Madhya Pradesh High Court
Neetu Singh Markam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 September, 2014
Author: Alok Aradhe
Bench: A. M. Khanwilkar, Alok Aradhe
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR
1. W.P. No.1918/2014
Neetu Singh Markam ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
2. W.P. No.6883/2014
Ankit Tiwari ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
3. W.P. No.7295/2014
Nancy Singh. ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
4. W.P. No.7523/2014
Ku.Rakshanda Khantal ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
5. W.P. No.7525/2014
Ku.Natasha Sheikh ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
6. W.P. No.7526/2014
Ku.Marlin Koshy ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
7. W.P. No.7527/2014
Yogendra Singh Gurjar ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
2
8. W.P. No.7529/2014
Amit Kumar Piplya ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
9. W.P. No.7530/2014
Vijendra Kumar Merawat ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
10. W.P. No.7537/2014
Manish Patidar ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
11. W.P. No.7538/2014
Kritesh Nandini Alawa ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
12. W.P. No.7539/2014
Goldy Chauhan ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
13. W.P. No.7540/2014
Neha Rane ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
14. W.P. No.7541/2014
Digvijay Singh Alawa ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
3
15. W.P. No.7542/2014
Usha Mewada ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
16. W.P. No.7576/2014
Rahil P Vira ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
17. W.P. No.7602/2014
Rudra Kumar Kushwaha ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
18. W.P. No.7611/2014
Shweta Bhatnagar ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
19. W.P. No.7619/2014
Puneet Patel ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
20. W.P. No.7682/2014
Tausif Ahmad ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
21. W.P. No.7694/2014
Sundarya Bodh ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
22. W.P. No.7772/2014
4
Vaseem Khan ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
23. W.P. No.7773/2014
Sumeet Jain ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
24. W.P. No.7776/2014
Priyanka Rajoriya ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
25. W.P. No.7800/2014
Yusuf Saify ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
26. W.P. No.7856/2014
Rajani Chauhan ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
27. W.P. No.7860/2014
Rahul Soni ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
28. W.P. No.7861/2014
Anisha Singh ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
5
29. W.P. No.7876/2014
Ramyash Pandey ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
30. W.P. No.7881/2014
Sunil Kumar Jat ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
31. W.P. No.7891/2014
Neha Pachauri ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
32. W.P. No.7926/2014
Bhavesh Nayak ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
33. W.P. No.7982/2014
Jitendra Garg ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
34. W.P. No.8023/2014
Pratik Arya ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
35. W.P. No.8024/2014
Divya Saitya ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
6
36. W.P. No.8028/2014
Pravin Kumar Harode ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
37. W.P. No.8030/2014
Krishna Sharma ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
38. W.P. No.8048/2014
Priya Bharke ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
39. W.P. No.8049/2014
Nitin Arya ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
40. W.P. No.8050/2014
Pooja Arya ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
41. W.P. No.8051/2014
Shashank Chouhan ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
42. W.P. No.8052/2014
Vaishali Baria ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
43. W.P. No.8068/2014
7
Irfan Khan ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
44. W.P. No.8069/2014
Raksha Maladhari ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
45. W.P. No.8083/2014
Bhimsen Yadav ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
46. W.P. No.9766/2014
Ruchika Surana ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
47. W.P. No.8094/2014
Neetu Singh ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
48. W.P. No.8095/2014
Yogmaya Mokati ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
49. W.P. No.8108/2014
Ku. Deepti Singh ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
8
50. W.P. No.8135/2014
Sonam Soni ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
51. W.P. No.8137/2014
Veenam Osheen Singh ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
52. W.P. No.8144/2014
Sonal Saryam ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
53. W.P. No.8167/2014
Neetu Singh Markam ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
54. W.P. No.8273/2014
Gourav Ahirwar ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
55. W.P. No.8371/2014
Anil Katara .........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
56. W.P. No.8412/2014
9
Girish Kumar Patel ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
57. W.P. No.8431/2014
Tilak Ahirwar ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
58. W.P. No.8432/2014
Neelam Kumari ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
59. W.P. No.8462/2014
Rahul Hardenia ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
60. W.P. No.8488/2014
Ku. Neha Trivedi ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
61. W.P. No.8640/2014
Chandra Shekhar Verma ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
62. W.P. No.8985/2014
Yogendra Kumar ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
10
63. W.P. No.8990/2014
Subi Singh Bhadoriya ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
64. W.P. No.8993/2014
Rajesh Singh Argal ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
65. W.P. No.9105/2014
Ashish Jamre ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
66. W.P. No.9150/2014
Neha Batra ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
67. W.P. No.9318/2014
Varsha Phoolware ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
68. W.P. No.9321/2014
Nisha Chouhan ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
69. W.P. No.9322/2014
Rajesh ..........Petitioner
Vs.
11
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
70. W.P. No.9326/2014
Deepak Bundela ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
71. W.P. No.9327/2014
Vishal Bansal ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
72. W.P. No.9340/2014
Hariram Hatila ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
73. W.P. No.9342/2014
Jenus Wadia ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
74. W.P. No.9364/2014
Ruchi ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
75. W.P. No.9413/2014
Sonu Bishwas ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
76. W.P. No.9415/2014
Ms. Usha ..........Petitioner
12
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
77. W.P. No.9444/2014
Ku. Karishma Singhai ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
78. W.P. No.9466/2014
Nitin Verma ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
79. W.P. No.9577/2014
Meenu ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
80. W.P. No.9583/2014
Shivkanya ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
81. W.P. No.9584/2014
Shubham Mehta ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
82. W.P. No.9585/2014
Ankit ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
83. W.P. No.9588/2014
13
Jenus Vadia ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
84. W.P. No.9589/2014
Preeti Chouhan ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
85. W.P. No.9595/2014
Hardik ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
86. W.P. No.9596/2014
Shubhan Dapkara ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
87. W.P. No.9598/2014
Akshay Shandilya ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
88. W.P. No.9624/2014
Ku. Radhika Jaiswal ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
89. W.P. No.9768/2014
Abhay Surana ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
14
90. W.P. No.9798/2014
Aviral Prasad ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
91. W.P. No.9880/2014
Priyuanka Chhapre ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
92. W.P. No.9963/2014
Shweta Jadav ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
93. W.P. No.9981/2014
Nikhil Jain ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
94. W.P. No.10149/2014
Gaurav Solanki ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
95. W.P. No.10151/2014
Krishna Pal Bhanwar ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
96. W.P. No.10153/2014
Deepshika Damor ..........Petitioner
15
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
97. W.P. No.10155/2014
Menka Choudhary ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
98. W.P. No.10156/2014
Pawan Raj Kanasia ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
99. W.P. No.10158/2014
Rekha Add ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
100. W.P. No.10159/2014
Bhawana Damor ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
101. W.P. No.10160/2014
Rajkumar Kanas ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
102. W.P. No.10161/2014
Pawan Waskale ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
103. W.P. No.10162/2014
16
Vishal Asade ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
104. W.P. No.10163/2014
Ashish Lohare ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
105. W.P. No.10164/2014
Chetanya Damar ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
106. W.P. No.10165/2014
Nikhil Kihori ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
107. W.P. No.10189/2014
Shreyansh Soni ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
108. W.P. No.10221/2014
Shalini Tiwari ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
109. W.P. No.10361/2014
Parakh Nayak Asati ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
17
110. W.P. No.10362/2014
Atul Kumar Singh ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
111. W.P. No.10365/2014
Vivek Tijoria ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
112. W.P. No.10390/2014
Lalit Kumar Jharia ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
113. W.P. No.10391/2014
Deepak Kumar Solanki ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
114. W.P. No.10414/2014
Gunjeet Nayak ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
115. W.P. No.10415/2014
Navneet Patidar ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
116. W.P. No.10418/2014
Ajay Singh Mujalde ..........Petitioner
Vs.
