entirety in paragraph 4(viii) of this judgment. The second meeting of the Computer Experts Committee was held on 30th September, 2013, which once again analysed the entire matter in the light of new information and submitted its opinion in the form of 130 Minutes dated 30th September, 2013, which has also been reproduced in paragraph 4(xii) of this judgment. On conjoint reading of the Minutes of the two meetings held by the Computer Experts Committee, the process adopted by the Experts Committee to unravel the logic of allocation of roll numbers by manipulating the specified formula of randomisation, can be discerned. The Computer Experts Committee analysed the electronic record/data after decryption thereof. The process so adopted by the Computer Experts Committee is not the subject matter of challenge nor the exercise undertaken by the Computer Experts Committee to collate the mismatch roll numbers from the computer data, is questionable and can be amenable to judicial review. This argument of the respondent Board was buttressed on the basis of the provisions contained in the Information Technology Act, 2000 providing for authentication of electronic record.
50. One set of petitioners went to the extent of contending that the Board had no authority to constitute such Committee. This extreme stand taken by those petitioners, however, was not supported by the other set of petitioners represented by Shri Rajendra Tiwari, Senior Counsel. In our opinion, it is preposterous to hold that the Board which is empowered to take action in connection with the unfair means adopted by the candidates in the examination conducted by it, can have no power to inquire into the said episode by constituting Experts Committee to aid and assist it in the said enquiry in respect of technical matters concerning the Computer operations. We, therefore, reject that contention. 131
51. It was then contended that in the first Computer Experts Committee meeting, the mismatch was as high as 30195, as against the total 40086 applications/candidates. Whereas, in the second meeting the same dropped down to only 876 mismatch cases. Even this submission will have to be stated to be rejected. Inasmuch as, from the Minutes of the first meeting, the process adopted by the Committee to identify the mismatch cases has been delineated. On reconsideration of the available material, in the second meeting, the Committee opined that the mismatch cases were only 876. The process adopted by the Committee has been noted by the Committee in the concerned Minutes. It is not for the Court to examine the correctness of the opinion formed by the Experts Committee. The judicial review can be only with regard to the decision making process. In our opinion, there is nothing contrary to indicate that the process adopted by the Experts Committee was impermissible and absurd in any manner.
52. The other contention pressed into service to question the opinion recorded by the Computer Experts Committee was that the second meeting held on 30th September, 2013 was hastened and was attended only by five members of the said Committee. The meeting was hastened to keep the outstation member away from deliberations. Even this argument does not commend to us. There is nothing in the Minutes of the first meeting even to remotely indicate that the process followed for recording opinion was authored by Dr. Samar Upadhyay, who was the outstation member of the Committee being resident of Jabalpur. Nor any material is brought to 132 our notice that Dr. Samar Upadhyay was intentionally kept out as there was possibility of his resisting the opinion formed in the second meeting. We cannot assume malice in fact, merely because the said member did not or could not attend the second meeting of the Experts Committee held on 30th September, 2013. The office record indicates that the second meeting was necessitated to expedite the information sought by the Crime Branch. Since the second meeting of the Computer Experts Committee was convened on 30th September, 2013 at short notice, the same was attended only by five other local members available at Bhopal. Further, it is not as if those five members had no technical knowledge. Even these five members were qualified and possessed technical knowledge regarding Computer operations. They could have, therefore, proceeded with the second meeting without any impediment. The petitioners have, however, relied on the case of Vijay Singh Lamba (supra) of the Apex Court which dealt with the question of fixation of quorum to contend that the second meeting of the Computer Experts Committee was vitiated. This submission will have to be stated to be rejected. For, no document has been brought to our notice mentioning that the quorum of the said meeting was fixed of all the six members. In the decision pressed into service, the Apex Court has held that fixation of quorum is generally left to the Committees themselves to devise its day to day procedure. Hence, this decision will be of no avail to the petitioners, in the fact situation of the present case. As aforesaid, in that second meeting, the matter was fully examined and opinion was given that 133 the mismatch cases were only 876. The reason why there was change of opinion can be culled out from the highlighted portion of Minutes of that meeting. The process adopted for arriving at that conclusion has been adverted to in the Minutes, already reproduced in paragraph 4(xii) of this judgment.
53. It was then contended on behalf of the petitioners that the opinion so given by the Computer Experts Committee was under dictation of the Special Task Force investigating the criminal case. As aforesaid, the Minutes recorded by the Experts Committee are self-eloquent. There is nothing in the Minutes of the said meeting to suggest that figure of 876 mismatch cases has been arrived at in arbitrary manner or only on the basis of the inputs given by the STF. We hold that the said figure has been arrived at independently after reconsideration of the Computer data and including with reference to the answers given by Nitin Mohindra, Ajay Kumar and C.K. Mishra, who were in police custody. The Committee opined that the said information was unclear and incomplete. The Committee, therefore, applied its own process to analyse the logic of giving manipulated roll numbers. It created separate files of candidates city-wise and indexing of files was done on the basis of date of birth, Part-7 to 11 of Transaction ID and C.L. Name (Surname). In the index file, firstly, roll numbers were allotted as per specified record and thereafter roll numbers were allotted on the basis of deviated record. After carrying out this exercise, the Experts Committee found that the data of the roll numbers of all 14 cities was 134 developed by subject Experts. In the roll numbers developed by the subject Experts and the numbers used in PMT 2013, the mismatch shown by the subject Experts was on the basis of 40135 applications/candidates. The mismatch of 876 was unravelled, which was kept in file MIS876.docx. A chart of various probable options of Transaction ID was kept in file Digits_2013_Revised.docx and the programme used by subject Experts was kept in file Rol_GEN.docx. On that material, the city-wise mismatch position has been noted in the Minutes of the second meeting of the Experts Committee totalling to 876 cases. Suffice it to note that no flaw in the process adopted by the Experts Committee has been substantiated by the petitioners.
54. Merely criticising the said process as imaginary and farce of enquiry, cannot be the basis to overlook the said opinion of the Experts Committee. The Experts Committee's opinion was then further considered by the Committee of Controllers. The Committee of Controllers analysed the entire matter in its meeting held on 4th October, 2013 and on 8th October, 2013. The process adopted by the Committee of Controllers can be discerned, inter alia, from the highlighted portion of its examination report dated 8th October, 2013, which is reproduced in paragraph 4(xvi) of this judgment. The opinion of the Committee of Controllers was then considered by the Director and placed along with the proposal before the Chairperson for taking appropriate action against 345 identified candidates allegedly having involved in unfair means during the examination. The Chairperson 135 approved the said proposal and issued direction to the Director to take follow-up action. On the basis of that direction, the Director issued the impugned order on 9th October, 2013 against 345 candidates. Similar process was carried out by the Committee of Controllers in respect of second lot of 70 candidates against whom action was taken vide impugned order dated 6th December, 2013. Even the examination report prepared on the second occasion by the Committee of Controllers concerning 70 candidates has also been reproduced in paragraph 4(xxi) of this judgment. In other words, the impugned orders have been passed under the signature of the Director of the Board after due deliberations and consideration at different levels and including on the basis of opinion of the Computer Experts Committee and the Committee of Controllers. It is not as if decision has been taken by the Board arbitrarily or merely because of the communications received from the Crime Branch or for any other consideration. For forming such opinion, if material received from the Crime Branch was also considered, being relevant, that does not mean that the opinion formed was under the dictation of STF. There is no reason to doubt the justness of the process followed by the Board before issuance of the impugned decisions.
55. The attempt of the petitioners was to persuade the Court to go into the question as to whether the opinion formed by the Computer Experts Committee or for that matter the Committee of Controllers, was proper or some other opinion could have been formed. That cannot be the scope of 136 judicial review. It is not for the Court to sit over the opinion of the Experts Committee as a regular Court of Appeal. It is not the case of the petitioners that the members of the Computer Experts Committee were unqualified or incompetent to be the members of that Committee. If the Board has taken aid of such well-qualified, competent and impartial experts and the final decision is taken keeping in mind the said opinion along with other material, no fault can be found with that approach.
56. Suffice it to observe that it is not a case where the decision has been taken by unauthorised or incompetent persons or, for that matter, a mala fide or arbitrary decision. It has been taken after due deliberations and consideration of relevant material. Even assuming that another view was possible, that cannot be the basis to undo that decision. The fact that initial mismatch figure revealed in the first meeting of the Computer Experts Committee was very high and it was later reduced to only 876 by the Committee of Joint Controllers or that the action was limited to 345 in the first lot and 70 candidates in the second lot, it does not mean that the said decisions are unjust and unreasonable.
57. In the context of the argument of the petitioners that the Board has taken action against selective candidates out of 876 candidates, it has been pointed out that the matter was being examined by the Board in respect of the remaining candidates and lateron we were told that similar action has been taken against other 24 left over candidates. Be that as it may, it is not possible to hold that the process adopted by the Board before 137 arriving at the impugned decisions, is unjust or unreasonable.
58. It has come on record that after the matter was processed at different levels, the proposal was then submitted by the Director to the Chairman for his approval who, in turn, approved the same and issued directions to the Director to take follow-up action. On the basis of those orders, the Director issued the impugned orders dated 9th October, 2013 and 6th December, 2013. As regards the decision which culminated with the first order dated 9th October, 2013, that was placed before the Executive Committee of the Board in the meeting convened on 19th November, 2013. The Executive Committee not only approved the said decision but also ratified the same. As regards the second decision dated 6th December, 2013 concerning 70 candidates, the matter is yet to be placed before the Executive Committee. It is stated that the Executive Committee of the Board has not met since the said decision was taken; and as and when the meeting of the Executive Committee of the Board is held, even this decision will be placed before the Executive Committee. In this context, it was argued that even the Chairman could not have taken the final decision much less without taking prior approval of the Executive Committee. We are not impressed by this submission. The fact that the first decision dated 9th October, 2013 was placed before the Executive Committee of the Board for its consideration, does not mean that the Chairman of the Board had no authority to take the final decision at his level. The Chairman, being the Administrative Head, had requisite authority to take the final decision in 138 respect of all matters concerning the examination conducted by the Board and, in particular, about the unfair means adopted during the said examination. No express provision of law has been brought to our notice which required prior approval of the Executive Committee of the Board before final decision was taken by the Chairperson. Reliance placed on the provisions of the Act of 2007 (I) by the petitioners to buttress this argument will be of no avail. We have already held that although the Act of 2007 (I) has come into force, the provisions of that Act cannot be invoked to regulate the working of the existing Board. The existing Board has been constituted by the State Government in exercise of its executive powers under Article 162 of the Constitution to discharge the obligation of the State of conducting pre-admission professional courses examination. Suffice it to observe that the decision of the Chairperson which culminated with the issuance of impugned orders under the signature of the Director could be acted upon and taken to its logical end irrespective of the approval or the ratification thereof by the Executive Committee.
59. It was faintly argued that the ratification of impugned order dated 9th October, 2013, by the Executive in its meeting dated 19th November, 2013 was not legal and enforceable as it was not even signed. Firstly, this argument was canvassed on the basis of information received by the petitioners under RTI. Secondly, having already found that the Chairperson of the Board was fully competent to take all decisions in the matter concerning the institution of inquiry and to annul the candidature of 139 the candidates, who were identified in the enquiry as having involved in the commission of organised unfair means, ratification of the final decision of the Chairperson was unnecessary. Moreover, the counsel for the Board had shown willingness to produce the original official file containing the duly signed Minutes of the Executive Committee dated 19th November, 2013. Thus, we find no merits in this submission.
60. Reliance was placed on Goa Shipyard Ltd. (supra) in support of the argument that ratification of invalid act for being validated retrospectively is no more res integra. In para-13 of this decision the Apex Court has accepted this contention relying upon the decision in Maharashtra State Mining Corporation vs. Sunil53. In the present case, however, we have already held that the Chairperson had complete authority to deal with matters connected with and incidental to the examinations held by the Board and for which reason ratification of his decision was not imperative.
61. In the case of Dr. Mohanjit Singh (supra), the Apex Court was dealing with a case where ratification of the decision taken by the member was done subsequently by the absentee member. The Court has opined that ratification by that member at a later point of time cannot validate the proceedings of the selection committee as there was no quorum and in its absence, the committee was not entitled to transact business. We fail to understand as to how the principles stated in this case are applicable to the case on hand. Moreso, we have held that there was no need to take approval 53 (2006) 5 SCC 96 140 of the Executive Committee or, for that matter, ratification of the decision of the Chairperson.
62. The next question is: when the mismatch is found in respect of 876 candidates, the action of the Board can be sustained as it chose to take action selectively only against 415 candidates. The argument of the Board is that the figure of 876 mismatch pertains to the combination of scorer and the genuine candidate. Thus, the action to cancel the examination results was required to be taken only against the genuine candidates constituting 50% of 876 mismatches. The 50% of 876 mismatches would work out to 438 candidates. Instead, the Board has presently taken action against 415 candidates and, as was stated across the Bar, against additional 24 candidates. That takes the total figure to 439 candidates. It is intriguing that why similar action cannot be taken against the pseudo candidates (scorers) who had appeared to enhance the prospects of the genuine candidates. They also sail in the same position of having indulged in organised unfair means during the examination and, therefore, must visit with the same consequences. We hope that the Board would consider this aspect, irrespective of the fact that the remaining 437 out of 876 identified candidates have secured admission to any professional course or named in the list of candidates furnished by STF or otherwise. However, we hold that that approach of the Board cannot be a ground to interfere with the just orders passed against the petitioners and similarly placed persons. 141
63. Further, the logic applied by the Board in limiting its action to 415 candidates, as can be culled out from the reasons recorded in the impugned decisions and the contemporaneous record on the basis of which that decision is taken, is that, the action has been taken against candidates whose names are correspondingly appearing in the list of candidates prepared by the STF allegedly involved in commission of unfair means during the examination. The question is: whether that approach of the Board can be sustained. The learned counsel for the Board has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Chairman, All India Railway Recruitment Board (supra) in support of the argument that if more than one option was available to the Board and if the Board had taken decision to take action only against the candidates whose names appeared in both the lists prepared by the STF and the Board, that decision ought not to be interfered with by the Court. In the above noted reported case, in paragraph 20, the Supreme Court adverted to three options available to the Authority as against which the Authority chose to take action against limited number of candidates:
"20. We may indicate that the Railway Board had three alternatives viz., (1) to cancel the entire written test, and to conduct a fresh written test inviting applications afresh; (2) to conduct a retest for those candidates who had obtained minimum qualifying marks in the first written test; and (3) to go ahead with the first written test (as suggested by the High Court), confining the investigation to 62 candidates against whom there were serious allegations of impersonation."142
It may be useful to refer to following observations in this decision:
"Wednesbury [Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corpn., (1948) 1 KB 223: (1947) 2 All ER 680 (CA) and Proportionality
36. Wednesbury applies to a decision which is so reprehensible in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral or ethical standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the issue to be decided could have arrived at it. Proportionality as a legal test is capable of being more precise and fastidious than a reasonableness test as well as requiring a more intrusive review of a decision made by a public authority which requires the courts to "assess the balance or equation" struck by the decision-maker. Proportionality test in some jurisdictions is also described as the "least injurious means" or "minimal impairment" test so as to safeguard the fundamental rights of citizens and to ensure a fair balance between individual rights and public interest. Suffice it to say that there has been an overlapping of all these tests in its content and structure, it is difficult to compartmentalise or lay down a straitjacket formula and to say that Wednesbury has met with its death knell is too tall a statement. Let us, however, recognise the fact that the current trend seems to favour proportionality test but Wednesbury has not met with its judicial burial and a State burial, with full honours is surely not to happen in the near future.
