Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sanjay Batham vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 3 May, 2017
1 WP.7697.2016
(Sanjay Batham Vs. State of M.P. and Ors)
3.05.2017
Shri Kumar Gourav Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Praveen Newaskar, Government Advocate for the
respondent No.1/State.
Smt. Nidhi Patankar, Advocate for respondent No.3. Shri R.S. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4.
1. Writ jurisdiction of this court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is invoked praying for the following reliefs:-
(I) That the respondents may kindly be directed to declare the result of the petitioner of the last examination i.e. Second Prof. (II) That, any other relief this Hon'ble Court deems fit looking to the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner after being subjected to PMT Examination 2009 was granted admission to MBBS course. Crime No. 138/2013 was registered against the petitioner alleging offence of cheating and forgery for having indulged in unlawful means for passing the PMT Examination. The petitioner consequently was rusticated by the Dean of the concerned college by order dated 16.09.2014 on account of pendency of investigation/trial in the said offences. Later on, by judicial intervention, the petitioner was allowed to attend classes. Now, the petitioner is before this court to seek declaration of his result of Second Professional Examination of MBBS.
3. In regard to the aspect of the right of the candidate against whom criminal cases are registered, the Apex Court has concluded the issue in decision of Nidhi Kaim Vs. State of M.P. reported in (2017) 4 SCC 1 holding that no prior opportunity of hearing is necessary.
3.1. Whether said decision of the Apex Court applies to the case of 2 WP.7697.2016 (Sanjay Batham Vs. State of M.P. and Ors) the petitioner is required to be gone into by the Dean of the concerned college, who is the competent authority in terms of clause 3.2 and 3.3 of M.P. P.M.T. Rules. The competency of the Dean for taking action in respect of irregularity or illegality committed by a candidate in any of the processes right from applying for PMT till admission in the concerned college has been upheld by this Court in the case of Nitin Ken v. State of MP & Ors. in WP No. 8200/2016 decided on 5.12. 2016.
3.2 In view of the subsequent development of the passing of verdict in respect of the number of candidates, who are admitted to MBBS Course and who had adopted unfair means to get admission, having been decided by the Apex Court in the case of Nidhi Kaim (supra), this Court is of the considered view that no relief can be granted to the petitioner as prayed for and the matter has to be left open for the competent authority, the Dean of the concerned college to be dealt with.
4. The very admission of the petitioner is in question in the present case where offences have been registered alleging forgery and cheating for adopting unfair means in passing the said PMT entrance examination which has led to his admission in MBBS course. More so, even the judicial intervention extended to the petitioner is of interim nature without any final adjudication of the validity of his admission or rustication. More so, the issue of certain students involving adoption of unfair means in similar examination of different years has been decided by the Apex Court in the case of Nidhi Kaim (supra) holding inter alia that in view of the illegality having been found proved on a probe conducted by an expert body, there is no requirement of affording prior opportunity of hearing before rusticating the students who were before the Apex Court. 4.1 Thus, now the Dean has to enquire into the applicability of the 3 WP.7697.2016 (Sanjay Batham Vs. State of M.P. and Ors) verdict of the Apex court to the case of the petitioner and thereafter pass appropriate order of rustication or retention of the petitioner.
5. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with following directions :-
(i) The Dean of the concerned college, where petitioner is admitted, is required to conduct enquiry first on the aspect as to whether decision in the case of Nidhi Kaim (supra) of the Apex Court applies to the case of the petitioner. If the answer to this question is in affirmative then the competent authority i.e. Dean is directed to proceed ahead by passing appropriate orders without affording any opportunity to the petitioner in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in Nidhi Kaim (supra).
(ii) In case the answer to the question is in the negative, then the Dean of the concerned college shall pass appropriate orders in terms of the relevant statutory PMT Rules in accordance with law after giving due and sufficient opportunity to the petitioner of being heard.
(iii) It is needless to emphasize that if the Dean does not rusticate the petitioner then he be allowed to pursue his course, appear in the examination and be informed about the result of the same.
No Cost.
(Sheel Nagu) (S.A. Dharmadhikari)
Judge Judge
3/5/2017 3/5/2017
(Bu)