18
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
117. W.P. No.10420/2014
Rohit Hada ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
118. W.P. No.10422/2014
Kartik Khatediya ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
119. W.P. No.10503/2014
Gorelal Bamne ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
120. W.P. No.10507/2014
Ravi Jadhav ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
121. W.P. No.10851/2014
Rituraj Warkade ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
122. W.P. No.11097/2014
Deepak Chouhan ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
123. W.P. No.11099/2014
19
Ravindra Kharte ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
124. W.P. No.11106/2014
Rahul Dudve ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
125. W.P. No.11112/2014
Shubham Waskale ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
126. W.P. No.11119/2014
Ravi Katara ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
127. W.P. No.11153/2014
Abhay Singh Yadav ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
128. W.P. No.11491/2014
Alka Mansuri ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
129. W.P. No.11493/2014
Vinod Kumar Rawat ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
20
130. W.P. No.11496/2014
Farukh Shah ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
131. W.P. No.11510/2014
Nupur Joshi ..........Petitioner
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others .........Respondents
132. W.P.No.13936/2014
Shashank Yadav .............Petitioner
Vs.
State of M.P. and others ..........Respondents
133. W.P.No.14059/2014
Nidhi Jain ...........Petitioner
Vs.
State of M.P. and others ..............Respondents
134. W.P.No.14062/2014
Sahaj Bawa ............Petitioner
Vs.
State of M.P. and others .............Respondents
135. W.P. No.7121/2014
Pakhi Birla .............Petitioner
Vs.
State of M.P. and others ...........Respondents
136. W.P.No.7825/2014
Rushabh Momaya .............Petitioner
Vs.
State of M.P. and others .............Respondents
21
137. W.P.No.14458/2014
Arbaz Ali Sheikh .............Petitioner
Vs.
State of M.P. and others .............Respondents
138. W.P.No.10623/2014
Sharad Yadav. ...............Petitioner
Vs.
State of M.P. and others ................Respondents
139. W.P.No.8817/2014
Madhusudan Bamania ............ Petitioner
Vs.
State of M.P. and others ............. Respondents
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram
Hon'ble Mr.Justice A. M. Khanwilkar, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr.Justice Alok Aradhe, J.
==============================================
Date of Hearing: 18.09.2014
Date of Order: 24.09.2014
Whether approved for reporting? Yes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rajendra Tiwari, learned senior counsel with Mr. Udyan Tiwari and Mr. T.K.
Khadka counsel for the petitioners in W.P. Nos.7576/2014, 7602/2014,
7611/2014, 7694/2014, 8412/2014, 9598/2014, 10361/2014, 10362/2014, W.P.
No.10365/2014 and W.P.No.13936/2014.
Mr. R.N. Singh, learned senior counsel with Mr. Arpan J. Pawar, counsel for the
petitioners in W.P. No.7772/2014 and W.P. No.8135/2014.
22
Mr. Sanjay K.Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.9768/2014.
Mr. Arpan J.Pawar, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. Nos.7523/2014,
7525/14, 7526/14, 7860/14 and W.P. No.8137/2014.
Mr. N.S. Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.8028/2014.
Mr.R.K.Sanghi, learned counsel for petitioner in W.P.No.9322/2014.
Mr. R.B. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.9105/2014.
Mr. Vivek Rusia, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.6883/2014.
Mr. Deep Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.9589/2014.
Mr.Aditya Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No. 7619/2014,
W.P.No.8094/2014, W.P.No.8371/2014 W.P.No.10420/2014, W.P.
No.10414/2014, W.P. No.10415/2014, W.P.No.8108/2014, W.P.No.10418/2014
and W.P. No.10422/2
Mr. Amit Khatri, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No.7537/2014, W.P.
No.7540/2014, W.P.No.7773/2014, W.P.No.8431/2014, W.P. No.8432/2014,
W.P. No.7538/2014, W.P. No.7539/2014 and W.P. No.7541/2014
Mr.C.S.Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.8462/2014.
Mr.Anubhav Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.9444/2014.
Mr.Pushpendra Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.9963/2014,
9150/2014 and 9880/2014.
Mr.Ritwik Parashar, learned counsel for petitioner in W.P.No.7542/2014 &
W.P.No.14458/2014.
Mr.Nishant Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.7527/2014.
Mr. A.T. Faridi, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.10851/2014
Mr. A.K. Bajpai, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.8273/2014.
Mr.Amitabh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.7121/2014 and
W.P.No.7825/2014.
Mr. H.K. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No.10189/2014,
7800/2014, 8640/2014 and 8095/2014.
23
Mr.Nikhil Tiwari and Mr.Himanshu Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners in
W.P.No.14059/2014 and W.P.No.14062/2014.
Mr.Anup Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner W.P.No.10623/2014
Mr. Kaustabh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.8817/2014.
Mr.P.K.Kaurav and Mr.Aditya Khandekar, learned counsel for the respondents.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
{____.09.2014 } Per Alok Aradhe,J:
In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners have, inter alia, assailed the validity of the orders dated 24.4.2014, 03.5.2014, 06.5.2014, 07.5.2014, 08.5.2014 and 19.5.2014 by which the Professional Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") has cancelled the results of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners had resorted to unfair means during the Pre Medical Tests held between years 2008 to 2012. The petitioners also seek consequential direction to the respondents to permit them to prosecute the studies in M.B.B.S. Course. In order to appreciate the petitioners' challenge to the impugned orders, the relevant facts need mention, which are stated infra.