37. Proportionality requires the court to judge whether action taken was really needed as well as whether it was within the range of courses of action which could reasonably be followed. Proportionality is more concerned with the aims and intention of the decision-maker and whether the decision-maker has achieved more or less the correct balance or equilibrium. The court entrusted with the task of judicial review has to examine whether decision taken by the authority is proportionate i.e. well balanced and harmonious, to this extent the court may indulge in a merit review and if the court finds that the decision is proportionate, it seldom interferes with the decision taken and if it finds that the decision is disproportionate i.e. if the court feels that it is not well balanced or harmonious and does not stand to reason it may tend to interfere.143
39. The courts have to develop an indefeasible and principled approach to proportionality, till that is done there will always be an overlapping between the traditional grounds of review and the principle of proportionality and the cases would continue to be decided in the same manner whichever principle is adopted. Proportionality as the word indicates has reference to variables or comparison, it enables the court to apply the principle with various degrees of intensity and offers a potentially deeper inquiry into the reasons, projected by the decision-maker. "Application of the principles
41. We have already indicated the three alternatives available to the decision-maker (Board) when serious infirmities were pointed out in the conduct of the first written test. Let us examine which was the best alternative the Board could have accepted applying the test of Wednesbury unreasonableness. Was the decision taken by the Board to conduct a retest for those candidates who had obtained minimum qualifying marks in the first written test so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have decided so and whether the Board before reaching that conclusion had taken into account the matters which they ought not to have taken into account or had refused to take into account the matters that they ought to have taken into account and the decision taken by it was so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it? Judging the decision taken by the Board applying the standard laid down in the Wednesbury principle of unreasonableness, the first alternative, that is, the decision to cancel the entire written test and to conduct a fresh written test would have been time consuming and expensive. Initially 10,02,909 applications were received when advertisement was issued by the Board out of which 5,86,955 were found to be eligible and call letters were sent to them for appearing in the written test held at various centres. 3,22,223 candidates appeared for the written test, out of which 2690 were selected. Further, the candidates who had approached the court had also not opted that course instead many of them wanted to conduct a retest for 2690 candidates, the second alternative. The third alternative was to go ahead with 144 the first written test confining the investigation to 62 candidates against whom there were serious allegations of impersonation. The Board felt in the wake of the vigilance report and the reports of the CBI, it would not be the best option for the Railway Administration to accept the third alternative since there were serious allegations of malpractices against the test. From a reasonable man's point of view it was felt that the second option i.e. to conduct a retest for those candidates who had obtained minimum qualifying marks in the first written test was the best alternative.
42. We will now apply the proportionality test to three alternatives suggested. Principle of proportionality, as we have already indicated, is more concerned with the aims of the decision- maker and whether the decision-maker has achieved the correct balance. The proportionality test may require the attention of the court to be directed to the relative weight according to interest and considerations. When we apply that test and look at the three alternatives, we are of the view that the decision maker has struck a correct balance in accepting the second alternative. The first alternative was not accepted not only because such a process was time- consuming and expensive, but nobody favoured that option, and even the candidates who had approached the court were more in favour of the second alternative. Applying the proportionality test also in our view the Board has struck the correct balance in adopting the second alternative which was well balanced and harmonious.
43. We, therefore hold, applying the test of Wednesbury unreasonableness as well as the proportionality test, the decision taken by the Board in the facts and circumstances of this case was fair, reasonable, well balanced and harmonious. By accepting the third alternative, the High Court was perpetuating the illegality since there were serious allegations of leakage of question papers, large scale of impersonation by candidates, mass copying in the first written test.
44. We are also of the view that the High Court has committed a grave error in taking the view that the order of the Board could be judged only on the basis 145 of the reasons stated in the impugned order based on the report of Vigilance and not on the subsequent materials furnished by CBI. Possibly, the High Court had in mind the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr. (1978) 1 SCC 405.
45. We are of the view that the decision-maker can always rely upon subsequent materials to support the decision already taken when larger public interest is involved. This Court in Madhyamic Shiksha Mandal, M.P. v. Abhilash Shiksha Prasar Samiti, (1998) 9 SCC 236 found no irregularity in placing reliance on a subsequent report to sustain the cancellation of the examination conducted where there were serious allegations of mass copying. The principle laid down in Mohinder Singh Gill case is not applicable where larger public interest is involved and in such situations, additional grounds can be looked into to examine the validity of an order. The finding recorded by the High Court that the report of CBI cannot be looked into to examine the validity of the order dated 4-6-2004, cannot be sustained.
46. We also find it difficult to accept the reasoning of the High Court that the copy of the Vigilance report should have been made available to the candidates at least when the matters came up for hearing. Copy of the report, if at all to be served, need be served only if any action is proposed against the individual candidates in connection with the malpractices alleged. The question here lies on a larger canvas as to whether the written test conducted was vitiated by serious irregularities like mass copying, impersonation and leakage of question paper, etc. and not against the conduct of a few candidates.
47. In this connection reference may be made to the judgment of this Court in Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha, (1970) 1 SCC 648. That was a case where 36 students of SSHE School, Jagdishpur and HE School, Malaur District Shahbad moved a writ petition before the Patna High Court against the order of the Board cancelling annual Secondary School Examination of 1969 in relation to Hanswadih centre in Shahbad District. The High Court quashed the order of cancellation and directed the Board to publish the results. Against the judgment 146 and order of the High Court the Board filed an appeal by way of special leave petition to this Court. This Court allowed the appeal and upheld the order of the Board cancelling the examination. On the complaint that no opportunity was given to the candidates to represent their case before cancellation, this Court observed as follows: (SCC p.652 para 13) "13. This is not a case of any particular individual who is being charged with adoption of unfair means but of the conduct of all the examinees or at least a vast majority of them at a particular centre. If it is not a question of charging any one individually with unfair means but to condemn the examination as ineffective for the purpose it was held.
Must the Board give an opportunity to all the candidates to represent their cases? We think not. It was not necessary for the Board to give an opportunity to the candidates if the examinations as a whole were being cancelled. The Board had not charged any one with unfair means so that he could claim to defend himself.
The examination was vitiated by adoption of unfair means on a mass scale.
In these circumstances it would be wrong to insist that the Board must hold a detailed inquiry into the matter and examine each individual case to satisfy itself which of the candidates had not adopted unfair means. The examination as a whole had to go."
48. Applying the above principle, we are of the view that the finding recorded by the High Court that non-
supply of the copy of the Vigilance report to the candidates was a legal infirmity, cannot be sustained."
(emphasis supplied) In this case, the Court was called upon to examine the issue regarding validity of the order passed by the Board directing holding of re-test for recruitment Group D post, for those candidates who had obtained minimum 147 qualifying marks in the first written examination where large scale irregularities were noticed. The Court noted that the High Court rejected the contention that the order was politically motivated and mala fide. In the present case, no argument has been advanced that the impugned orders are politically motivated or mala fide, as such. The argument is about the justness of the approach and the conclusion reached by the Board. That argument will have to be examined on the touchstone of principles enunciated by the Apex Court. This decision is also an authority on the proposition that it is open to the Authority to justify its decision relying on subsequent material available to support its action, in public interest. The stand taken by the Board, in the present case, commends to us. In that, the Board chose to resort to one of the options amongst other options including of cancellation of the entire examination results. Judicial review of that subjective satisfaction of the Board is not permissible. No doubt, in the initial enquiry by the Computer Experts Committee, it was revealed that there were as much as 30195 mismatches out of total 40086 applicants/candidates. But, on further scrutiny the said mismatch condensed to only 876 mismatches. We have already found that the process adopted by the concerned Committees is a possible approach and, therefore, unexceptional. No doubt, mismatch of as many as 876, is a substantial number, but that did not warrant cancellation of entire examination especially keeping in mind the fact that the results were to be declared on 13.07.2013 and the entire admission process to professional courses in the 148 State was to be completed before 30th September, 2013. Keeping in mind the paucity of time and the fact that involvement of concerned candidates was revealed essentially after the constitution of the Computer Experts Committee in September, 2013 which culminated with the opinion of the said Committee on 30th September, 2013 and followed by the further enquiry by the Committee of Controllers which culminated with the opinion rendered by that Committee on 8th October, 2013, no fault can be found with the decision of the Board to proceed only against the identified candidates. By cancellation of the entire examination, that would not only have affected large body of other candidates, but, also entailed in keeping all the seats in the professional and medical colleges of the entire State vacant for the concerned academic year. Viewed in this perspective, no fault can be found with the decision of the Board of having initially proceeded against the identified 415 candidates, vide impugned decisions.
64. The next question is: whether impugned decisions fulfil the requirement of Chapter-IV of the Brochure. In the first place, the Brochure is only a handbook issued for guidance and the procedure to be followed. That would not limit the expansive powers of the Board to take action having found that organized mass-copying was indulged during the examination conducted by it. Assuming that the power vested in the Board could be limited to the provisions contained in the Brochure being advance declaration of the procedure to be followed by it, we have no hesitation in taking a view that the impugned decisions are well within the parameters 149 specified in the Brochure. For the sake of convenience, we will reproduce the relevant extract of the Brochure.
"v/;k; &4 funsZ'k ,oa ijh{kk lapkyu fu;e egRoiw.kZ %& vkWuykbZu vkosnu i= esa Hkjh xbZ tkudkjh dk lR;kiu dkmalfyax@izos'k ds le; ewy nLrkostksa ds vk/kkj ij lacaf/kr foHkkx@laLFkk }kjk fd;k tk;sxkA vr% ckn es ;g irk pyrk gS fd lQy vkosnd }kjk vkWuykbZu vkosnu&i= Hkjrs le; xyr vFkok vlR; tkudkjh vFkok fdlh tkudkjh dks Nqik;k gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa ;fn ;g ik;k x;k fd dksbZ mEehnokj >wBh@xyr tkudkjh nsdj ;k lqlaxr rF;ksa dks Nqik dj izos'k ikus esa lQy gks x;k gS ;k izos'k ds i'pkr~ fdlh Hkh le; ;g ik;k x;k fd vkosnd dks fdlh xyrh ;k pwdo'k izos'k fey x;k gS] rks vkosnd dks fn;k x;k izos'k laLFkk izeq[k@izos'k izkf/kdj.k@e/;izns'k O;kolkf;d ijh{kk e.My }kjk mlds v/;;u dky ds nkSjku rqjar fcuk fdlh lwpuk ds j) fd;k tk ldsxkA xxx xxx xxx 4-12 vuqfpr lk/ku ¼Unfair Means, UFM½ %& vuqfpr lk/ku ¼;w-,Q-,e-½ %& fuEufyf[kr esa ls dksbZ Hkh fØ;kdyki@xfrfof/k ijh{kkFkhZ }kjk mi;ksx esa ykus ij mls vuqfpr lk/ku ¼;w-,Q-,e-½ ds varxZr ekuk tkosxk %& ¼d½ ijh{kk d{k esa vU; ijh{kkFkhZ ls fdlh Hkh izdkj dk lEidZA ¼[k½ vius LFkku ij fdlh vU; O;fDr ls ijh{kk fnykuk ;k ijh{kkFkhZ d LFkku ij vU; dksbZ O;fDr mifLFkr gksukA ¼x½ ijh{kk d{k esa vius ikl fdlh Hkh izdkj dh izfrcaf/kr lkexzh j[kukA ¼?k½ ijh{kk ds nkSjku fpYykuk] cksyuk] dkukQwlh djuk] bZ'kkjs djuk o vU; izdkj ls laidZ lk/kukA ¼M-½ vU; ijh{kkFkhZ dh mRrj'khV ;k iz'uiqfLrdk ls vU; fdlh izdkj ls udy djukA ¼p½ vU; ijh{kkFkhZ ds lkFk mRrj'khV ;k iz'uiqfLrdk dh vnyk&cnyh djukA ¼N½ izfrcaf/kr lkexzh ik;s tkus ij ijh{kkFkhZ }kjk mls lkSaius ls badkj djuk ;k mls Lo;a u"V djukA ¼t½ udy izd.k ls lacaf/kr nLrkostksa@izi=ksa ij gLrk{kj djus ls euk djukA ¼>½ l{ke vf/kdkjh ds funsZ'kksa dh vogsyuk@voKk djuk ;k muds funsZ'kksa dk ikyu u djukA ¼´½ l{ke vf/kdkjh ds funsZ'kkuqlkj mRrj'khV ;k vU; nLrkost okil ugha djuk ;k okil djus ls euk djukA ¼V½ ijh{kk dk;Z esa yxs deZpkfj;ksa@vf/kdkfj;ksa dks ijs'kku djuk] /kedkuk ;k 'kkjhfjd pksV igqWapkukA mijksDr vuqfpr lk/kuksa rFkk vH;FkhZ ds fdlh vU; d`R; dks i;Zos{kd@dsUnz v/kh{kd@oh{kd }kjk vuqfpr lk/ku dh Js.kh ekuk tkrk gS] rks ml ij U;kf;d dk;Zokgh dh tk;sxhA vH;FkhZ dh mRrjiqfLrdk dks vuqfpr lk/ku ds varxZr ekurs gq, ewY;kadu ugha fd;k tk;sxk rFkk mldk vH;fFkZRo fujLr dj fn;k tk;sxkA blds vfrfjDr fdlh vU; izdkj ds vuqfpr lk/ku dk mi;ksx fd;s tkus ij vH;FkhZ dks iqfyl dks vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq lkSik tk;sxk vkSj mlds fo:) oS/kkfud dk;Zokgh dh tk;sxhA 150 ;fn dksbZ O;fDr fdlh vU; mEehnokj ds LFkku ij ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gksrk gS rks og d`R; ij:i/kkj.k (IMPERSONATION) dh Js.kh esa vk;sxkA ij:i/kkj.k dk d`R; fof/k ds vuqlkj vijk/k gSA ,sls vijk/k ds fy, vkosnudrkZ ,ao mlds LFkku ij ijh{kk esa cSBus okyk O;fDr fof/k ds vuqlkj ltk ;k tqekZuk ,oa nksuksa ls nf.Mr fd;s tk ldsaxsA lkFk gh mEehnokj dk ijh{kk ifj.kke Hkh fujLr fd;k tk;sxk A foHkkx }kjk nLrkostksa ds ijh{k.k@lR;kiu o fu;qfDr ds le; dksbZ vko nd ;k mlds nLrkost QthZ ;k lafnX/k ik;s tkrs gSa] rks foHkkx }kjk mDr vH;FkhZ dh fu;qfDr fujLr djrs gq, iqfyl Fkkus esa fjiksVZ ntZ djok dj eaMy dks voxr djk;k tk;sxk] rkfd eaMy Lrj ls lacaf/kr vH;FkhZ dk ijh{kk ifj.kke fujLr fd;k tk ldsA"
The opening part of the Brochure gives important instructions. The same, inter alia, stipulates that the candidate must give correct information while submitting the application form but it also goes on to mention that if it is noticed that the applicant got entry (in the examination conducted by the Board) because of any mistake, that can be cancelled. The overarching power of the Board does not get whittled down by this instruction. Clause 4.12 of the Brochure refers to unfair means. The said clauses are only illustrative instances when the act of commission or omission of a candidate will result in indulging in unfair means during the examination. We find force in the argument of the counsel for the Board that clauses (Ka), (Gha), (Da), (Cha) and the later part of the same provisions, are sufficient enough to attract action as taken by the Board, as a result of organized mass- copying by the candidates concerned. We also agree with the submission of the Board that the action in respect of any of the acts referred to in clause 4.12 could be taken by the Board on its own. The requirement of initiating action on the basis of complaint received from Supervisor/ Invigilator is mutually exclusive power vested in the Board. We are also not impressed by the argument of the petitioners that the only option available to the 151 Board was to refer the matter to the police. Suffice it to observe that the conclusion reached by the Board in the impugned orders is ascribable to the acts of commission and omission referred to in clause 4.12 of the Brochure and that provision also speaks about the Authority of the Board to initiate action and including to cancel the examination results if the candidates had indulged in organized mass-copying, and including impersonation.
