Madhya Pradesh High Court
Imami Mansoori vs Madhya Pradesh Bhoj Open University on 17 March, 2017
1
Writ Petition No. 13460/2015
17.3.2013
Shri R.S. Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner.
None for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 though served.
Shri Mukesh Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the intervener.
Heard on admission.
Petitioner calls in question the notification dated 12.6.2015; whereby, the mark-sheet No. 58188 of M.Sc. (Physics) Previous year 2010 and mark-sheet No. 357993 M.Sc. (Physics) Final year 2011 has been cancelled on the ground that the petitioner sought admission in M.Sc. (Physics) on the basis of forged mark-sheet of B.Sc. (Final) Roll No. 031020002 Year 1985, Bundelkhand University, Jhansi.
Petitioner questions the notification on two grounds; firstly, that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing; secondly that the petitioner did not take admission in M.Sc. (Physics) on the basis of B.Sc. Degree but on the basis of diploma in Electrical Engineering from the Institute of Engineering and Rural Technology, Allahabad.
2Petitioner, however, fails to establish that, a Diploma in Engineering would entitle him to take admission in M.Sc. (Physics) course which is a Post Graduate Degree Course. Even the admission form said to be submitted by the petitioner for the year 2009-10 (Annexure P-5) prescribes Graduation and not Diploma. Though at page No. 40 of the compilation under the heading 'Academic Qualification' which makes eligible for the programme against the entry 'graduation' word 'dip' is inserted; however, there is no answer to the query that at the bottom of the form attested copies of the mark-sheet of (10 + 2), graduate and Post Graduate Examination are to be enclosed. There is no mention of Diploma. In other words even if the petitioner is to be believed that he did not furnish B.Sc. Final mark-sheet then also with the Diploma in Engineering to his credit he was not eligible to be admitted to M.Sc. (Physics) Course. If the petitioner was not eligible to take up the Post Graduation Course, the mark-sheet issued to him would be void ab initio as would create any right in favour of the petitioner. In that event affording an opportunity of hearing would be a useless formality as held in Aligarh 3 Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali Khan [(2007) 7 SCC 529];
wherein their Lordships were pleased to observe:
25.The 'useless formality' theory, it must be noted, is an exception. Apart from the class of cases of "admitted or indisputable facts leading only to one conclusion" referred to above, there has been considerable debate on the application of that theory in other cases. The divergent views expressed in regard to this theory have been elaborately considered by this Court in M.C. Mehta referred to above. This Court surveyed the views expressed in various judgments in England by Lord Reid, Lord Wilberforce, Lord Woolf, Lord Bingham, Megarry, J. and Straughton L.J. etc. in various cases and also views expressed by leading writers like Profs. Garner, Craig, De.
Smith, Wade, D.H. Clark etc. Some of them have said that orders passed in violation must always be quashed for otherwise the Court will be prejudging the issue. Some others have said, that there is no such absolute rule and prejudice must be shown. Yet, some others have applied via-media rules. We do not think it necessary, in this case to go deeper into these issues. In the ultimate analysis, it may depend on the facts of a particular case.
26.It will be sufficient, for the purpose of the case of Mr. Mansoor Ali Khan to show that his case will fall within the exceptions stated by Chinnappa Reddy, J. in S.C. Kapoor Vs. Jagmohan, namely, that on the admitted or indisputable facts - only one view is possible. In that event no prejudice can be 4 said to have been caused to Mr. Mansoor Ali Khan though notice has not been issued.
In view whereof the petition does not merit
consideration.
Consequently, petition fails and is dismissed. All
interlocutory applications are disposed of. No costs.
(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE vivek tripathi