2. The Board was initially constituted by Notification dated 30.7.1983 and thereafter re-constituted by Notification dated 22.1.2004 in exercise of executive powers by the State Government for discharging its obligation of conducting free and fair pre-entrance examination for admission to professional courses. The Board has been conducting Pre Medical Tests 24 every year for admission to M.B.B.S. Course in respect of various Colleges in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The Board held the Pre Medical Tests between the period from 2008 to 2013. The Pre Medical Test, 2013 was scheduled to be held on 07.7.2013. A complaint regarding commission of gross irregularities and use of unfair means by the candidates in the examination was received by the Director General of Police on 06.7.2013. Acting on the said complaint and reports published in local newspapers about the conspiracy hatched for resorting to unfair means by a large number of candidates with the assistance of the candidates coming from other States, the Indore Crime Branch arrested about 20 suspects.
3. On 07.7.2013, First Information Report was lodged bearing Crime No.539/2013 at Police Station, Rajendra Nagar, Indore mentioning about involvement of large number of candidates having indulged in unfair means during Pre Medical Test, 2013. After registration of First Information Report, the Crime Branch made enquries and sought certain information from the officials of the Board, which was furnished to the Crime Branch on 12.7.2013. The officials of the Board, namely, Nitin Mohindra, Principal System Analyst and Ajay Kumar Sen, Senior System Analyst were interrogated and were arrested by the Police on 16.7.2013 and were suspended by the Board on 17.7.2013. During the investigation, involvement of one C.K.Mishra, Assistant Programmer of the Board was also found. The Board received a list of 317 candidates from Superintendent of Police, 25 Indore who were named as beneficiaries of the conspiracy. The factum of involvement of one Jagdish Sagar in the conspiracy also came to the light. The Director of the Board submitted proposal to the Chairman on 30.8.2013 to permit constitution of Computer Experts Committee to examine the records and submit its opinion and recommendations. The Chairman accorded approval to the said proposal on 05.9.2013.
4. The Director of the Board by communication dated 31.8.2013 required Nitin Mohindra and Ajay Kumar Sen to furnish the logic of allotment of roll numbers for facilitating the scrutiny by the Computer Experts Committee. The said officials by communication dated 03.9.2013 expressed their inability to disclose the logic in allocation of the roll numbers to the candidates. In the absence of information divulged by the aforesaid officials, the Computer Expert Committee had to evolve its own mechanism to find out the methodology adopted in the allocation of roll numbers to the concerned candidates by method other than the stipulated or specified randomization process. The Computer Experts Committee comprising of 6 experts was constituted which convened its first meeting on 07.9.2013. The Committee submitted its report on 07.9.2013 in which, in the initial scrutiny, it found mismatch of roll numbers of 30195 out of 40086 candidates including the allocation of roll numbers of 49 candidates whose application forms were rejected by the Board in respect of Pre Medical Test, 2013. The Computer Experts Committee thereafter held its meetings on 30.9.2013 and 26 04.10.2013. The meeting of the Committee of the Joint Controllers was convened on 08.10.2013. From perusal of the report, the yardstick adopted by the Committee in identifying 345 candidates, who were involved in conspiracy of change of roll numbers after their generation, is evident. The relevant extract of the report reads as under:-
"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 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 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"27
5. The reports and opinions of the Committee were placed before the Chairman of the Board with the recommendation to initiate action against 345 identified candidates. The Chairman agreed with the proposal submitted by the Director and issued directions to proceed in the matter, which is evident from the noting dated 08.10.2013 and the same is reproduced below for the facility of reference:-
"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 28 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 "
6. In pursuance of direction issued by Chairman, the Director issued the impugned order dated 09.10.2013 by which the results of examination of 345 candidates, who had appeared in the Pre Medical Test, 2013 were cancelled on the ground that they had indulged in unfair means. The relevant extract of the order reads as under:-
"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**
7. Thereafter, on 22.11.2013, the Board received a list from Special 29 Task Force in respect of another 92 candidates who had allegedly indulged in unfair means as a result of which First Information Report was lodged against them. On receipt of said information, a meeting of Joint Controllers was convened on 30.11.2013, in which, on due analysis of the material and after applying the same logic, as was applied for identifying 345 candidates, the committee opined that action must be taken against 70 additional candidates. The relevant extract of the evaluation Report dated 30.11.2013 reads as under:-
"e-iz - O;kolkf;d ijh{kk e.My] Hkks i ky @@ijh{k.k izfrosnu@@ "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 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 30 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"
8. After receipt of the report, the Director placed the matter before the Chairman with the recommendation to take action against 70 additional candidates who were identified by the Committee of the Joint Controllers. The Chairman approved the proposal. In pursuance of approval accorded by the Chairman, the Director issued an order dated 06.12.2013. The relevant extract of which reads as under:-
"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"
9. The Board by communication dated 24.10.2013 informed the Assistant Inspector General of Police, Special Task Force that in Pre Medical Test, 2012 roll numbers of 701 candidates were found to be altered. During the course of investigation of Crime Number 12/2013, one Jagdish Sagar and Sanjeev Shilpkar informed the Investigating Officer of the Special Task Force that they in collusion with Nitin Mohindra and other officials of the 31 Board had indulged in change of roll numbers to facilitate the candidates for indulging in use of unfair means in Pre Medical Test, 2012 as well. Accordingly, the Assistant Inspector General of Police, Special Task Force by communication dated 31.12.2013 addressed to the Controller of the Board requested to conduct an enquiry with regard to Pre Medical Tests held in the years 2009, 2010 and 2011 as well, and to submit a report so that suitable action in the matter can be taken.
10. Thereafter, by communication dated 28.1.2014 the Assistant Inspector General of Police, Special Task Force informed the Controller of the Board that while investigation of Crime No.12/2013 it has been found that OMR sheets of certain candidates have been filled up by the Officials of the Board and, therefore, necessary action be taken against them.
11. In the meanwhile, the Board on 06.11.2013 constituted Technical Committee of following persons to examine the irregularities conducted in the Pre Medical Test, 2012:-
S.No. Name of Member of Designation
committee
1. Dr.Samar Upadhyay Assistant Professor and Head,
Computer Applications
2. Mrs.Juhi Jain Lecturer &I/c, HOD, IT
3. Mr.D.K.Chourishi Lecturer, Computer Science
&Engineering.