65. It was argued by the petitioners that the Board had sufficient time to cancel the entire examination in view of the news items circulated in public domain and to conduct fresh examination process. In case, it was not possible to complete the process before 30th September, nothing prevented the Board to approach the Supreme Court for granting further time. Indeed, cancellation of entire examination was one of the options available to the Board and it would have instilled public confidence about the fairness of action. Similarly, prompt action in such situation was the need of the hour, which was expected from the Head of the Department. Further, the cancellation of entire examination may have caused inconvenience to large section of candidates, but it would have been in larger public interest. However, as we have already held that merely because more than one option was available to the Board and it could have resorted to some other option, does not mean that the impugned decisions are vitiated. Similar plea has been rejected by the Apex Court in Chairman, All India Railway Recruitment Board (supra). For the sake of record, it was pointed out by the counsel for the Board during the argument, that the Board had applied to 152 the Apex Court for extension of time to complete the admission process. But, the said request was rejected. As aforesaid, assuming that the Board had not approached the Apex Court and could have resorted to other options available to the Board, it does not mean that the impugned decisions are vitiated. The challenge to the impugned decisions will have to be examined on its own merits.
66. In the case of B. Ramanjini and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others,54 the action was challenged on the ground that there was no legally acceptable material to cancel the examinations. Further, the Court ought to have cancelled the examinations in all the districts as they are similarly situated and in not doing so, the Government had acted with discrimination. While dealing with this contention, the Apex Court in Paragraphs 7 & 8 observed thus:
"7. In matters of this nature, as to how the courts should approach is explained in Bihar School Examination Board vs. Subhas Chandra Sinha (1970) 1 SCC 648 and Board of High School & Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad vs. Ghanshyam Dass Gupta, AIR 1962 SC 1110. The facts revealed above disclose not only that there was scope for mass copying and mass copying did take place in addition to leakage of question papers which were brazenly published in a newspaper and the photocopies of the question papers were available for sale at a price of Rs.2,000/- each. These facts should be alarming enough for any Government to cancel the examinations whatever may be the position in regard to other centres. It is clear that so far as the centre at Anantapur District is concerned, there was enough reason for the Government to cancel the examinations. We have no doubt in our mind that 54 (2002) 5 SCC 533 153 what has weighed with the Government is the letter of the Collector accompanied by the report of the Superintendent of Police, though unfortunately the same does not seem to have been made available to the High Court, which was the basis for making the order on 15.5.1998 cancelling the examination and holding of the fresh examination.
8. Further, even if it was not a case of mass copying or leakage of question papers or such other circumstance, it is clear that in the conduct of the examination, a fair procedure has to be adopted. Fair procedure would mean that the candidates taking part in the examination must be capable of competing with each other by fair means. One cannot have an advantage either by copying or by having a foreknowledge of the question paper or otherwise. In such matters wide latitude should be shown to the Government and the courts should not unduly interfere with the action taken by the Government which is in possession of the necessary information and takes action upon the same. The courts ought not to take the action lightly and interfere with the same particularly when there was some material for the Government to act one way or the other. Further, in this case, the first examinations were held on 19-4- 1998. The same stood cancelled by the order made on 15-5-1998. Fresh examinations were held on 11-7- 1998 and results have been published on 29-7-1998.
Interviews were however held on 29-7-98 (sic 27-8- 1998) in such cases. The events have taken place in quick succession. The parties have approached the court after further examinations were held and after having participated in the second examination. It is clear that such persons would not be entitled to get relief at the hands of the court. Even if they had not participated in the second examination, they need not have waited till the results had been announced and then approached the Tribunal or the High Court. In such cases, it would lead to very serious anomalous results involving great public inconvenience in holding fresh examinations for large number of candidates and in Anantapur District alone nearly 1800 candidates were selected as a result of the examinations held for the second time. Therefore, we think, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the order made by the Government on 15-5- 154 1998 in cancelling the examinations and holding fresh examination."
(emphasis supplied)
67. Reverting to the contents of the impugned orders dated 9th October, 2013 and 6th December, 2013, it is noticed that after adverting to the conditions specified in Chapter IV of the Brochure and clause 4.12 thereof concerning the unfair means and the consequences therefor, it is noted that after opinion and analysis done by the Committees and taking overall view of the matter it transpired that the names of candidates identified by the Committee corresponded with the names of 345 and 70 candidates given in the list of STF of having indulged in organised unfair means. It then proceeds to note that those candidates were party to the conspiracy of change of roll numbers and were also in contact of the accused. It is further noted that the roll numbers assigned to these candidates were changed after generation of their roll numbers as per the specified norms. Thus, it confirms that undue benefit has been passed on to those candidates. The involvement of 415 (345 + 70) candidates out of 876 candidates in the commission of unfair means of allocation of roll numbers to them along with the roll numbers allocated to candidates from outside State during the examination is confirmed from the opinion and analysis done by the Committees and the documents received from the police. The orders then proceed to highlight the fact that identical pattern emerges in respect of allocation of roll numbers to 415 (345 + 70) candidates in a well planned manner along with candidates from outside State, which was not 155 possible while allocating roll numbers by specified random procedure. The orders then note that the Board being satisfied about the involvement of (415) identified candidates, who had indulged in unfair means and have violated the examination regulations, their candidature in the said examination was being cancelled.
68. The petitioners relied on Mohinder Singh Gill and another vs The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others55 and Rashmi Metaliks Limited (supra) to contend that the public orders made by the public Authority must be considered objectively on the basis of language used in the order itself. This legal position is unassailable. On the analysis of the impugned orders, it is obvious that all relevant factors have been adverted to by the Authority. The correctness of the impugned decisions, no doubt, can be tested on those factors and the relevancy thereof. At the same time, we find force in the argument of the respondent-Board that in the subsequent decision the Apex Court had occasion to consider the decision in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill (supra) and has held that the decision- maker can always rely upon subsequent materials to support the decision already taken when larger public interest is involved. There is no irregularity in placing reliance on such subsequent report to sustain the cancellation of examination conducted by the Authority where there has been serious allegations of mass-copying. [See Abhilash Shiksha Prasar 55 (1978) 1 SCC 405 156 Samiti (supra); and Chairman, All India Railway Recruitment Board (supra) paragraph 45].
69. Further, the fact that the order refers to the documents received from the Police does not pre-suppose that it has been issued under dictation of the STF/Police. The order clearly discloses the basis on which it has been passed. It is not only founded on the material furnished by the Police but also on the opinion formed by the two Committees after due enquiry and other relevant materials. We are not inclined to accept the argument that the order is passed without application of mind or that it is issued under dictation of STF/Police.
70. Another shade of the same contention as urged by the petitioners, is, that the opinion of the Experts Committee was false and concocted and founded on the communication received from STF dated 27th September, 2013. For that, we may usefully refer to the communication sent by STF to the Director of the Board dated 27th September, 2013. The same reads thus:
