Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nagendra Rajpoot vs Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya ... on 16 April, 2013
Author: M.A.Siddiqui
Bench: M.A.Siddiqui
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Writ Petition No : 4615 of 2012
Nagendra Rajpoot
V/s -
Rani Durgavati Vishwavidyalay,Jabalpur
Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon, J.
Hon'ble Shri Justice M.A.Siddiqui, J.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Satyam Agrawal, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned counsel for the respondent.
Whether approved for reporting:
ORDER
(16 /04/2013) Per Rajendra Menon, J :-
The petitioner was a student, who had appeared in the First Professional Examination for M.B.B.S., March 2010, conducted by the Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Medical College, Jabalpur.
2. After the results were declared, it was revealed that the petitioner has not passed. On the ground that he is entitled to be awarded grace marks and his answer sheets have not been evaluated properly, a writ petition was filed, which was registered as W.P.No.422/2011 and on 02-02-2011, a direction was issued in the said writ petition to award one grace mark to the petitioner and get his result declared. However, pointing out certain factual error and facts which had bearing on the case, the respondent/University filed a review application before this court and sought for review of the order passed on 02-02-2011 in W.P.No.442/2011. In the review petition the University came out with a case that in the examination for the year in question conducted by the Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Medical College, various irregularities and illegalities have been committed and by making manipulation in the answer sheets, marks of the candidates have been increased and on preliminary 2 investigation, a criminal offence in the matter of valuation of answer books has been established, therefore a criminal case bearing Crime No.111/2011 was registered at Police Station Garha, District Jabalpur against various officials of the University and the Medical College. It was pointed out that as far as case of the present petitioner is concerned, in the subject of Physiology Second Paper, in the original tabulation sheet available, the petitioner was shown to have received 5 marks but this was revised to 25 marks. In the subject of Biochemistry First Paper in the original tabulation undertaken the petitioner was shown to have received 4 marks and by revising this marks, it was shown to be 24 marks and therefore, the petitioner had sought for one grace mark in the subject of Biochemistry First Paper. It was pointed out that the petitioner had sought for revaluation in the subjects of Biochemistry First Paper or grant of one grace mark and it was under these circumstances that on 02-02-2011 the order was passed in W.P. No.442/2011. The University in the application placed reliance on the material collected during the investigation of Crime No.111/11 and pointed out that on preliminary inquiry, it has been found that the answer sheet of the petitioner has not been valued properly and by manipulation the marks have been increased.
3. Taking note of the aforesaid assertions made by the University in the review petition, the entire order originally passed in W.P.No.442/2011 was reviewed and the following directions were issued on 16-09-2011 in the review petition :
" (1) The applicant University is permitted to get evaluation of answer scripts of the respondent in the two subjects by some independent valuer as per procedure of the University (2) After evaluation of answer scripts, if respondent gets same marks as awarded earlier, then order passed by this court dated 2-2-2011 in W.P.No.442/11 be given effect to. If the respondent gets different marks than the marks awarded earlier, then the University shall 3 consider the case of the respondent for awarding grace marks, if required.
With the aforesaid directions, this review petition is finally disposed of with no order as to costs."
4. After the aforesaid directions were issued and when neither the revaluation was undertaken and when the result of the petitioner was also not declared, this writ petition has been filed and now the relief prayed in this writ petition is for revaluation as ordered and after revaluation, result of the petitioner to be declared.
5. On notice being issued, respondent University has filed detailed reply and Shri Purushaindra Kaurav, learned counsel for the University has brought on record certain material collected during the investigation and in inquiry In Crime No.111/11, the material collected goes to show the following factual aspect. One Dr. Kiran Patel who was originally authorized by the University to value the answer sheet has given a statement and in her statement she has clearly stated that she has not valued the answer sheet of the petitioner. Thereafter statements Dr. Manoj Shakya and Dr. Arti Kapoor of Medical College, Jabalpur were also recorded and they also denied valuation of the answer sheets of the petitioner. On these basis, it is stated by the respondents that the marks have been awarded to the petitioner as indicated hereinabove by manipulation. Thereafter investigation and inquiry was undertaken and on going through the material seized by the police authorities, it has came to the notice that the answer sheets for the subject in question so far as it relates to the petitioner are not available and they are missing. The documents have been filed indicating the seizure memo showing seizure of the documents by the police authorities and its missing from the custody of the police authorities, these documents filed in this regard are Annexures Annexures R-6 and R-7. Accordingly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent University that as the answer sheets of the petitioner are not available, no 4 revaluation can be done and it is stated that compliance of the directions issued in the review petition on 16-09-2011 is impossible.
6. In support of the contention that in the absence of the answer sheets being available no direction to the University for revaluation can be ordered , learned counsel for the respondent places reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab University and another Vs. T.P.Rahamatullah and others, 1995 Supp.(4) SCC 64.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and considered the rival contentions. It is a case where there is a direction in the review petition to revalue the answer sheets of the petitioner in the subjects of Physiology Second Paper and Biochemistry First Paper. It is also an admitted position that in the matter of conducting valuation and awarding marks to various candidates, several irregularities and fraud has been committed in the Medical College, for which various persons have been arrested. The matter was investigated in Crime No.111/11 and a challan has been filed and trial in the matter is in progress. It is a case where taking note of all these facts and the affidavit filed by the University. It is clear that while investigating the matter the police authorities had seized of all the answer sheets of various students including that of the petitioner where enhanced marks were awarded and it was found that in awarding the marks manipulation and fraud have been made. In the investigation answer sheets were seized and now they are not available, It is therefore, a case where direction issued by this court on 16-09-2011 in the review petition cannot be complied with by the University. The University can only conduct revaluation of the answer sheet and declare of the result as ordered by this court if the answer sheets are available and now the material available on record shows that the answer sheets are not available, under such circumstances no further mandamus or direction can be issued by this court to undertake revaluation of the answer sheets. If the petitioner feels that the answer sheet has been misplaced by the officials of the University or the police authorities due to their negligence, he is granted liberty to take 5 appropriate steps for getting the matter investigated or claim compensation for default of the official concerned in the matte of getting his answer sheets missing.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that adverse inference cannot be drawn by this court nor can this court direct for declaration of the result of the petitioner or pass any order with regard to revaluation of the answer sheets. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, no case is made out to issue any direction in the matte and therefore, the petition stands dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take steps as may be permissible under law.
9. In view of the above finding no case made out on the grounds raised, this petition stands dismissed.
(RAJENDRA MENON) (M.A.SIDDIQUI)
JUDGE JUDGE
hsp