4. Mr.Kuldeep Singh Chouhan Senior Software Engineering
5. Mr.Ashish Jain Server Administrator
6. Mrs.Ajita Satheesh Assistant Professor
32
12. It is pertinent to mention here that Pre Medical Test, 2012 was held on 10.6.2012 in which 38,671 candidates had appeared. The Committee, as stated supra, was constituted vide order dated 06.11.2013 which held it's meeting on 15.11.2013 and found that roll numbers of 701 candidates were altered after its' generation. Out of 701 candidates the Committee identified 345 suspected candidates and after scrutiny recommended for cancellation of result of 319 candidates vide recommendations dated 15.4.2014 and 05.5.2014. The Committee excluded cases of 26 candidates who on the basis of low marks could not qualify for admission to MBBS Course. The Committee also took into account the seating plan in the examination centres and found that roll numbers were tampered with the object to form pairs. In most of the pairs it was noticed that one of the candidates is out of State of Madhya Pradesh and there is similarity in the matching right answers and matching wrong answers to a large extent, which is possible only on account of copying. The recommendations of the committee were approved by the Chairman on 15.4.2014 and 06.5.2014. Consequently, the orders of cancellation of results of candidates who had indulged in use of unfair means in Pre Medical Test, 2012 were issued on 15.4.2014 and 06.5.2014 by which results of 272 and 47 candidates respectively were cancelled.
13. The Board vide order dated 26.4.2014 and 15.5.2014 directed constitution of the Committees to examine the irregularities committed in the Pre Medical Tests of the years 2009, 2010 and 2011 and 2008 respectively. 33 The Pre-Medical Test, 2011 was held on 24.7.2011 in which 26,116 candidates had appeared. It is pertinent to mention here that Pre-Medical Test, 2011 was held off-line. The Committee found that roll numbers of 110 candidates were altered. The Computer Experts Committee in it's meeting held on 03.5.2014 evolved a formula and fixed bench mark score to ascertain use of unfair means in the examination at 127.40 i.e. double the average of correct answers given by the candidates who were not involved in any irregularity i.e. 63.55 marks. On the basis of aforesaid criteria and the records available with the Board, the Committee identified that roll numbers of 55 pairs were altered/tampered who were sitting next to each other in the examination hall. It was further found by the Committee that there is similarity in the matching right answers and matching wrong answers of aforesaid 55 pairs of candidates and certain candidates from State of Madhya Pradesh as well as the candidates from outside the State had chosen the particular examination centre and were sitting next to each other, whose roll numbers were tampered. The Committee excluded the cases of 10 candidates on the ground that they have secured low marks, therefore, could not seek admission to MBBS Course and cases of two candidates on the ground that on further verification, no proof with regard to tampering of their roll numbers was found. Accordingly, the Committee recommended for cancellation of the results of 98 candidates. The recommendation of the Committee was approved by the Chairman on 03.5.2014 as a consequence of which the order of cancellation of results of 98 candidates who had indulged 34 in use of unfair means in Pre Medical Test, 2011 was issued by the Director of the Board.
14. The Pre-Medical Test, 2010 was held off-line on 20.6.2010 in which 26,711 candidates had appeared. The Committee identified 132 suspected candidates on the ground that their roll numbers were tampered. The Committee in its meeting held on 05.5.2014 evolved, a formula and fixed bench mark score to ascertain use of unfair means in the examination at 142.66 i.e. double the number of average of correct answers given by the candidates who were not involved in any irregularity i.e. 71.33 marks. On the basis of aforesaid criteria as well as the record available with the Board, the Committee identified that roll numbers of 68 pairs were altered/tampered who were sitting next to each other in the examination hall. It was further found by the Committee that there is similarity in the matching right answers and matching wrong answers of aforesaid 68 pairs of candidates. The Committee excluded 6 candidates on the ground that they had obtained low marks and did not qualify for admission to MBBS Course and on further scrutiny, it was found that there was no sufficient evidence with regard to tampering of roll numbers by 36 candidates. Accordingly, the Committee recommended for cancellation of the results of 90 candidates. The recommendation of the Committee was approved by the Chairman on 06.5.2014 as a consequence of which the order of cancellation of results of 90 candidates who had indulged in use of unfair means in Pre Medical Test, 35 2010 was issued by the Director of the Board.
15. The Pre-Medical Test, 2009 was held off-line as well as on-line on 5.7.2009 in which 29,162 candidates had appeared. The Committee identified 185 suspected candidates whose numbers were found to be tampered. The Experts Committee held its meeting on 07.5.2014, evolved a formula and fixed bench mark score to ascertain use of unfair means in the examination at 138.62 i.e. double the number of average of correct answers given by the candidates who were not involved in any irregularity i.e. 69.32 marks. On the basis of aforesaid criteria as well as the record available with the Board, the Committee identified that roll numbers of 95 pairs were altered/tampered who were sitting next to each other in the examination hall. It was further found by the Committee that there is similarity in the matching right answers and matching wrong answers of aforesaid 95 pairs of candidates. The Committee excluded 16 candidates on the ground that marks obtained by them were low and they were not entitled to seek admission in MBBS Course and on further scrutiny it also found that no sufficient material with regard to tampering of their roll numbers with regard to 84 candidates was found. Accordingly, the Committee recommended for cancellation of the results of 85 candidates. The recommendation of the Committee was approved by the Chairman on 08.5.2014 as a consequence of which the order of cancellation of results of 85 candidates who indulged in unfair means in Pre Medical Test, 2009 was issued by the Director of the 36 Board.
16. The Pre-Medical Test, 2008 which was held off-line as well as on- line on 7.6.2008 in which 38,378 candidates had appeared. The Committee identified 110 suspected candidates. The Committee held its meeting on 16.5.2014, evolved formula and fixed bench mark score to ascertain use of unfair means in the examination at 138.74 i.e. double the number of average of correct answers given by the candidates who were not involved in any irregularity i.e. 69.37 marks. On the basis of aforesaid criteria as well as the record available with the Board, the Committee identified that roll numbers of 59 pairs were altered/tampered who were sitting next to each other in the examination hall. It was further found by the Committee that there is similarity in the matching right answers and matching wrong answers of 21 pairs of candidates who were sitting next to each other whose roll numbers were tampered. The Committee excluded 16 candidates on the ground that they secured low marks and could not secure admission to MBBS Course on further scrutiny it was found that no sufficient material was available with regard to tampering of roll numbers of 52 candidates. Accordingly, the Committee recommended for cancellation of the results of 42 candidates. The recommendation of the Committee was approved by the Chairman on 16.5.2014 as a consequence of which on 19.5.2014 an order of cancellation of results of 42 candidates who had indulged in use of unfair means in the examination in Pre Medical Test, 2008 was issued by the Director of the 37 Board. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioners have approached this Court.