"dk;kZy;&Lis'ky VkLd QkslZ ¼,l0Vh0,Q0½ e/;izns'k Hkksiky dzekad&,l-Vh-,Q-@e-iz-@eq[;ky;@2013 fnukad 27-09-13 izfr] lapkyd e/;izns'k O;kolkf;d ijh{kk e.My Hkksiky] e0iz0 fo"k;%& Fkkuk jktsUnz uxj bUnkSj ds vi0dza0 539@13 /kkjk 419] 420] 467]468]471]120&ch Hkk0n0fo0 dh foospuk ds laca/k esa tkudkjh ckor~A lanHkZ%& vkids dk;kZy; dk i= dzekad&O;kie@5955@13 fnukad 21- 09-13 o 5979@13 fnukad 24-09-13A &000& mijksDr fo"k; esa ys[k gS fd fo"k;kafdr vijk/k ds fo"k; esa fuEu tkudkjh miyC/k djkus dk d"V djs%& 157 1- vkids dk;kZy; ls lanfHkZr i= dzekad O;kie@5955@13 fnukad 21-09- 13 ds }kjk 400086 vkosndks ds Vh-,-lh- dk mYys[k fd;k x;k gS tcfd dsUnz lwph esa 400135 dk mYys[k gS] mDr fHkUurk D;ksa gS\ 2- ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd i= dzekad O;kie@5955@13 Hkksiky fnukad 21- 09-13 esa mYysf[kr rkfydk,Wa 400086 ij vk/kkfjr gSaA vr% 400135 ds vk/kkj ij rkfydk,Wa izLrqr djsaA 3- vkids dk;kZy; ls iznk; dh xbZ tkudkjh ds vuqlkj ,e-ih-vkWu ykbZu }kjk miyC/k djk;s x, vkosnu&i=ksa esa ls 130 vkosndksa dh QksVks o gLrk{kj Li"V ugha Fks] ftUgsa fujLr dh lwph esa j[kk tkdj mDr vkosndksa ds QksVks o gLrk{kj iqu% izkIr fd;s tkus gsrq ,e-ih- vkWu ykbZu dks i=kpkj fd;k x;k gSA mDr i=kpkj fdl Lrj ij fdlds }kjk fd;k x;k gS\ i= dh lR;kfir izfr miyC/k djkosa lkFk gh ;g Li"V djus dk d"V djsa fd bl izdkj dk i= O;ogkj fd;k tkuk] D;k fu;ekuqdwy Fkk\ D;ksafd ih0,e0Vh0 ijh{kk ds vkosnu izfdz;k dh fu;ekoyh esa mijksDr izdkj ds vkosnu&i=ksa dks fujLr fd;s tkus dk Li"V mYys[k gSA 4- ;fn fujLr vkosnu i=ksa ls lacaf/kr vkosndksa dks Vh0,0lh0 tkjh fd;s x, gS] rks mudh lwph izLrqr djsa rFkk ;g Hkh voxr djkosa fd mDr fujLr vkosnu i=ksa dh Vh-,-lh- fdlds }kjk tkjh dh xbZ gS\ ;fn ;g =qfViw.kZ dk;Zokgh gS rks bl gsrq mRrjnk;h dkSu gS\ 5- U;wure fel eSp ykWftd ds vk/kkj ij feal eSp vkosndksa dh irs lfgr lwph miyC/k djkosaA 6- i= dzekad&O;kie@5979@13 Hkksiky fnukad 24-09-13 esa mYysf[kr 363 vkosndksa esa ls fel eSp MkVk esa fdrus vkosnu i= miyC/k gSa] mudh lwph irs lfgr miyC/k djkosaA 7- ih0,e0Vh0 ijh{kk 2013 esa vkosndksa dks jksy uacj vkoaVu dh izfdz;k esa mi;ksx esa yk, x, izksxzke dh izfr Hkh miyC/k djkosaA 8- jkT; vkfFkZd vijk/k C;wjks esa iathc} izdj.k vijk/k dzekad 26@04 esa vkids e.My ds fufru eksfgUnzk o vt; lsu ds fo:} vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr e.My }kjk vHkh rd iznku ugha dh xbZ gSA ftldh tkudkjh vkids i= dzekad&5953@13 fnukad 21-09-13 }kjk nh xbZ gSA bl laca/k esa ;g crkus dk d"V djsa fd mDr izdj.k esa vfHk;kstu Lohd`fr gsrq e.My dks i= dc izkIr gqvk vkSj fdu&fdu vf/kdkfj;ksa ds ikl mDr uLrh dc ls dc rd yafcr jgh rFkk orZeku esa fdl Lrj ij yafcr gS\ mijksDrkuqlkj tkudkjh rRdky vkt gh miyC/k djkus dk d"V djsaA ( Mh0,l0 c?ksy) mi iqfyl vf/k{kd ,l0Vh0,Q0 Hkksiky"
(emphasis supplied) On plain reading of this communication, it is noticed that STF had not referred to the figure of 876 mismatch cases. In point Nos.5 and 6 of the 158 said communication, the query made was generally about the 363 applicants whose involvement was found in the commission of unfair means during the examination. In response to this communication, the Director, no doubt, on the same day, on 27th September, 2013, sent his reply. The said reply reads, thus :
"dzekad O;kie@6071@2013 Hkksiky] fnukad 27-09-13 izfr] Jh Mh0,l0c?ksy] mi iqfyl v/kh{kd ,oa foospd] e0iz0 ,l0Vh0,Q0 Hkksiky fo"k;& Fkkuk jktsUnz uxj] ftyk bankSj ds vijk/k dzekad 539@13 /kkjk 419]420]467]468]120ch Hkk0n0fo0 25@27 vkElZ ,DV 34 vkcdkjh ,DV ,oa 65 vkbZVh ,DV dh foospuk ds laca/k esaA lanHkZ& vkidk i= dzekad ,lVh,Q@eq[;ky;@2013@&&& fnukad 27- 09-2013 mijksDr fo"k;kUrZxr lanfHkZr i= ds ek/;e ls pkgh xbZ fcUnq dzekad 01 ls 07 rd dh fcUnqokj tkudkjh fuEukuqlkj gS%& 1- fcUnq dz- 01 ds laca/k esa Li"V fd;k tkrk gS fd fufru eksfgUnzk] vt; dqekj ,oa lh-ds-feJk }kjk 40135 vkosndksa gsrq jksy uacj tkjh fd, x, Fks] ijUrq flQZ 40086 vkosndksa ds gh jksy uacj osclkbZV ij viyksM djok, x, FksA ijh{k.k djus ij ik;k x;k fd 49 ,sls vkosnd gSa] ftuds izdj.k Li"V QksVks o gLrk{kj miyC/k djokus gsrq ,e-ih- vkWuykbZu dks Hksts x, Fks rFkk buds Li"V QksVks o gLrk{kj ,e-ih- vkWuykbZu ls izkIr ugha gq,] ijUrq rc Hkh bu 49 vkosndks dks jksy uacj vkoafVr dj fn, x,A ijh{k.k ds nkSjku ;g 49 vkosnd jksy uacj lfgr vekU; vkosndksa dh lwph esa ik, x,A 2- fcUnq dz- 02 vuqlkj 40135 vkosndksa ds fy, tUefrfFk++ && 20 fMftV ds VªkaftD'ku vkbZMh ds fofHkUu laHkkfor Hkkxksa&&ljuse ds vk/kkj ij baMsfDlax djrs gq, igys le ,oa mlds i'pkr~ fo"ke fjdkMZ gsrq 'kgjokj jksy uacj vkoafVr fd, x, rFkk fufru eksfgUnzk] vt; dqekj ,oa lh-ds-feJk }kjk vkoafVr@ miyC/k djok, x, jksy uacjks dh 'kgjokj lwph ls feyku dj feleSp dk fooj.k n'kkZ;k x;k gSA blls lacaf/kr 20 i`"Bh; lwph ifjf'k"V&1 esa layXu gSA 3- fcUnq dz- 03 ds laca/k esa ys[k gS fd 130 vkosndksa laca/kh i=kpkj la lacaf/kr uLrh dz- 27&12@2013@08 ds i`"B dz- 03 ls 05 dh izfr ifjf'k"V&2 ij layXu gS] ftlesa i= dk izk:I lh-ds-feJk }kjk vt; dqekj dks izLrqr fd;k x;k Fkk] vt; dqekj }kjk fufru eksfgUnzk dks izLrqr fd;k x;kA fufru eksfgUnzk }kjk uLrh ds i`"B dza- 04 ij rRdkyhu fu;a=d Mka-iadt f=osnh }kjk fn;s x, vuqeksnu ds vk/kkj ij Lo;a gLrk{kj djrs gq, eq[; ifjpkyu vf/kdkjh],e-ih- vkWuykbZu fy- fu:ie 'kkWfiax eky] f}rh; ry] vgeniqj] gks'kaxkckn jksM] Hkksiky dks i= dz-@eizO;k@dEI;w@4229@2013 fn- 01-07-2013 }kjk tkjh fd;k x;k Fkk] ftldh izfr ifjf'k"V&3 esa layXu gSA ih-,e-Vh-&2013 ls lacaf/kr vkosnu izkIr djus ds mijkar 05 fnol dk le; Hkjs x, vkosnu&i=ksa es la'kks/ku ds fy, fu/kkZfjr le;kof/k ds i'pkr fdlh Hkh izdkj dk la'kks/ku ekU; ugha gksxk o fdlh Hkh vkosnu&i= ij eaMy }kjk fopkj ugha fd;k tk;sxkA ,slh fLFkfr esa 159 ,e-ih-*vkWuykbZu dks Li"V QksVks o gLrk{kj izkIr dj miyC/k djokus gsrq fy[kk tkuk fu;e fo:} gSA fcUnq dz- 4-6-4 ls lacaf/kr i`"B dh izfr ifjf'k"V&4 esa layXu gSA 4- fcUnq dz- 04 ds laca/k esa ys[k gS fd 49 vekU; vkosndksa dks jksy uacj vkoafVr fd, x, Fks] bldh lwph jksy uacj lfgr ifjf'k"V&5 ij layXu gSA ;g jksy uacj Hkh ih,eVh&2013 gsrq tkjh jksy uacjksa ds lkFk tkjh fd, x, Fks] ftlls lacaf/kr vf/kdkjh fufru eksfgUnzk] vt; dqekj ,oa deZpkjh lh-ds-feJk gS ,oa ;g gh dEI;wVj 'kk[kk Lrj ij bl =qfV ds fy, ftEesnkj gSA 5- fcUnq dz-05 ls lacaf/kr tUefrfFk&&& 20 fMftV ds VªkaftD'ku vkbZMh ds fofHkUu laHkkfor Hkkxksa&& ljuse ds vk/kkj ij baMsfDlax djrs gq, igys le ,oa mlds i'pkr fo"ke fjdkMZ gsrq 'kgjokj jksy uacj vkoafVr fd, x, rFkk fufru eksfgUnzk vt; dqekj ,oa lh-ds-feJk }kjk vkoafVr@ miyC/k djok, x, jksy uacjksa dh 'kgjokj lwph ls feyku dj tks feleSp rS;kj fd;k x;k gS] mlesa U;wure feleSp 876 VªkatsD'ku vkbZ-Mh- ds Hkkx 7&11 ij izkIr gks jgk gSA izkIr gksus okys U;wure feleSp 876 ls lacaf/kr vkosndksa dh irs lfgr lwph ifjf'k"V&6 esa layXu gSA 6- fcUnq dz- 06 ds laca/k esa mYys[kuh; gS fd ,lVh,Q }kjk e.My dks izf"kr iwoZ tkudkjh esa ls ftu 363 oS/k vkosndksa dh tkudkjh eaMy dks izkIr gqbZ Fkh] muesa ls 345 vkosnd 876 dh feleSp lwph esa miyC/k gS] ftudh irk lfgr tkudkjh ifjf'k"V&7 esa layXu gSA 7- fcUnq dz- 07 ds laca/k esa mYys[kuh; gS fd mijksDr izfdz;k esa tUefrfFk &&& 20 fMftV ds VªkaftD'ku vkbZMh ds fofoHkUu laHkkfor Hkkxksa&&& ljuse ds vk/kkj ij baMsfDlax djrs gq, igys le ,oa mlds i'pkr fo"ke fjdkMZ gsrq 'kgjokj jksy uacj vkoafVr dj fufru eksfgUnzk] vt; dqekj ,oa lh-ds- feJk }kjk vkoafVr@ miyC/k djok, x, jksy uacjksa dh 'kgjokj lwph ls feyku dj feleSp rS;kj djus ds fy, mi;ksx esa yk, x, izksxzke dh izfr ifjf'k"V&8 esa layXu gSA mijksDr lanfHkZr i= esa mYysf[kr fcUnq dzekad 8 dh tkudkjh i`Fkd ls izsf"kr dh tk jgh gSA layXu&mijksDrkuqlkj fu;a=d e0iz0 O;kllkf;d ijh{kk e.My Hkksiky"
71. As regards point No.5 and 6, in the context of earlier queries made by the STF, no doubt, the Director, for the first time, mentioned the figure of 876 transactions. This information was shared by the Director obviously on the basis of material available with him, including the Experts Committee's report dated 7th September, 2013. Indeed, the Experts Committee report dated 7th September, 2013 mentions different mismatch numbers. However, that does not mean that the Director was not entitled to send this response in respect of information which had come to his notice to 160 facilitate investigation by the STF. By no stretch of imagination, therefore, it can be assumed that the figure of mismatch indicated by the Director was without any basis much less under the dictation of STF. Presumably, the Director realizing that the matter needs further examination by the Computer Experts Committee, an emergent meeting of the Computer Experts Committee was convened on 30th September, 2013. The Computer Experts Committee thus met on 30th September, 2013 and analyzed the entire matter afresh and applying the logic referred to in its Minutes found mismatch of 876 roll numbers. The Minutes of the Computer Experts Committee meeting dated 30th September, 2013 are already reproduced in paragraph No.4 (xii) of this judgment. All that has been done is to identify the candidates on the basis of minimum mismatch logic instead of broad mismatch logic applied in the first meeting. On examining the said Minutes, it is not possible to suggest that the Computer Experts Committee merely restated the figure mentioned by the Director in communication dated 27th September, 2013. As a matter of fact, the Director, being overall incharge and second-in-line in the hierarchy, could have proceeded further on the basis of his own analysis. However, if the second meeting of the Computer Experts was convened to re-examine the correct position in the context of the material available with the Board and the information shared by the investigating team, that does not mean that the Computer Experts Committee - consisting of five able, independent and competent officers - dealt with the matter casually and without any basis. The basis of their 161 analysis can be discerned from the Minutes and opinion submitted by them. It is also noticed that the information of the Computer Experts Committee was considered by the Committee of Controllers. In the evaluation report prepared by the Committee of Controllers, complete analysis has been done, which reinforces the figure of mismatch of 876 applicants. The evaluation report has been reproduced in paragraph 4(xvi) of this judgment. Until paragraph 11, the evaluation report considered all the relevant material, and including the opinion received from the investigating team. The analysis for reaching at the minimum mismatch figures can be discerned from paragraph 12 onwards of that report. Considering the background in which communication was sent by the Director on 27th September, 2013, it is not possible to countenance the ground urged by the petitioners that the Board and its officials were acting under dictation of STF. The Board was acting independently not only on the basis of the information shared by the investigating team and the queries made by them, but, also on the basis of its own analysis of the record. By no stretch of imagination, therefore, it is possible to hold that the Computer Experts Committee's opinion was false and concocted, as is contended.
72. It will be useful to advert to the communication sent by Assistant Director General of Police which reads, thus:
"dk;kZy; lgk;d iqfyl egkfujh{kd ¼,l-Vh-,Q-½ eq[;ky;] Hkksiky dz&lefu@,l-Vh-,Q-@eq[;ky;@2013&¼,e&119½ Hkksiky fnukad 07-10-13 izfr] izHkkjh fu;a=d O;kolkf;d ijh{kk e.My e/;izns'k] Hkksiky 162 fo"k;%& ih-,e-Vh- ijh{kk o"kZ 2013 ds ifj.kke tkWp izdj.k ds laca/k esaA lanHkZ%& vkidk i= dekad e-iz- O;kie 6262@2013 Hkksiky fnukad 07@10@2013 A fo"k;kUrZxr lanfHkZr i= dk voyksdu djus dk d"V djsa A ih-,e-Vh- ijh{kk 2013 ds laca/k esa Fkkuk jktsUnz uxj ftyk bUnkSj }kjk vijk/k dzekad 539@13 /kkjk 419] 420] 467] 468] 471] 120&ch] 201 Hkknfo] 65 vkbZ-Vh- ,DV] 25] 27 vkElZ ,DV ,oa 34 vkcdkjh vf/kfu;e dk iathc} fd;k x;k tks orZeku esa ,l-Vh-,Q- Hkksiky }kjk foospuk/khu gS] ftlesa vHkh rd dqy 29 vkjksfi;ksa dks fxjQ~rkj fd;k x;k gS A ijh{kk dh foospuk ds vUrxZr vkjksih MkDVj txnh'k lkxj ls 317 ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa dh lwph tIr dh xbZ gS A ftlesa mlds }kjk ih-,e-Vh- ijh{kk 2013 esa bu ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa dks QthZ rjhds ls ikl djokus gsrq O;kolkf;d ijh{kk e.My ds deZpkjh fufru eksfgUnzk dks ftu 317 ijh{kkFkhZ;ksa ds jksy uEcj lsV djokus gsrq fn;s x;s Fks mudh VkbZi dh gqbZ ,oa vkjksih MkW0 txnh'k lkxj ls tIr dh xbZ lwph dh Nk;kizfr layXu gS A iwNrkN ij fufru eksfgUnzk }kjk 317 esa ls 298 ijh{kkfFkZ;kas ds jksy uEcj ih-,e-Vh- ijh{kk 2013 esa vkjksih MkW0 lkxj ds crk;s vuqlkj lsV djuk crk;k x;k gS A foospuk ds nkSjku izkIr lk{; vuqlkj vkjksih lq/khj jk; rFkk larks"k xqIrk }kjk ih-,e-Vh- ijh{kk 2013 esa 52 ijh{kkfFkZ;kasa dks QthZ rjhds ls ikl djokus gsrq ;kolkf;d ijh{kk e.My ds deZpkjh fufru eksfgUnzk dks jksy uEcj lsV djus gsrq fn;s x;s Fks A vkjksih lq/khj jk; rFkk larks"k xqIrk }kjk O;kie ds deZpkjh fufru eksfgUnzk dks ftu 52 ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa ds jksy uEcj lsV djokus gsrq fn;s x;s Fks mudh VkbZi dh gqbZ lwph layXu gS A vkjksih ls iwNrkN ds nkSjku 52 ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa ds uEcj fufru eksfgUnzk dks fn;s tkus ckor~ ekSf[kd tkudkjh izkIr gqbZ FkhA mlds }kjk dksbZ lwph tIr ugha djkbZ xbZ gS] cfYd ekSf[kd tkudkjh ,oa bZ&esy ds }kjk 52 ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa dh lwph nsus ds ckjs esa Kkr gqvk Fkk A ftl dkj.k ls mldh gLrfyf[kr lwph layXu ugha dh tk ldh gS A vkjksih fufru eksfgUnzk }kjk 52 esa ls 48 ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa ds jksy uEcj ih-,e-Vh- ijh{kk 2013 esa vkjksih lq/khj jk; rFkk larks"k xqIrk ds crk;s vuqlkj lsV djuk crk;k x;k gS A vkjksih MkW0 txnh'k lkxj] lq/khj jk; rFkk larks"k xqIrk vkfn ds }kjk fufru eksfgUnzk dks ih-,e-Vh- ijh{kk 2013 esa ftu ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa ds jksy uEcj ftl izdkj lsV djus gsrq fn;s x;s Fks A O;kolkf;d ijh{kk e.My }kjk mlh vuqlkj jksy uEcj ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa dks vkoafVr fd;s x;s gSa A ftlls Li"V gS fd mDr ijh{kkfFkZ;ksa }kjk vkjksfi;ksa ds ek/;e ls vuqfpr rjhds ls ijh{kk esa ykHk izkIr fd;k x;k gS A foospuk esa vk;h lk{; ds vk/kkj ij vkjksih MkW0 txnh'k lkxj] lq/khj jk; rFkk larks"k xqIrk ds fo:} vU; vkjksfi;ksa ds lkFk gh fnukad 05@10@2013 dks ekuuh; U;k;ky; esa pkyku Hkh izLrqr fd;k x;k gS A layXu %& mijksDrkuqlkj A ¼vk'kh"k [kjs½ lgk;d iqfyl egkfujh{kd ,l-Vh-,Q] e/;izns'k] Hkksiky"
We will assume that this document was not part of the proposal submitted 163 by the Director to the Chairperson for approval on 8th October, 2013. However, even this document nowhere suggests that the Board ought to proceed against the 345 candidates initially identified by the Board and named in the list appended to impugned order dated 9th October, 2013. Assuming that this document was not before the Director/Chairperson, being part of the official record, can be relied by the Board for refuting the argument of the petitioners that the impugned decisions are issued under dictation of the STF.
73. We are also not impressed by the argument of the petitioners that the Board could not have taken any decision in the matter on its own or that the Board was obliged to submit the examination results to the Council under the control of the Central Government. Reliance placed by the petitioners on the provisions of Medical Council of India Act in support of this submission, in our opinion, is misplaced. It is indisputable that the admission process in respect of State seats in the medical colleges within the State is required to be conducted by the State Government either itself or through any Agency under its control. In respect of such examination, the Council under the control of Central Government has no role to play. Similarly, the State Government is not required to submit examination results declared by it or the Agency under its control appointed for that purpose to any other Authority.
74. Reliance was placed on the provisions of the Universities Act, 1973 and the Ordinance No.54 issued thereunder to contend that the 164 admission process to any college affiliated with the University in the State must be conducted in the manner prescribed. The Ordinance has the force of law. Therefore, the Board constituted by the State Government in exercise of its executive powers cannot be permitted to deal with the matters concerning such admissions. This argument does not commend to us. The controversy in the present proceedings is in respect of pre-admission examination which is, in no way, governed by the provisions of the Universities Act or the Ordinance framed thereunder. This examination is required to be conducted by the State Government for allocation of students to respective colleges. It is only at the stage of taking admission or with regard to issues arising after taking admission, the provisions of the Universities Act and the Ordinance will come into play. No doubt, in the present set of cases, the colleges have cancelled the admissions granted to the petitioners in the respective colleges. The fact that for cancellation of such admission, procedure has been prescribed in the Ordinance, does not mean that the consequential action taken by the concerned college on the basis of the impugned orders can be said to be derogatory or in violation of any law. In that, indisputably, the admission was granted as a consequence of the examination conducted by the Board. The Board having found that the concerned candidate indulged in organised unfair means during the examination conducted by it and had rendered himself disqualified, annulled the examination process qua such candidate(s) being fraud played on public examination process. As a necessary corollary, the admission given to the 165 concerned candidate cannot continue as the entire process had vitiated and had become non-est in the eyes of law.
75. It was submitted that the action of disqualifying the petitioners could, at best, be taken by the Director of Medical Education who had conducted the counselling or by the University where the candidate was admitted. This submission is also ill-advised. We have already held that the Board alone could deal with all matters connected with the examination by it whilst discharging the obligation of the State to conduct such examination. The fact that the candidate participated in counselling or was admitted in the College affiliated to the University cannot bestow authority either on the Director of Medical Education or the University to deal with the matters pertaining to the examination conducted by the Board. Accordingly, even this submission does not take the matter any further for the petitioners.
76. It was faintly argued that the conclusion reached by the Director/Chairperson refers to the finding of some Committee (Samiti) without describing the name of the two Committees constituted during the enquiry. In our view, the non-description of the Committee does not mean that no Committee was constituted nor it would lead to a conclusion that the finding of the Chairperson/Director was not in conformity with the final opinion of the two Committees. It is also not a case of the petitioners that the report/opinion of the two Committees was not at all considered by the Director/Chairperson before taking the final decision. Accordingly, even this submission deserves to be rejected.
166
77. It was argued that there was no material to indicate about the manner in which analysis was done and by whom, for arriving at the conclusion of involvement of the named candidate. This submission was made in absence of the official record which was, however, made available to the Court during the arguments; and, which we have extensively reproduced in this judgment, to examine the question about the legality of the Board and its authority as also the justness and reasonableness of its decision. In view of the findings on those issues against the petitioners, this submission will have to be stated to be rejected.
78. It was then contended that the Board ought to have examined each case independently and recorded separate reasons in the order, as may be applicable, to the concerned candidates. In other words, it was not open to cancel the candidature of as many as 415 candidates by one common order on the same ground. This argument also deserves to be stated to be rejected. The reason recorded in the order makes it amply clear that identical pattern had emerged from the allocation of roll numbers to these 415 candidates. If the same pattern adopted by the candidates has been noticed, no fault can be found with the Board to have taken action against those candidates by one common order on the finding that it was a conspiracy and organized way of indulging in unfair means during the examination.
79. It is then contended that the reason recorded in the impugned decisions is not in conformity with the opinion of the Committees 167 constituted to inquire into the entire episode. Even this submission does not commend to us. The reason recorded in the order, in our opinion, in no way deviates from the opinion and analysis done by the Computer Experts Committee as well as Committee of Controllers. Even the said Committees after examining the relevant records concluded about the involvement of the identified candidates in the commission of unfair means during the examination, as can be discerned from the evaluation report and the reasons recorded in the Minutes articulating the opinion of the concerned Committee. It was open to the Chairman not only to consider the said reports but also other material referred to in the impugned orders and the proposal placed before him for taking totality of the circumstances into account before approving the proposal of cancelling the candidature of the identified candidates. The fact that the Chairman had not recorded detailed reasons for approving the proposal, does not mean that his subjective satisfaction for taking the final decision is vitiated.
80. It was vehemently argued that the material taken into consideration by the Director and also the Chairman was not legally admissible and, therefore, the conclusion reached by them is vitiated. This submission, in our opinion, is misdirected. The question of admissibility of evidence would arise in a full-fledged criminal trial pending against the concerned accused. The candidates against whom action has been taken by the Board may also be named as accused in the pending criminal cases. Suffice it to observe that the material considered by the Director and later 168 on by the Chairman, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be irrelevant for the purposes of enquiring into the matter under consideration. The material so relied does justify the subjective satisfaction reached by the Director and the Chairperson. It is not open for the Court to go into the question of sufficiency of that material. It is not a case of subjective satisfaction recorded by the Authority without any material whatsoever.
81. Reliance was placed on the case of Mohammed Atik (supra), to contend that there was no legal evidence before the Committee or the Chairman to take a drastic decision of cancelling the examination results of the petitioners. Section 10 of the Evidence Act postulates that common intention must subsist between the conspirators at the time of making of the statement. The Court noted that post-arrest statement made by a person to police, whether by way of confession or otherwise, relating to his involvement in the conspiracy, would not fall within the ambit of Section
10. Relying on this observation, it was argued that even in the present case, the STF was relying on the statements made after arrest of the co- conspirator. This argument does not commend to us. The action in the present case is not singularly based on the statement of co-conspirator recorded by the STF. The Board after due analysis of the entire material was more than convinced about the involvement of the candidates whose roll numbers were mismatched. The Board finally decided to take action only against those candidates whose name also appeared in the STF list. Reliance was also placed on the decision in the case of Varkey Joseph 169 (supra) to contend that suspicion is not the substitute for proof. It is, however, well established position that the quality of evidence required in a criminal trial is markedly different than the material to answer the issue in the inquiry relating to unfair practice during the conduct of examination. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of V.C. Shukla (supra) to contend that the entry in the excel sheet depicting the name of the candidate or for that matter any further record recovered from the alleged conspirators cannot be the basis to proceed against the petitioners. We have already dealt with this aspect while considering another shade of the same contention. The material that could be considered for taking impugned decisions cannot be discarded on the argument that it is not admissible. Admissibility of those documents may be relevant in the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners.
82. The argument of the petitioners that the Board ought to have adhered to the legal parameters while dealing with the case involving circumstantial evidence. We have already rejected similar argument on the finding that the admissibility of documents recovered during the investigation and statements recorded by the investigating team will have to be tested in the criminal trial pending against the candidates. On the other hand, in the enquiry, such as the present one, the Board was justified in proceeding on the basis of indisputable circumstances, pointing finger towards the involvement of the concerned candidate and record its subjective satisfaction in that behalf.
170
83. The attempt of the petitioners was to question the justness and reasonableness of the process adopted by the Board on the argument that relevant facts have been completely disregarded by the two Committees as well as the Director and Chairman. Inasmuch as, 20 petitioners secured less marks than the scorers. Moreover, two scorers were absent. Further, the petitioners had excellent academic record and by no standards, they would take aid of scorers for enhancing their prospects. These crucial facts would go to show that the petitioners/genuine candidates have not indulged in unfair means at all. Similar argument has been rejected by the Apex Court in the case of Abhilash Shiksha Prasar Samiti (supra). The Court held that such matters cannot be the basis to doubt the judgment of the institution (read 'Board' in this case).
84. It was also argued that the conclusion recorded in the impugned orders is based on fact which has not been inquired into. In that, whether the candidate, in fact, indulged in copying, ought to have been ascertained in the first place. That fact cannot be assumed. The sitting plan of the candidates clearly indicates the safe distance between the two candidates. Moreover, the question papers distributed to the candidates sitting in horizontal or vertical row were completely different format. In other words, the candidates having engaged in copying from the answer-sheets of the scorer during the examination is completely ruled out. This submission will have to be rejected for the reasons already recorded. The Supreme Court has rejected similar plea while considering the enquiry into mass copying 171 resorted to by the candidates. Further, in the case of Bagleshwar Prasad (supra) in paragraph 11 and 12 the Court observed as follows:-
"11. Before the High Court, a statement was filed showing the seating arrangement in Room No. 10 where the respondent was sitting for writing his answers. It appears that he was No. 3 in the 3rd row, whereas the other candidate with Roll No. 94733 was No.4 in the second row. The High Court was very much impressed by the fact that the respondent could not have looked back and copied from the answer-book of the other candidate, and the High Court did not think that there was any evidence to show that the other candidate could have copied from the respondent's paper with his connivance. We have looked at the incorrect answers ourselves and we are not prepared to hold that the identical incorrect answers were given by the two candidates either by accident or by coincidence. Some of the incorrect answers, and, particularly, the manner in which they have been given, clearly suggest that they were the result of either one candidate copying from the other, or both candidates copying from a common source. The significance of this fact has been completely missed by the High Court. The question before the Enquiry Committee had to be decided by it in the light of the nature of the incorrect answers themselves, and that is what the Enquiry Committee has done. It would, we think, be inappropriate in such a case to require direct evidence to show that the respondent could have looked back and copied from the answer written by the other candidate who was sitting behind him. There was still the alternative possibility that the candidate sitting behind may have copied from the respondent with his connivance. It is also not unlikely that the two candidates may have talked to each other. The atmosphere prevailing in the Examination Hall does not rule out this possibility. These are all matters which the Enquiry Committee had to consider, and the fact that the Enquiry Committee did not write an elaborate report, does not mean that it did not consider all the relevant facts before it came to the conclusion that the respondent had used unfair means.172
12. In dealing with petitions of this type, it is necessary to bear in mind that educational institutions like the Universities or appellant No. 1 set up Enquiry Committees to deal with the problem posed by the adoption of unfair means by candidates, and normally it is within the jurisdiction of such domestic Tribunals to decide all relevant questions in the light of the evidence adduced before them. In the matter of the adoption of unfair means, direct evidence may sometimes be available, but cases may arise where direct evidence is not available and the question will have to be considered in the light of probabilities and circumstantial evidence. This problem which educational institutions have to face from time to time is a serious problem and unless there is justification to do so, Courts should be slow to interfere with the decision of domestic Tribunals appointed by educational bodies like the Universities. In dealing with the validity of the impugned orders passed by Universities under Art. 226, the High Court is not sitting in appeal over the decision in question; its jurisdiction is limited and though it is true that if the impugned order is not supported by any evidence at all the High Court would be justified to quash that order. But conclusion that the impugned order is not supported by any evidence must be reached after considering the question as to whether probabilities and circumstantial evidence do not justify the said conclusion. Enquiries held by domestic Tribunals in such cases must, no doubt, be fair and students against whom charges are framed must be given adequate opportunities to defend themselves, and in holding such enquiries, the Tribunals must scrupulously follow rules of natural justice; but it would, we think, not be reasonable to import into these enquiries all considerations which govern criminal trials in ordinary Courts of law. In the present case, no animus is suggested and no mala fides have been pleaded. The enquiry has been fair and the respondent has an opportunity of making his defence. That being so, we think the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order passed against the respondent."