17. Mr. Rajendra Tiwari, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.7576/2014, 7602/2014, 7611/2014, 7694/2014, 8412/2014, 9598/2014, 10361/2014, 10362/2014, W.P.No.10365/2014 and W.P.No.13936/2014 submitted that from perusal of order dated 3.5.2014, no basis for ordering an enquiry in respect of the Pre Medical Tests held between the years 2009 to 2011 is discernible. The enquiry was directed to be conducted merely on the basis of ipse-dixit of the Chairman. Neither any report of the Centre Superintendent nor of the Invigilator of examination centre was obtained and no Centre Superintendent/Invigilator was examined to ascertain whether any material exists for ordering an enquiry into the alleged case of mass copying. Only on the basis of identification of certain groups, an enquiry was ordered in respect of the Pre Medical Tests held between the years 2009 to 2011. There was no material to order an enquiry in respect of the Pre Medical Tests of the years 2009 to 2011, before constitution of the Committees. It was also pointed out that the exclusion of candidates from enquiry on the ground that the marks obtained by them were low, is incorrect and no action has been taken against the candidates who were allotted roll numbers naturally. It was also urged that it was not possible for the candidates to manipulate the roll numbers. While inviting our attention to Annexure P/9 in W.P. No.7576/2014, it was pointed out that 38 different pattern of marks obtained by the candidates is emerging, therefore, the same formula could not have been applied by the Board for identification of the candidates who were allegedly involved in mass copying.
It was also argued that there is no material on record to arrive at the conclusion that the petitioners were either involved in altering the roll numbers or had indulged in use of unfair means. It was also pointed out that report of the Committee is an opinion evidence and under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the same is required to be proved by the Board and, therefore, the District Judge should be directed to submit a report after due enquiry. It was also urged that the candidates participated in the competitive examination with all seriousness and none of them had raised any objection with regard to alleged mass copying, which took place in the Examination Centres, and no explanation has been furnished by the Board as to why there is difference of marks between alleged scorer and the marks obtained by the petitioners. It was also argued that no presumption can be raised merely on account of similarity in seating pattern and on account of obtaining similar marks with the candidates who were allegedly involved in copying. It was further submitted that opinion of experts is not beyond the pale of judicial review. In support of aforesaid submissions learned senior counsel has placed reliance on decisions of the Supreme Court in Competition Commission of India vs. Steel Authority of India Limited, (2010) 10 SCC 744 and Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India and others Vs. Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India 39 and others, (2007) 12 SCC 210. It was also pointed out by learned senior counsel that the petitioner in Writ Petition No.7694/2014 belongs to a poor family and has completed his studies and is undertaking internship. It was further pointed out that the petitioner was sitting during the examination in front of alleged scorer.
18. Rejoinder reply has been given by learned senior counsel by way of written submissions. In the written submissions, it is stated that Anubhav Sharma and Shivani Sharma were alloted Roll Nos. 523828 and 523829 respectively, who are related to each other as brother and sister. They were sitting in the examination hall next to each other and scored identical marks namely 172. However, no action has been taken against them by the Board because there was no change in their roll numbers. Thus, suspected candidates have been given clean-chit. It has further been mentioned in the written submissions that the Board has failed to disclose the right answers in the mismatch answers, which goes to show that consideration was made with punctilious observation and no serious scrutiny was made. It is further submitted that though several candidates did not indulge in use of unfair means, yet their results were cancelled. The Board has taken action for cancellation of results of the candidates in selective manner. It is also mentioned that rule of law requires the Board to be more cautious and fair with the candidates and the burden to prove its action lies heavily on the Board. It is also mentioned that in cases where candidates have passed all 40 examinations of M.B.B.S. course in first attempt, the action of the Board in cancellation of their results cannot be said to be justified and the fate of such candidates should be made subject to ultimate decision by the criminal Court. Lastly and in the alternative, it has been mentioned that the petitioners be granted the liberty to resort to the remedy of civil suit. In support of aforesaid submissions, learned senior counsel has referred to decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Veer Pal Singh vs. Secretary, Ministry of Defence, (2013) 8 SCC 83, Kunhayammed and others Vs. State of Kerala and another, AIR 2000 SC 2587, Ashish Batham Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2002) 7 SCC 317, East Coast Railway and another Vs. Mahadev Appa Rao and Others, (2010) 7 SCC 678, Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others, (2008) 16 SCC 276 and Natwar Singh Vs. Director of Enforcement and another, (2010) 13 SCC 255.
19. Mr. R.N. Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No.7772/2014 and W.P. No.8135/2014 has submitted that the petitioners had appeared in the Pre Medical Test, 2008. It is further submitted that taking into account the magnitude of the scam, another high level committee of experts ought to have been constituted by the Board to consider the report submitted by the Computer Experts Committee. It is also pointed out that the entire action against the petitioners has been taken in hot haste and the same suffers from the vice of non-application of mind and powers of judicial 41 review are available in the context of the order. Lastly, it is urged that the Court should constitute another Committee to satisfy itself as to whether the conclusions arrived at by the Committee of the experts appointed by the Board are correct. In support of his submissions, learned senior counsel has referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Natwar Singh (supra), Mahadev Appa Rao (supra) and Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited (supra)
20. Mr.Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.9768/2014 and 9766/2014 has submitted that the petitioners had appeared in Pre Medical Test, 2012 from the Examination Centre at Shahdol. It is further submitted that out of 701 cases of mismatch, the cases of 510 candidates were examined, out of which, results of 272 candidates were cancelled and thereafter the results of 47 other candidates were cancelled on the recommendations of Special Task Force. It is also argued that the Enquiry Committee has not conducted the wholesome enquiry and in respect of Pre Medical Test, 2012 no forumula was evolved by the Committee of Experts to ascertain whether the particular case is a case of mass copying. It is also argued that in Pre Medical Test, 2012 candidates did not indulge in mass copying and the grounds which were available in respect of Pre Medical Test, 2013 for holding the same to be a case of mass copying are not in existence in the case of Pre Medical Test, 2012. It is also pointed out that there is no material on record to hold the that candidates have resorted to 42 organized use of unfair means in the examination.
21. Mr.Amit Khatri, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.7537/2014, W.P.No.7540/2014, W.P.No.7773/2014, W.P.No.8431/2014, W.P. No.8432/2014, W.P. No.7538/2014, W.P. No.7539/2014 and W.P. No.7541/2014, Mr.Kuldeep Bhargava, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.9342/2014, Mr.Atul Nema, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.9981/2014, Mr.C.S.Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.8462/2014 and Mr.Pushpendra Yadav, learned counsel for petitioners in the Writ Petitions No.9963/2014, 9150/2014 and 9880/2014, Mr.Anup Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.10623/2014 and Mr.Himanshu Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petitions No.14059/2014 and 14062/2014 respectively have adopted the arguments advanced by Mr.Rajendra Tiwari and Mr.R.N.Singh, learned Senior Counsel.
22. Mr.Nikhil Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petitions No.14059/2014 and 14062/2014 while adopting the submissions made on behalf of learned senior counsel for petitioners in other writ petitions has submitted that petitioners' case does not fall within the purview of "unfair means" as defined in clause 3.8 of Madhya Pradesh Medical and Dental Under Graduate Entrance Examination Rules, 2010. It is further 43 submitted that formula evolved by Board has been applied in an erroneous manner, and since only two candidates were found copying in one room the same cannot be treated to be a case of mass-copying. In rejoinder reply, it is submitted that jumbling report in Pre Medical Test, 2011 has been made the basis for taking action in respect of all the examinations.
23. Mr. R.B. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.9105/2014 submitted that the Board has cancelled the result of 98 candidates who had appeared from thirteen different centres in the State, therefore, the instant case cannot be said to be a case of mass copying. It is further submitted that prior to issuance of impugned order, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. While inviting our attention to roll number-wise list of candidates at page 174 of the return as well as para 5 of the rejoinder, it has been contended that in respect of roll numbers mentioned in para 5 of the rejoinder, no irregularity was found, therefore, the stand taken by respondents that the petitioner tampered with the roll number, is incorrect. It is also pointed out that documents mentioned in I.A. No.9566/2014 were not supplied to the petitioner and some time limit should be prescribed for taking action for cancellation of admission. It is further submitted that there is no material on record to show that the candidates were aware about the jumbling report, therefore, it is not possible to infer that the candidates had indulged in mass copying. It is also argued that an independent expert ought to have been appointed. 44
24. Mr. N.S. Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.8028/2014 submitted that impugned order has been passed on the basis of surmises and conjectures. It is argued that it is impossible for a candidate to indulge in copying as sequence of questions in all four sets was different and OMR sheet of the petitioner has not been produced. It is also argued that impugned order has been passed in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in cases of TVS Finance and Services Limited Vs. H.Shivakumar (2010) 15 SCC 295, Oryx Fisheries Private Limited Vs. Union of India and others, (2010) 13 SCC 427 and Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited (supra).
25. Mr. Deep Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.9589/2014 has submitted that petitioner has secured 159 marks whereas alleged scorer has secured 142 marks. It is pointed out that academic record of the petitioner is good and he has secured more than 85% marks in High School and Higher Secondary School examinations and the petitioner, in fact, was sitting in the examination in front of the alleged scorer. While referring to orders dated 24.4.2014 and 7.5.2014, it is urged that though the trend emerging with regard to cancellation of admissions in both the orders is different, yet the same logic has been applied while cancelling admissions. 45
26. Mr.Vivek Rusia, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.6883/2014 has submitted that father of the petitioner is a low paid employee and the petitioner has good academic record. It is also urged that initially the committee did not find petitioner's involvement in the use of unfair means in the examination and it is not possible for a candidate to indulge in copying in the presence of invigilator. Our attention has also been invited to communication dated 30.1.2014 sent by the Director, Professional Examination Board to the Director, Medical Education, to contend that since examination was conducted by the Board in the year 2012 and students are prosecuting their studies in various Medical Colleges, therefore, Board has no authority to cancel the results of such students.
27. Mr. Arpan J.Pawar, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petitions No.7523/2014, 7525/2014, 7526/2014, 7860/2014 and 8137/2014 has submitted that no notice was issued to the petitioners before passing the impugned order and the same was passed in hot haste without properly examining the records. It is also submitted that impugned order has been passed on surmises and conjectures and there is no material available with the respondents for inculpating the petitioners in the case of unfair means. It is pointed out that petitioners have good academic profile and the statistical data prepared by respondent No.3 cannot form the basis for any punitive action against the petitioners. It is also urged that the petitioners No.2 and 3 have also cleared D-MAT Examination, 2011. It is further urged that marks 46 obtained by the petitioners are nowhere similar to alleged scorers. While referring to return filed by respondents, it is pointed out that there is a change in scan numbers of 248 candidates, yet results of only 133 candidates have been cancelled. It is also argued that there is change in date of birth of as many as 161 candidates, but change in scan number in respect of aforesaid candidates in the report has not been indicated.
It is also argued that out of 26,115 roll numbers selected by the Board, only 1036 roll numbers were chosen for scrutiny and in many other cases where candidates have secured more or less same marks, no action has been taken. In this connection, our attention is invited to averments made in para 4 of the rejoinder. It is also urged that there was neither any report of use of unfair means by the petitioners from the invigilators, nor any report of illegal change of seating pattern. The Board has failed to place the OMR sheets of petitioners and the alleged scorers on record. While referring to page 153 of the return filed by respondents, it was pointed out that petitioner No.2 was sitting in front row and not at the rear of the row and the Board is deliberately withholding the information sought for by the petitioners under the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is also argued that document Nos. P-1321/c and P-1325/c, in which, the cases of the petitioners were shown to have been considered, have not been placed on record and there is no averment in the return that OMR sheets of all 26,115 candidates have been examined. It is also submitted that petitioners in W.P. No.7126/14 and W.P. No.8137/14 were female candidates who had appeared in the examination 47 for the first time and, therefore, the allegation of the respondents that they acted as scorers, is incorrect. In support of aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in cases of Veer Pal Singh (supra) and Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India (supra). Learned counsel has also referred to paragraph 55 of the judgment referred by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ku. Pratibha Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others (W.P.No.20342/2013).
28. Mr. Ritwik Parashar, learned counsel for petitioners in W.P. No.7542/2014 and W.P.No.14458/2014 has submitted that the petitioners were sitting in the front row and, therefore, their involvement in copying is ruled out. It is also submitted that the case of the petitioners does not fall within the formula prescribed by the Board for ascertaining whether or not a candidate has indulged in use of unfair means. Mr.Anubhav Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.9444/2014 has submitted that there is difference in the marks obtained by the petitioner and that of the scorer.
29. Mr. R.K. Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.9322/2014 has submitted that there was no sufficient time during the examiantion and, therefore, it was not possible for the candidates to indulge in copying. It is further submitted that scan number of the petitioner was not changed whereas, the scan number of the beneficiary in W.P. No.7527/2014 48 was changed. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been appearing in the Pre Medical Tests since year 2005 and has succeeded in the year 2010. It is also pointed out that the beneficiary as well as the scorer took admission in M.B.B.S. Course and both of them belong to State of Madhya Pradesh. It is also pointed out that the petitioner is ready to face the NARCO test. It is also argued that individuals have been charged with copying, therefore, the instant case is not a case of mass copying. In support of aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in the case of Tushar Ranjan Sahu and 38 others Vs. Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa and others, AIR 1997 Orissa 194. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to Broom's Legal Maxims Tenth Edition and has referred to the maxims "DE NON APPARENTIBUS ET NON EXISTENTIBUS EADEM EST RATIO' and 'POTEST ADDUCI EXCEPTIO EJUSDEM REI CUJUS PETITUR DISSOLUTIO". Learned counsel in support of his submissions has also referred to the First Edition of the "Discipline of Law" by Lord Denning and to 'Due Process of Law' First Edition by Abhinav Chandrachud.