(emphasis supplied) 173 Indeed, the observations in this decision are in the context of enquiry conducted against the individual candidate and not a case of mass copying. In the case of organized commission of unfair means during the examination, as observed earlier, may not necessitate holding of enquiry against individual candidates. This authority is also useful on the proposition about the circumspection to be observed while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the High Court. In a given case the impugned order may not refer to any evidence at all, that order can be supported by the Authority on available material and considered by the Authority. In the present case, the impugned orders have noted supporting evidence and material considered by the Authority.
85. It was argued that the fact that name of some of the candidates has been found in the material recovered by the police during the investigation cannot be the basis to take such a drastic action against the candidate until the charge is proved against him by the criminal court. In the first place, more or less similar argument advanced by the petitioners has already been considered and rejected on the finding that the standard of proof in the two proceedings is qualitatively different. Moreover, the civil action on the basis of same set of facts in respect of which criminal case has been registered and pending against the petitioners can be no impediment. Both proceedings are required to be taken to its logical end in accordance with law and are mutually exclusive. For the same reason, we reject the other argument of the petitioners that before taking final decision the Board 174 ought to have factually ascertained the relevant facts by adopting inquisitorial inquiry as to who had indulged in the change of roll numbers to benefit selective candidates and whether the concerned candidate himself was responsible for that situation.
86. The next moot question is: whether the impugned action against the petitioners is vitiated for not issuing show-cause notice indicating the allegations against them on case to case basis and of giving opportunity of being heard to respond thereto? In other words, the impugned action is vitiated because of abridgment of principles of natural justice? We may usefully refer to the case of Aligarh Muslim University (supra), where the Court considered the applicability of principle of natural justice. In paragraph 22 of this decision, relying on its earlier judgment in the case of S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan56, the Court restated the two exceptions, namely, "if upon admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion was possible", in such a case, the principle that breach of natural justice was in itself prejudice, would not apply. In other words, if no other conclusion was possible on admitted or indisputable facts, it is not necessary to quash the order which was passed in violation of natural justice. In paragraph 22, the Court after adverting to the authorities on the point concluded that in the ultimate analysis it may depend on the facts of a particular case. Finally, in paragraph 25 the Court relying on the decision in the case of S.L. Kapoor (supra) held that on the admitted indisputable facts - only one view is possible. In that, no prejudice can be said to have been caused though notice 56 AIR 1981 SC 136 175 was not issued to the respondent. In yet another case of Jalgaon Municipal Council (supra), the Apex Court, in paragraph 32, restated the principle that in exceptional situation the ground regarding violation of principle of natural justice cannot be pressed into service. Similar view has been taken in the case of M.C. Mehta (supra). In para 21 of this decision, the Court observed that if on the admitted or indisputable position, only one conclusion is possible and permissible, the Court need not issue a writ merely because there is violation of principle of natural justice. The Apex Court in the case of Jalgaon Municipal Council (supra) in paragraph 32 observed thus:
"32. The caution of associating rules of natural justice with the flavour of flexibilities would not permit the Courts applying different standards of procedural justice in different cases depending on the whims or personal philosophy of the decision maker. The basic principles remain the same; they are to be moulded in their application to suit the peculiar situations of a given case, for the variety and complexity of situations defies narration. That is flexibility. Some of the relevant factors which enter the judicial process of thinking for determining the extent of moulding the nature and scope of fair hearing and may reach to the extent of right to hearing being excluded are: (i) the nature of the subject-matter, and (ii) exceptional situations. Such exceptionality may be spelled out by (i) need to take urgent action for safeguarding public health or safety or public interest, (ii) the absence of legitimate exceptions, (iii) by refusal of remedies in discretion,
(iv) doctrine of pleasure such as the power to dismiss an employee at pleasure, (v) express legislation. There is also a situation which Prof. Wade & Forsyth terms as "dubious doctrine" that right to a fair hearing may stand excluded where the Court forms an opinion that a hearing would make no difference. Utter caution is needed before 176 bringing the last exception into play. (Administrative Law, ibid, at pp.543-544)"
In the case of Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions (supra), the Apex Court in paragraph 7 observed that by now, it is well-settled principle of law that the principles of natural justice cannot be applied in a straitjacket formula. Their application depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Further, to sustain the complaint of the violation of principles of natural justice one must establish that he was prejudice due to non-observance of the principles of natural justice.
87. In the present case, we are in agreement with the stand taken by the Board that the matter of this nature - where identical pattern of commission of organised unfair means emerges, it would be nothing short of mass- copying and, therefore, could be dealt with together by a common order and without issuing notice to respective candidate. Reliance has been justly placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Chairman, All India Railway Recruitment Board (supra), to buttress this submission. Indeed, counsel for the petitioners tried to distinguish the said decision on the ground that it was not a case of candidates indulging in unfair means in different examination centers, but pertaining to one examination center. That argument does not commend to us. For, if this argument were to be taken forward, it would then be argued that it would be a case of mass- copying only if it takes place in all the examination halls in the given center and not in one or some of the halls in that center. There is no 177 basis to make such distinction. In our opinion from the indisputable facts referred to by the Board, it is noticed that same racketeers had organized the change of roll numbers for all the identified candidates in a well planned manner to ensure that the scorer from outside the State is allocated seat in front of the genuine candidate. That is reinforced from the Chart reproduced in paragraph 20 (xii). It makes it amply clear that each of the scorer was sitting in the front seat. Further, in respect of each case, matching correct answers as also wrong answers, are of very high percentage. That cannot be a co-incidence. Moreover, all the scorers and the concerned candidate were in contact with the same persons who had organized the change of roll numbers for them through the same source (officials of VYAPAM). The scorers had filled the online form through common web portal facilitated by the racketeers. The fact that they were sitting in different examination centers, in no way, makes the case less mass-copying or different from mass-copying done in one examination center. Thus, non-issuance of show cause notice to individual candidate before passing the impugned decisions will not vitiate the impugned decisions. The petitioners would, however, rely on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Olga Tellis (supra) and Priya Gupta (supra) to contend that it is not open to the Authority to assert that no fruitful purpose would be served by issuing show cause notice and especially when the action entails in not only civil consequences but also criminal action by registration of criminal case on that count. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Apex court in the case of Charanlal 178 Sahu (supra) in support of the argument that post decisional hearing would be impermissible in the fact situation of the present case. The principle stated in those decisions will have to be distinguished on the principle expounded in the cases of mass-copying by the Apex Court.
88. In the case of Chandra Singh and others Vs. State of Rajasthan and another57, in paragraph 43 while relying on its earlier decision in the case of Champalal Binani Vs. CIT58, the Apex Court opined that while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 or 32 of the Constitution, the Court may not strike down an illegal order although it would be lawful to do so. It went on to hold that in a given case, the High Court may refuse to extend the benefit of a discretionary relief to the applicant. Further, the discretionary jurisdiction need not be exercised in a case where the impugned judgment is found to be erroneous if by reason thereof substantial justice is being done. In the same paragraph, the Apex Court referred to yet another decision of the Apex Court in S.D.S. Shipping (P) Ltd. Vs. Jay Container Service Co. (P) Ltd.59 wherein it is held that relief can be denied, inter alia, when it would be opposed to public policy or in a case where quashing of an illegal order would revive another illegal one.
89. Similarly, in the case of Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Shahdeo Vs. State of Bihar and others60, in paragraph 11 to 15, the Court 57 (2003) 6 SCC 545 58 (1971) 3 SCC 20 59 (2003) 4 SCC 44 60 (1999) 8 SCC 16 179 observed thus:
"11. But in the Act, the authorities and their powers have been specified and we do not find any provision which vests power on the Board of Revenue, so we have to proceed on the assumption that the Board of Revenue has no power.
12. Therefore, the question is whether the order of the Member of Board of Revenue should be quashed on this ground. If the order is set aside, the result would be that the notice directing the appellant to refund the additional amount of compensation assessed at ten times of the net income would have to be quashed. In other words, the earlier re-assessment of compensation made by giving ten times of the net income would revive. If under the law the appellant is not entitled to get compensation more than three times of the net income it would amount to restoring an illegal order.
13. In Gadde Venkateswara Rao v. Government of A.P., AIR 1966 SC 828, this Court considered the action of the State Government under the Andhra Pradesh Panchayats Samithis and Zilla Parishads Act, 1959 and came to the conclusion that the Government had no power under Section 72 of the Act to review an order made under Section 62 of the Act but refused to interfere with the orders of the High Court on the ground that if the High Court had quashed the said order, it would have restored an illegal order and, therefore, the High Court rightly refused to exercise its extraordinary jurisdictional power.
14. In Mohd. Swalleh v. IIIrd ADJ (AIR 1988 SC
94), similar view was also expressed by this Court. In that case the order passed by the Prescribed Authority under U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 was set aside by the District Judge in appeal though the appeal did not lie. The High Court came to the finding that the order of the Prescribed Authority was invalid and improper but the District Judge had no power to sit in appeal. The High Court did not interfere with the Orders of the District Judge. The order of the High Court was affirmed by this Court on the ground that though technically the appellant had a point regarding the jurisdiction of the District Judge but the order of the Prescribed Authority itself being bad, no exception can be taken against the refusal of the High Court to exercise 180 powers under Article 226.
15. Therefore, in view of the above ratio laid down by this Court, we hold that even if the Member of Board of Revenue had no power to issue direction for giving notice for refund of the excess amount paid, no exception can be taken to the said order if it is found that legally the appellant was paid excess compensation under the Act."
(emphasis supplied)
90. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the Board on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Gadde Venkateswara Rao Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others61. In paragraph 17 the Court observed thus:
"17. The result of the discussion may be stated thus:
The Primary Health Centre was not permanently located at Dharmajigudem. The representatives of the said village did not comply with the necessary conditions for such location. The Panchayat Samithi finally cancelled its earlier resolutions which they were entitled to do and passed a resolution for locating the Primary Health Centre permanently at Lingapalem. Both the orders of the Government, namely, the order dated March 7, 1962, and that dated April 18, 1963, were not legally passed; the former, because it was made without giving notice to the Panchayat Samithi, and the latter, because the Government had no power under S. 72 of the Act to review an order made under S. 62 of the Act and also because it did not give notice to the representatives of Dharmajigudem village. In those circumstances, was it a case for the High Court to interfere in its discretion and quash the order of the Government dated April 18, 1963? If the High Court had quashed the said order, it would have restored an illegal order-it would have given the Health Centre to a village contrary to the valid resolutions passed by the Panchayat Samithi. The High Court, therefore, in our view, rightly refused to exercise its extraordinary discretionary power in the circumstances of the case."
61 AIR 1966 SC 828 181 In substance, the Court upheld the decision of the High Court which had declined to exercise extraordinary discretionary power in the fact situation of that case, although the orders of the Government were not legally passed.
91. It was argued that the impugned decisions passed by the Director for and on behalf of the Board were in the nature of orders passed while discharging the quasi judicial function. For that reason the Board was obliged to adhere to minimum principles of natural justice. This argument will have to be rejected on the view already taken that in the case of mass copying it was open to the Board to proceed against all the candidates together by one common order; and for the same reason no show cause notice or hearing is required to be given to each candidate separately who have been found to be party to mass copying activity.
92. In the case of Ghanshyam Das Gupta (supra), the question before the Apex Court was whether the Authority acting under a statute, when it is silent, has the duty to act judicially will depend on the express provisions of the statute read along with the nature of the rights affected, the manner of the disposal provided, the objective criterion if any to be adopted, the effect of the decision on the person affected and other indicia afforded by the statue. The Apex Court opined that the Committee has to act judicially in the matter particularly as it has to decide objectively certain facts which may seriously affect the rights and careers of the examinees, before it can take any action in exercise of its power. The Apex Court observed that if serious effects follow from the decision of the Committee 182 and serious nature of misconduct which may be found in some cases, the Committee must be held to act judicially. The committee while exercising such powers is acting quasi judicial and the principles of natural justice which require that the other party, (namely the examinee) must be heard will apply to the proceedings before the Committee. In this case, however, the examination result of only three students was cancelled by the Board for their individual action and they were debarred from appearing the examination. The aggrieved students filed writ petitions challenging that action of Board inter alia being in violation of principles of natural justice. It was not a case of mass copying as in this case.
93. In the case of Kumari Chitra Shrivastava (supra), the Apex Court restated that the Board discharges quasi judicial functions and is bound to follow the principles of natural justice. Even in this case, the action taken by the Board was against one individual student. Her examination results were withheld as the Board was of the opinion that she was ineligible to appear in the examination because of deficit in keeping attendance. The Court rejected the arguments of the Board that no useful purpose would be served if the Board was to issue show-cause notice to the student.
94. As aforesaid, reliance was also placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Olga Tellis (supra) which rejected the argument that no useful purpose would be served by issuing notice. Paragraph 47 of the said decision, the Apex Court rejected the argument that notice need not be given of a proposed action because; there can possibly be no answer to it. The 183 Court observed that justice must not only be done but must manifestly be seen to be done. All these decisions are in respect of individual action and not a case of mass copying, where the issuance of show cause notice can be dispensed with on the principle thereto.
95. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Single Judge of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Indra Methi (supra), which had followed the decision in the case of Ghanshyam Das Gupta (supra) and held that principle of natural justice applies when it is a case of cancellation of examination results, consequent in an inquiry before domestic Tribunal, inasmuch as the examinees must be apprised of material against them which is being used in such inquiry. Again this decision will be of no avail to the fact situation of the present case involving mass copying in public examination.