30. Mr. Nishant Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.7527/2014 has adopted the submissions made by Mr. R.K. Sanghi, Advocate. Mr.A.T. Faridi, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.10851/2014 has submitted that in the facts of the case, the Board ought to have conducted fresh examination.
49
31. Mr. A.K.Bajpai, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.8273/2014 has submitted that Pre-Medical Test, 2009 was not a case of mass-copying, as out of around 20,000 candidates, the results of only 0.29% of the candidates have been cancelled and, therefore, the Board ought to have followed the principles of natural justice. It is also submitted that formula evolved by the Board for ascertaining whether or not a candidate has indulged in mass-copying has to be static and cannot be different for different years.
32. Mr. H.K Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. Nos.10189/2014, 7800/2014, 8640/2014 and 8095/2014 has submitted that the petitioners are not involved in the tampering of roll numbers and while inviting our attention to page 160 of the return, it is contended that roll numbers of 161 candidates were tampered yet, no action has been taken against them. It is further submitted that percentage of cancellation of the results in the Pre Medical Tests of 2010 and 2011 are respectively 0.33% and 0.37% and, therefore, no inference can be drawn that candidates had indulged in mass copying in the said examinations. In rejoinder reply, it is highlighted that there is distinction between correlation and causation, and correlation does not imply causation. It is also submitted that the Board while taking action against the students has acted on probability. However, the data of match answers applied by the Board do not behave in normal 50 probability distribution as the value of mean, median and mode is not equal. In support of his submissions, Mr. Upadhyay has referred to the extracts taken out from the websites, namely, www.purplemath.com and en.wikipedia.org.
33. Mr.Aditiya Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.7619/14 has submitted that in order dated 7.5.2014 the petitioner has been treated to be a scorer who had allegedly helped one Rajesh Yadav and Mohd.Ashfaq in copying. However, in order dated 24.4.2014 Mohd. Ashfaq has been shown as scorer who had helped one Raksha Maladhari in copying. It was also pointed out that the case of the petitioner does not fall within the formula prescribed by the respondent to ascertain whether the candidates had indulged in use of unfair means. It is pointed out that the entire case against the petitioner is based on suspicion and the fact that the petitioner had indulged in copying, is proved.
34. Learned counsel while advancing arguments in W.P. No.10414/2014 has submitted that the petitioner was sitting in front row facing the wall and therefore, it was not possible for him to indulge in copying. It is also submitted that it is alleged that the petitioner was a scorer who had helped Anshuman Singh as well as Sant Kumar Maurya whereas, in order dated 24.4.2014, said Anshuman Singh has been shown to be a scorer. Learned counsel while canvassing his submissions in W.P.Nos.8108/2014 51 and 8094/2014 has submitted that petitioner in W.P.No.8108/2014 has completed the M.B.B.S. course and is working as Intern whereas, petitioner in W.P. No.8094/2014 is a student of Final Year of MBBS course. The case of the petitioners does not fall within the scope and ambit of formula prescribed by the respondents to ascertain whether the candidates had indulged in use of unfair means. Learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No.7619/2014, 8094/2014, 8108/2014, 10414/2014, 10415/2014 and 10422/2014 has adopted the submissions of Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned senior counsel.
In W.P.No.8371/2014, learned counsel has submitted that petitioner is alleged to be a scorer in respect of the Pre-Medical Test, 2008 and his case does not fall within the purview of formula prescribed by respondents. In W.P. No.10420/2014, it is submitted that the petitioner had taken admission in Private Medical College in the year 2012 against the Government seat.
35. Mr. Amitabh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. Nos.7121/2014 and W.P. No.7825/2014 has invited our attention to page 7 of the compilation filed on behalf of the Board and has submitted that the formula adopted by the Board for ascertaining whether the candidates have resorted to unfair means is obsolete and certain more data are required to verify whether it is authentic. It is further submitted that the petitioner in W.P. No.7121/2014 had sought opinion of the experts orally and the experts have opined that there is no logic of adopting the criteria evolved by the 52 Experts Committee of the Board to ascertain whether a candidate had indulged in use of unfair means. It is also submitted that the software as well the documents mentioned in I.A. No.9932/2014 and I.A.No.9060/2014 in W.P. No.7121/2014 ought to have been supplied to the petitioner as the basis of the formula is not discernible to the petitioner. It is also submitted that though an inquisitorial enquiry was undertaken by the Board to ascertain the facts, yet the final order was passed by the Board on 3.5.2014. While inviting our attention to page 3 of the return, it is contended that 300 students from Government Kasturba Higher Secondary School have appeared, out of which 16 students have been named, either as beneficiary or as scorer. It is further submitted that since the examination was of objective type, therefore possibility of candidates either answering the correct answers or the probable correct answers was very high and, therefore, the per centage of mis-match is on higher side. It is also submitted that non-supply of data as required by the petitioner vide I.A. No.9932/2014 and I.A.No.9060/2014 has prejudiced the petitioner. It is further submitted that there are seven well settled grounds for exclusion of principles of natural justice, namely, statutory exclusion, legislative Act, necessity, undisputed facts, confidentiality, preventive action, emergency and where nothing unfair can be presumed. However, none of the grounds are available in the instant case, so as to warrant exclusion of principles of natural justice. The impugned action has been taken by the respondents in hot haste and no explanation has been offered for exclusion of principles of natural justice. In support of aforesaid 53 submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Competition Commission of India (supra). It is also urged that even though in a case of enquiry pertaining to mass copying, provisions of the India Evidence Act, 1872 may not apply, however, the documents produced in the enquiry, which are relied upon, had to be proved and if the party wants inspection of the documents, the same should be granted. It is also submitted that in a proceeding before the quasi-judicial authority, the principles of natural justice would apply and no ground is available for exclusion of principles of natural justice in the fact situation of the present case. In support of aforesaid submissions, reference has been made to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of M/s. Bareilly Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. Vs. The Workmen and others, (1971) 2 SCC 617 and Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. Allahabad vs. Ghanshyam Das Gupta and others, AIR 1962 SC 1110.