96. In the case of Shekhar Ghosh (supra), the Apex Court has expounded that the principle of audi alteram paterm for right to hearing and pre-decisional hearing is warranted when the decision involves civil consequences. The Court has held that the requirements to comply with the principles of natural justice would vary from case to case. No doubt, in the present case, the petitioners on account of impugned decisions of the Board would be visited with civil consequences; and also entail in criminal action because of the complaint filed by the Board. At the same time, keeping in mind the exposition of the Apex Court in the recent decision in the case of Chairman, All India Railway Recruitment Board (supra), Ku. Shashi 184 Tomer (supra) and other decisions adverted on the point, when it is a case of mass copying such as the present one, the question of giving opportunity of hearing to each individual candidate is not required provided the Board is in a position to substantiate the necessity for resorting to such action.
97. In the case of Subhas Chandra Sinha (supra), the Apex Court opined that from the Scheme of the Act under consideration, in an emergency, the power of the Chairman were co-terminus with that of the Board who can take action and later report to the Board. Action so taken by the Chairman, in that case, when reported to the Board, was fully endorsed by the Board. The action of cancellation of the examination at a particular centre was taken by the Chairman. The Court then went on consider the question whether in such a situation giving an opportunity to the examinees/candidates was imperative. The Apex Court opined that it was not necessary for the Board to give an opportunity to the candidates if the examination as a whole were being cancelled because of unfair means were adopted on large scale at the concerned centre. The Apex Court found that in comparison to the answer books showed such a remarkable agreement in the answers which left no doubt that the students had assistance from an outside source. In this judgment, the Apex Court referred to the decision in the case of Ghanshyam Das Gupta (supra) and has explained the same in paragraph Nos.12 to 15, which read thus:
"12. These figures speak for themselves. However, to satisfy ourselves we ordered that some answer books be brought for our inspection and many such 185 were produced. A comparison of the answer books showed such a remarkable agreement in the answers that no doubt was left in our minds that the students had assistance from an- outside source. Therefore the conclusion that unfair means were adopted stands completely vindicated.
13. This is not a case of any particular individual who is being charged with adoption of unfair means but of the conduct of all the examinees or at least a vast majority of them at a particular centre. If it is not a question of charging any one individually with unfair means but to condemn the examination as ineffective for the purpose it was held, must the Board give an opportunity to all the candidates to represent their cases ? We think not. It was not necessary for the Board to give an opportunity to the candidates if the examinations as a whole were being cancelled. The Board had not charged any one with unfair means so that he could claim to defend himself. The examination was vitiated by adoption of unfair means on a mass scale. In these circumstances it would be wrong to insist that the Board must hold a detailed inquiry into the matter and examine each individual case to satisfy itself which of the candidates had not adopted unfair means. The examination as a whole had to go.
14. Reliance was placed upon Ghanshyam Das Gupta's case (supra), to which we referred earlier. There the examination results of three candidates were cancelled, and this Court held that they should have received an opportunity of explaining their conduct. It was said that even if the inquiry involved a large number of persons, the Committee should frame proper regulations for the conduct of such inquiries but not deny the opportunity. We do not think that that case has any application. Surely it was not intended that where the examination as a whole was vitiated, say by leakage of papers or by destruction of some of the answer books or by discovery of unfair means practised on a vast scale that an inquiry would be made giving a chance to every one appearing at that examination to have his say? What the Court intended to lay down was that if any particular person was to be proceeded against, he must have a proper chance to defend himself and this 186 did not obviate the necessity of giving an opportunity even though the number of persons proceeded against was large. The Court was then not considering the right of an examining body to cancel its own examination when it was satisfied that the examination was not properly conducted or that in the conduct of the examination the majority of the examinees had not conducted themselves as they should have. To make such decisions depend upon a full-fledged judicial inquiry would hold up the functioning of such autonomous bodies as Universities and School Board. While we do not wish to whittle down the requirements of natural justice and fair- play in cases where such requirement may be said to arise, we do not want that this Court should be understood as having stated that an inquiry with a right to representation must always precede in every case, however different. The universities are responsible for their standards and the conduct of examinations. The essence of the examinations is that the worth of every person is appraised without any assistance from an outside source. If at a centre the whole body of students receive assistance and are managed to secure success in the neighbourhood of 100% when others at other centres are successful only at an average of 50%, it is obvious that the university or the Board must do something in the matter. It cannot hold a detailed quasi-judicial inquiry with a right to its alumni to plead and lead evidence etc., before the results are withheld or the examinations cancelled. If there is sufficient material on which it can be demonstrated that the university was right in its conclusion that the examinations ought to be cancelled then academic standards require that the university's appreciation of the problem must be respected. It would not do for the Court to say that he should have examined all the candidates or even their representatives with a view to ascertaining whether they had received assistance or not. To do this would encourage indiscipline if not also perjury.
15. We are satisfied that no principle of natural justice was violated in this case. The Board through its Chairman and later itself reached the right conclusion that the examinations at this Centre had been vitiated by practising unfair means on a mass 187 scale and the Board had every right to cancel the examination and order that a fresh examination be held. There was no need to give the examinees an opportunity of contesting this conclusion because the evidence in the case was perfectly plain and transparent. We therefore set aside the order of the High Court and ordered dismissal of the writ petition but made no order as to costs."
(emphasis supplied)
98. In the case of Biswa Ranjan Sahoo (supra) while dealing with the case of mass malpractice, the principles of natural justice are required to be followed or otherwise the Court in paragraph 3 observed thus:
"3. A perusal thereof would indicate the enormity of malpractices in the selection process. The question, therefore, is: whether the principle of natural justice is required to be followed by issuing notice to the selected persons and hearing them? It is true, as contended by Mr. Santosh Hegde, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, that in the case of selection of an individual his selection is not found correct in accordance with law, necessarily, a notice is required to be issued and opportunity be given. In a case like mass mal practice as noted by the Tribunal, as extracted hereinbefore, the question emerges: whether the notice was required to be issued to the persons affected and whether they needed to be heard? Nothing would become fruitful by issuance of notice. Fabrication would obviously either be not known or no one would come forward to bear the brunt. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal was right in not issuing notice to the persons who are said to have been selected and given selection and appointment. The procedures adopted are in flagrant breach of the rules offending Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution."
99. In the case of Abhilash Shiksha Prasar Samiti (supra) while dealing with the case involving students entering the examination hall with books and copying materials were hand in glove with the officials, the Apex 188 Court confirmed the decision of the Board to treat the examination as cancelled. The Court observed thus:
"2......... In the face of this material, we do not see any justification in the High Court having interfered with the decision taken by the Board to treat the examination as cancelled. It is unfortunate that the student community resorts to such methods to succeed in examinations and then some of them come forward to contend that innocent students become victims of such misbehavior of their companions. That cannot be helped. In such a situation the Board is left with no alternative but to cancel the examination. It is extremely difficult for the Board to identify the innocent students from those indulging in malpractices. One may feel sorry for the innocent students but one has to appreciate the situation in which the Board was placed and the alternatives that were available to it so far as this examination was concerned. It had no alternative but to cancel the results and we think, in the circumstances, they were justified in doing so. This should serve as a lesson to the students that such malpractices will not help them succeed in the examination and they may have to go through the drill once again. We also think that those in charge of the examinations should also take action against their Supervisors/Invigilators, etc., who either permit such activity or become silent spectators thereto. If they feel insecure because of the strong-arm tactics of those who indulge in malpractices, the remedy is to secure the services of the Uniformed Personnel, if need be, and ensure that students do not indulge in such malpractices."
(emphasis supplied)
100. In the case of K.S. Gandhi (supra), the Court was dealing with a case where show cause notices were issued to the candidates for being privy to the fraudulent fabrication. It was not a case involving the question as to whether show cause notice ought to be given to all candidates even if it were to be a case of mass copying. We have already adverted to the 189 decisions of the Apex Court directly on the point. The Court considered the validity of the notification issued by the Board in the context of procedural irregularities under the provisions of the Act, Regulations and including violation of principles of natural justice. The Court noted that the students involved at the examination of secondary education are by and large minors but that by itself would not be a factor to hold that the students were unfairly treated at an inquiry conducted during the domestic inquiry. It also dealt with the legal position about the standard of proof in the domestic inquiry. Even in that case, the candidates indulged in unfair practice gave wrong answers to particular questions in the same way in which the answers were given by another candidate who was having consecutive number. The Court adverted to the exposition in the case of Bagleshwar Prasad (supra). While rejecting the contention of the candidates, in paragraph 26, the Court noted that in the matter of adoption of unfair means direct evidence may sometimes be available but cases may arise where direct evidence is not available and the question will have to be considered in the light of the probabilities and circumstantial evidence. This is the problem with the educational-institution. The Court went on to say that the Court should be slow to interfere with the decisions of domestic tribunals appointed by the education bodies like universities. Further, in dealing with the validity of the impugned order passed by the Universities under Article 226 the High Court is not sitting in an appeal over the decision on this question.
101. In the case of Surendra Nath Pandey (supra), which was a 190 case of suspected mass-copying, the Apex Court observed that the purpose of rules of Natural Justice is to ensure that the order causing civil consequences is not passed arbitrarily and it is not that in every case there must be an opportunity of oral hearing. The Apex Court observed thus:
"18. We are of the considered opinion that the procedure adopted by the appellants can not be said to be unfair or arbitrary. It was a reasonable and fair procedure adopted in the peculiar circumstances of the case. It can not be said to be in breach of rules of Natural Justice. It must be remembered that rules of Natural Justice are not embodied rules. They can not be put in a strait-jacket. The purpose of rules of Natural Justice is to ensure that the order causing civil consequences is not passed arbitrarily. It is not that in every case there must be an opportunity of oral hearing. We may notice here the observations made by this Court in the case of Bihar School Education Board Vs. Subhas Chandra Sinha, 1970 (1) SCC 648, wherein a similar plea with regard to breach of rules of Natural Justice was examined. In this case, the appellant board had cancelled the examination upon detection of mass copying without affording the affected candidates the right to be heard. ......
xxx xxx xxx
21. As noticed earlier, in the present case, the appellants had adopted a very reasonable and a fair approach. A bonafide enquiry into the fact situation was conducted by a Committee of high ranking officers of the department. In our opinion, the High Court was wholly unjustified in interfering with the decision taken by the appellants in the peculiar circumstances of the case. It is settled beyond cavil that the decisions taken by the competent authority could be corrected provided it is established that the 191 decision is so perverse that no sensible person, who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it. The aforesaid principle is based on the ground of irrationality and is known as Wednesbury Principle. The Court can interfere with a decision, if it is so absurd that no reasonable authority could have taken such a decision. In our opinion, the procedure adopted by the appellants can not be said to be suffering from any such irrationality or unreasonableness, which would have enabled the High Court to interfere with the decision.
22. It is perhaps keeping in mind the aforesaid principles that this Court in the case of B. Ramanjini and others Vs. State of A.P. and others, 2002 (3) SLJ 28 (SC) = 2002 (5) SCC 533, indicated that a decision taken by the competent authority on the basis of relevant material ought not to be lightly interfered with by the Court in exercise of its power of judicial review. In Paragraph 8 of the aforesaid judgment, this Court observed as follows:
"Further, even if it was not a case of mass copying or leakage of question papers or such other circumstance, it is clear that in the conduct of the examination, a fair procedure has to be adopted. Fair procedure would mean that the candidates taking part in the examination must be capable of competing with each other by fair means. One cannot have an advantage either by copying or by having a foreknowledge of the question paper or otherwise. In such matters wide latitude should be shown to the Government and the courts should not unduly interfere with the action taken by the Government which is in possession of the necessary information and takes action upon the same. The courts ought not to take the action lightly and interfere with the same particularly when there was some 192 material for the Government to act one way or the other."
(emphasis supplied)
102. In the present case, we find force in the stand taken by the respondent-Board that from the indisputable facts referred to in paragraphs 20(xv) of the judgment, it was obviously a case of organized mass-copying and commission of unfair means during the examination.
103. Even in the case of Anand Kumar Pandey (supra), the Court considered similar challenge in respect of candidates indulged in mass- copying during the examination. In paragraph 9, the Court observed thus:
"9. This Court has repeatedly held that the rules of natural justice cannot be put in a strait-jacket. Applicability of these rules depends upon the facts and circumstances relating to each particular given situation. Out of the total candidates who appeared in the written test at the Centre concerned only 35 candidates qualified the test. In that situation the action of the railway authorities in directing the 35 candidates of Centre No. 115 to appear in a fresh written examination virtually amounts to canceling the result of the said centre. Although it would have been fair to call upon all the candidates who appeared from Centre No. 115 to take the written examination again but in the facts and circumstances of this case no fault can be found with the action of the railway authorities in calling upon only 35 (empanelled candidates) to take the examination afresh. The purpose of a competitive examination is to select the most suitable candidates for appointment to public services. It is entirely different than an examination held by a college or university to award degrees to the candidates appearing at the examination. Even if a candidate is selected he may still be not appointed for a justifiable reason. In the present case the railway authorities have rightly refused to make appointments on the basis of the written examination wherein unfair means were adopted by the 193 candidates. No candidate had been debarred or disqualified from taking the exam. To make sure that the deserving candidates are selected the respondents have been asked to go through the process of written examination once again. We are of the view that there is no violation of the rules of natural justice in any manner in the facts and circumstances of this case."
104. The decision of the learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court in the case of Reshmi George (supra), on which reliance has been placed by the petitioners, was obviously a converse situation where the learned Single Judge of that Court declined to question the opinion of the Board rejecting the challenge to the examination conducted by it on the allegation that large scale mass-copying and malpractice was committed during the said examination. We do not intend to examine the correctness of the said view taken by the Kerala High Court which obviously was in the fact situation of that case. In the present case, the indisputable facts emerging from the record justify the action taken by the Board.
105. We may now refer to the decision cited by the counsel for the petitioners in the case of Kumari T.P. Roshana (supra). We fail to understand as to how the principle stated in this decision has any application to any of the issues arising before us. In that case, the question was concerning reservation and the standard in the matter of syllabus, examination and evaluation obtaining in different Universities that varying standards of their own is productive of inequality. We are not concerned with that issue in the present case.
106. Having answered the argument under consideration in the 194 negative, for the same reason, argument of the petitioners that any action which results in civil consequences, ex post facto hearing is not permissible, does not deserve consideration. Inasmuch as, having found that issuance of show-cause notice in a case of this nature or of giving hearing to individual candidate was not required, we need not dilate further on that argument.
107. Some of the petitioners argued that their past academic record was very brilliant and keeping that in mind, no reasonable person would be inclined to even think that such candidate would indulge in unfair means during the examination, that too by engaging a scorer who secured less marks than the candidate. In the present case, however, there were clinching circumstances to indicate that the roll numbers of the concerned petitioner was changed in a well planned manner after generation of the roll number. This is a common pattern noticed in respect of each of these candidates. Further, the fact that there is provision in the Brochure permitting the candidate to apply for change of roll number, does not belie the opinion and subjective satisfaction of the Board. No explanation is forthcoming as to why the roll numbers allotted to these petitioners were not in conformity with the norm of roll numbers specified by the Board. Besides, it is noticed that in every case, the matching correct as well as wrong answers of both were of high percentage.
108. Even the argument of the petitioners that there was no evidence to even remotely suggest that they were not responsible for the change of roll numbers or had applied for that purpose after generation of their roll 195 number, also deserves to be rejected. The opinion reached by the Committees, and as found favour with the Director and the Chairperson, is that the roll numbers of the identified candidates were altered after generation of their roll numbers. Further, their link with the racketeers and conspirators was also noticed from the documents made available by the Police. There was no reason for the officials of VYAPAM who have been arrested as accused to tamper with the roll numbers of selective candidates nor is any explanation forthcoming as to why the name of that candidate is found in the documents recovered from the accused persons during the investigation. Suffice it to observe that the impugned orders passed by the Director with the approval of the Chairperson to take action against the identified 415 candidates cannot be said to be arbitrary, unjust or unreasonable.
109. For the reasons already recorded, we have no hesitation in rejecting the argument of the petitioners that instead of taking action against the petitioners on the basis of suspicion, the Board ought to cancel the entire examination and in any case conducted fresh examination for all the affected students to do substantial justice to them. It is not possible to issue such direction keeping in mind the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Mriduldhar (Minor) (supra), which mandates that the admission process to professional courses ought to be completed before 30th September [also see decision of the Apex Court in the case of Priya Gupta (supra)]. Issuing direction to the Board to conduct fresh examination for the students against 196 whom action has been taken would mean that the Board will have to initiate the admission process for these candidates after expiry of the stated period. That cannot be countenanced. Notably, the impugned orders do not disqualify the concerned candidate from appearing in the future pre- admission examination for professional courses, or the following academic year. What follows from the earlier discussion is that the action against the identified 415 candidates is not on the basis of suspicion, as is contended, but, on the basis of clinching circumstances warranting such action in public interest. Besides this, nothing more is required to be said about this contention.
110. That takes us to the argument of the petitioners that the Board could have reacted promptly by postponing the date of examination as soon as the commission of unfair means by large number of candidates came in public domain in the local newspapers or to cancel the entire examination or to withhold the results of the concerned candidate. That cannot be the basis to undo the impugned orders which have been validly passed in public interest. No doubt, the Board initiated action only in September by constituting Computer Experts Committee and later on the Committee of Controllers to enable the Chairman to take a final decision. That does not mean that the impugned decision is invalid much less vitiated in any manner. Inaction to take recourse to other measures cannot vitiate the impugned decisions.
197
111. It was vehemently argued that once the candidates were allowed to participate in the counselling and later on also secured admission in Medical Colleges, the Board was not competent to take any action against such candidate. This argument is another shade of argument of the petitioners already considered and rejected. To wit, the Board has become functus officio after declaration of the result, which argument has been considered by us and rejected. For the same reasons even this argument does not commend to us.
112. It was then contended that even if the conditions specified in the Brochure were to be taken as it is, it in no way authorizes the Board to take such a drastic action, in particular, after declaration of results of examination. For that, reliance was placed on the opening part of Chapter IV and clause 4.12 and 4.22. Once again this is another shade of the argument of the authority of the Board to initiate action after declaration of results, which we have already considered and rejected. In our opinion, in absence of any express regulation having the force of law or, for that matter, executive instructions, circumscribing the authority of the Board, the Board constituted by executive order to discharge the obligation of the State had complete authority to deal with all matters connected with the examination and incidental thereto and including after declaration of the results of the examination conducted by it. No other Authority has been constituted under any law to deal with those matters. If the foundation for admission is fraudulent, which fact has been found by the Board after analyzing of all the 198 relevant materials and the opinion of two Committees, the decision taken by the Board in public interest cannot be undone. It necessarily follows that cancellation of admission of the petitioners by the concerned college will also have to be upheld. For, all actions based on such fraudulent examination result will be non-est in the eyes of law.
113. It was then contended that the Director as well as the Chairperson before taking final decision has completely disregarded the fact that some of the petitioners did not even qualify the examination to get admission in Government college. We fail to understand as to how this fact would eclipse the clinching circumstances taken into account by the Director and the Chairperson indicating the involvement of the concerned candidate as emerging from the relevant records taken into account for reaching the final conclusion.
114. It was contended that the Board could have taken action only after the Supervisor or Invigilator in the Hall had reported about the involvement of the concerned candidate about copying. This submission is buttressed on the basis of clause 4.12 of the Brochure. We are in agreement with the submission of the respondent-Board that this submission is founded on complete misreading of the terms of Brochure. The requirement of complaint received from Supervisor or Invigilator in the examination hall is in respect of matters other than the acts referred to, inter alia, in Sub-clauses (Ka), (Gha), (Da), (Cha) of clause 4.12. The act of change of roll number, after it was generated, and the circumstance of substantial percentage of 199 right and wrong answers given by the scorer and the candidate are matching and the indisputable facts emerging from the documents made available by the Police, it was clearly a case covered by one or the other sub-clauses referred to in clause 4.12. As the theory propounded by the respondent- Board that all this has happened as a large scale conspiracy, is plausible one, even the involvement of concerned Supervisor or Invigilator or officials at the concerned examination centers cannot be ruled out. Suffice it to observe that the existence of other clinching circumstances regarding organised unfair means during the examination were sufficient for the Board to proceed in the matter. Nay, it was the bounden duty of the Board to do so in public interest even in absence of any report from the Supervisors or Invigilators.
115. As regards the argument of the petitioners that the impugned decision of the Board dated 9th December, 2013 is questionable because it takes action only against 70 candidates out of 92 candidates identified in the list submitted by the STF, also does not merit consideration. Inasmuch as, the counsel for the Board has clarified that the record indicates that the remaining 22 candidates were already named in the list of candidates against whom action was taken in terms of impugned decision dated 9th October, 2013. That factual position is reinforced from the finding of the Committee of Controllers. In view thereof, even this argument will have to be rejected.
116. The argument of the petitioners that the Board ought to have also taken into account the CCTV footage to substantiate the fact as to 200 whether the concerned candidate was or was not involved in unfair means during the examination, also deserves to be stated to be rejected for the reasons already noted that the Board acted on the basis of clinching and indisputable circumstances clearly pointing finger to the involvement of the identified candidates. Assuming that CCTV cameras were fitted in the concerned examination hall, non-consideration of that material cannot be the basis to hold that other clinching material considered by the Board was not sufficient to record the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Director and approved by the Chairperson. Our attention was also invited to the decision of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Roupshanara Momtaz (supra). In that case the examination of the candidate was cancelled on the finding of having committed malpractice. The Court held that the malpractice must be detected in the examination hall before answer book is deposited. The student cannot be punished for act of somebody else whose identity is not known. Suffice it to observe that this was not a case of organized mass-copying indulged by the large number of candidates as in the present case but of individual action against one candidate. We have already dealt with this aspect in extenso in the earlier paragraphs. Hence, we do not deem it necessary to dilate on this decision any further.
117. As regards the argument that the enquiry conducted by the Board by constituting two Committees was only farce of enquiry and was to justify cancellation of examination results of meritorious candidates on the 201 basis of unsubstantiated information furnished by the STF, also deserves to be negatived. We have already noticed that the Computer Experts Committee analyzed the computer data available with the Board to ascertain the logic for allocation of roll numbers and the reasons for such mismatch. The final decision is not founded purely on the basis of material furnished by the STF. The material furnished by STF has been used only to reassure that action is being taken against deserving candidates and not to prejudice bona fide candidates. We find no merits in the submission that the constitution of Computer Experts Committee or for that matter the Committee of Controllers was a farce, as is contended. Notably, no allegation of bias or mala fide is alleged against any of the members of the two Committees nor the analysis done by them has been demolished in any manner. The process adopted by the concerned Committee having remained unchallenged and being sufficient to initiate action, the argument under consideration deserves to be rejected.
118. The argument of the petitioners that the Board after declaration of results could not have taken any other action, but, only reported the matter to the local police, is essentially founded on clause 4.22 of the Brochure. That clause deals with the scope of function of the Board. It does not circumscribe the authority of the Board to cancel the candidature of the candidate after declaration of examination results, if it is found that the candidate had indulged in unfair means during the said examination. Accordingly, even this submission does not take the matter any further. 202
119. The other issue raised by the petitioners is on the basis of provisions of the Act of 2007 (II). That is an Act for the regulation of education and fixation of fee in private educational institutions. The Admission Rules under that Act have been framed in the year 2008 which provide for conducting of common entrance test and the procedure for admission including the circumstances in which the admission can be cancelled. The provisions contained in the said Act can have no application to the enquiry in connection with pre-admission examination for professional courses conducted by the Board. For, the examination referred to in the Admission Rules of 2008 is independent and different than the common entrance test conducted by the Board. That test is in connection with the management quota seats to be filled by private colleges. The State Government conducts common entrance test to fill in the quota of seats on merits (Government seats) in the Private Professional Colleges, on the basis of entrance test conducted by it for that purpose.
120. In the case of Modern Dental College and Research Centre and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others62, the Apex Court directed that the admissions in the private unaided medical/dental colleges in the State of Madhya Pradesh will be done by first excluding 15% NRI seats (which can be filled up by the private institutions as per para 131 of P.A. Inamdar Vs. State of Maharashtra63, and allotting half of the 85% seats for admission to the undergraduate and post graduate courses to be 62 (2009) 7 SCC 751 63 (2005) 6 SCC 537 203 filled in by an open competitive examination by the State Government. The remaining half seats could be filled by the Association of the Private Medical and Dental Colleges by holding separate entrance examination for that purpose.
121. Therefore, the fact that the admission is taken in a private medical college on the basis of examination conducted by the Board does not mean that the illegality and fraud committed by the candidate during the examination conducted by the Board can be overlooked. Neither the private medical college nor any other Agency can enquire into the issues concerning the examination conducted by the Board. The Board is the sole repository of that power. The provision regarding cancellation of admission in private medical colleges in the Act of 2007(II) and Admission Rules, 2008 are in connection with the admission granted against the management seats on the basis of examination conducted under the said Act & Rules. The counsel for the respondent-Board, on instructions, submitted that each of the petitioners, who have taken admission in private medical college and have filed writ petitions have taken such admission against Government seats on the basis of the examination conducted by the Board. That submission was countered by the counsel for the concerned petitioners. We, however, have no reason to doubt the correctness of the stand taken by the Board. We have no manner of doubt that the private colleges have cancelled the admission of the concerned petitioner(s) because they were admitted against Government seats on the basis of the examination results of the Board. No official 204 document has been brought to our notice to indicate to the contrary. Even so, we would observe that if the petitioner(s) herein have been admitted in Private College(s) against the "management seat" after qualifying the examination conducted under the Admission Rules, 2008; "and not on the basis of the results of pre-admission examination for professional courses conducted by the Board" to fill in the Government seats - that cannot be disturbed even if he had appeared in both the examinations - one conducted by the Board and the other by the Agency for giving admission against management quota. In other words, the impugned orders cannot be the basis to cancel their admission, taken against the management seats on the basis of the examination results of examination conducted under the Admission Rules of 2008. This will have to be kept in mind by the appropriate Authority on case to case basis. We are not expressing any final opinion in respect of that factual aspect. We, however, reiterate that if the admission to private medical college has been given on the basis of "examination conducted by the Board" qua the Government seats, due to upholding the decision of the Board of annulling the candidature of the concerned candidate for that examination in terms of this order, cancellation of admission by the private medical college of that student will be unexceptionable.
122. In view of the conclusion reached by us, it is unnecessary to dilate on the argument of the petitioners that the impugned orders will have to be set aside as a whole and not conditionally. Reliance was placed on the 205 decision of the Apex Court in the case of Satyabrata Biswas (supra) to contend that the Court after setting aside the impugned decisions must direct the parties to restore status quo ante bellum. As aforesaid, we need not dilate on this question any further. For, that would have become necessary only after setting aside of the impugned decisions, which we are not inclined to do. Relying on the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Kumar (supra)¸ it was contended that the petitioners be allowed to continue the course and be made subject to the outcome of the criminal case pending against them. If in the criminal case they were to be acquitted, it would presuppose that the action taken against them by the Board was inappropriate and unjust. We are not impressed by this argument. Inasmuch as, even if the petitioners were to be acquitted in the criminal case pending against them, that would not by itself vitiate the action taken by the Board on the basis of indisputable facts and circumstances. We have also noticed the settled legal position that the two proceedings are mutually exclusive and the quality of evidence/material to proceed in the matter in both these proceedings is markedly different. Hence, this argument will be of no avail to the petitioners.
123. We hold that the opinion of the Board officials and the reasons recorded in the impugned decisions should not prejudice the petitioners in the criminal action pending against them in any manner. That proceedings will have to be proceeded on its own merits in accordance with law, and including uninfluenced by the observations in this judgment or dismissal of 206 the writ petitions. That is because, the present petitions are in respect of cause of action arising from civil action flowing from the impugned decisions passed by the Board in which the standard of proof is different. On the other hand, any criminal action against the petitioners and similarly placed persons will have to be tested on the basis of the legal and admissible evidence brought on record by the prosecution or by the defence.
124. While parting, we may impress upon the State Government to take expeditious steps for establishment of the Board in terms of the provisions of the Act of 2007 (I). We hope and trust that the State Government will do the needful in that regard with utmost dispatch.
125. We also place on record our word of appreciation for the able assistance given by all the advocates who appeared before us in these matters.
126. For the reasons recorded hitherto, all the petitions and interim applications therein are dismissed with the abovenoted observations.
(A.M. KHANWILKAR) (K.K. TRIVEDI)
Chief Justice Judge
DV & S/