36. It is further submitted that the officials of the Board were biased and the action against the petitioners has been taken in premediated manner, which is evident from the order. In support of aforesaid submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam Gupta vs. U.P.State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd and another, (1999) 2 SCC 21. It is also argued that even if the documents were not required by the candidate, then too such documents ought to have been supplied to the candidate. In support of aforesaid contention, reference has 54 been made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited (supra). It is also pointed out that the petitioner has a good academic record. While referring to page 31 of the second compilation filed on behalf of the respondents, it is pointed out that the formula for ascertaining the fact of copying, has not been explained by the respondents. It is also submitted that the petitioner in W.P.No.7121/2014 is a student of IInd Year of M.B.B.S. course, whereas the petitioner in W.P. No.7825/2014 has completed his M.B.B.S. course and is undertaking internship. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners has sought leave of this Court to produce certain additional facts. Thereupon, following order was passed on 10.9.2014:-
"10.09.2014 I.A. No.11946/2014 & I.A. No.11944/2014:
Not on Board: these matters have been mentioned by Mr. Amitabh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners with a request to take up the same along with the group of cases, which are presently being heard by the Court as overnight part heard cases.
In these matters, the petitioners invited order of the Court on interlocutory applications (I.A. No.9060/2014, I.A. No.9932/2014 in W.P. No.7121/2014; I.A. Nos.9933/2014, I.A. No.9073/2014 in W.P. No.7418/2014, I.A. No.9074/2014, I.A. No.9936/2014 in W.P. No.7825/2014 and I.A. No.9075/2014 and 9934/2014 in W.P. No.8056/2014), for issuing direction to the respondents to supply stated documents as a precondition for proceeding with the hearing of the main writ petitions. That request was, however, negatived vide order dated 3.9.2014 with liberty, as the petitioners intended to challenge the said decision before the Supreme Court. The petitioners are, however, now advised to pursue their main petitions before this Court without challenging the said decision before the Supreme Court, but, with liberty to the petitioners to agitate the points urged and referred to in the order dated 3.9.2014 at the appropriate stage.55
Above mentioned formal applications have been filed on behalf of these petitioners for preponing the date of hearing of the writ petitions and to hear the same along with the overnight part heard companion cases, which are already listed before the Court today. The application, however, is not supported by any affidavit of the petitioners. Learned counsel submits that due to paucity of time, he was not able to obtain affidavit of the petitioners but he has received clear instructions on telephone from concerned petitioner(s) to proceed with the hearing of these writ petitions. Further, it is noticed that the application as presented, is very vague and does not specifically state that the petitioners are interested in proceeding with the hearing of these matters inspite of the order dated 3.9.2014 passed by the Division Bench in these petitions.
Learned counsel for the petitioners/applicants submits that the subject applications presented by him in the Court this morning be ignored and instead, he may be permitted to file a formal application incorporating all aspects, as are necessary for entertaining the request for preponing the date of hearing of these writ petitions. He undertakes to file such application with appropriate reliefs including to dispense with the filing of affidavit of the petitioners for the reasons to be recorded in the application and to treat the proposed application as having been made by the Advocate himself. He further prays that until such formal application is filed, the request, which he proposes to make in the said application, be treated as oral request made by him across the Bar and proceed on that basis. This request is made because the arguments of the petitioners in companion cases, which are listed as overnight part heard cases, are already concluded and the reply of the State will begin from today. Before that, he intends to make his submission on behalf of the aforesaid two petitioners on condition stated hitherto.
We show indulgence to these petitioners and permit the Advocate for the petitioners to address us on merits of the writ petitions with liberty to the petitioners to challenge the opinion recorded in the decision dated 3.9.2014 if and when occasion arises at the appropriate stage.
The undertaking given by Mr. Amitabh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners that formal application regarding the abovesaid position will be filed in the course of the day made across the Bar, is accepted as the petitioners should not suffer, as the matter would become fate accompli for them if adverse judgment is rendered in the companion cases.
56
We further place on record the statement made by Mr. Amitabh Gupta, Advocate that although he is appearing as Advocate in about 75 cases, which have been deferred on his request to 6th October, 2014, only two petitioners have agreed to abide by his advice to pursue the writ petitions before this Court and the rest of the petitioners may decide to withdraw the respective petitions filed by them with liberty to file civil suit for appropriate reliefs against the orders passed by the Competent Authority, which decision will be taken by them very shortly. Hence, formal application for preponing the hearing of those matters is not made on their behalf, though Mr. Gupta is common Advocate for the petitioners in all those cases.
I.A. No.11946/2014 and I.A. No.11944/2014 are accordingly disposed of on the above terms.
Shri Amitabh Gupta is called upon to proceed with his argument in the main writ petitions forthwith, so that the Advocate for the respondents can give a consolidated reply (argument) in respect of all the petitioners together thereafter. Accordingly, Shri Amitabh Gupta commenced his oral arguments in the main above-numbered writ petitions.
(A.M. Khanwilkar) (Alok Aradhe)
Chief Justice Judge
Later on:
At 12:40 P.M.
At this stage, when one more than one hour has
been spent on hearing Shri Amitabh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, he submits that the petitioners would like to rely on new facts including academic performance of the petitioners in other examinations conducted during the same time. No such pleading is found in the writ petition. Question of permitting the petitioners to amend the pleadings at this belated stage and more so keeping in mind the indulgence shown by allowing preponement of hearing of the writ petitions on the request and assurance given by the Advocate across the Bar as recorded in the earlier part of the order, cannot be countenanced. Entertaining such request would inevitably result in deferring the hearing of all the matters, which ought to be eschewed. For, hearing in other connected matters is already continuing for more than four full days (i.e. 4.9.2014, 5.9.2014, 8.9.2014 and 9.9.2014).
Therefore, we must record our disapproval about the manner in which the matter is being presented by Shri Amitabh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners. For, if his request is to be accepted, it would result in protracting 57 the hearing of all the cases. Hence, this prayer is rejected."
37. In rejoinder reply, it is submitted that there is irrationality on the part of the Board in conducting the examination and the same is being imputed to the petitioners. It is also submitted that the cases of all the candidates were not subjected to scrutiny on the basis of the formula of Unfair Score evolved by the Board and the averments made in paragraph 6.4 in Writ Petition No.7121/2014 have not been rebutted by the Board. It is contended that the possibility of several candidates having secured similar marks has also not been explained, as possibility of answering probable answers is high. It is also urged that the Board should have taken into consideration the cases of all the selected candidates while undertaking the process of cancellation of examination results of all the candidates who have allegedly indulged in unfair means and by not doing so, unequals have been treated as equals and the action of the Board suffers from irrationality. It is also pointed out that Brochure issued by the Board should have contained a stipulation that if candidates secure similar marks, their results were likely to be cancelled. It is submitted that this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has the jurisdiction to determine the disputed questions of fact. In support of the aforesaid submissions, our attention has been invited to relief clauses 7.3 and 7.4 in Writ Petition No.7825/2014 and reliance has been placed on the decisions in Babubhai Muljibhai Patel vs. Nandlal Khodidas Barot and others, AIR 1974 SC 2105 58 and Om Prakash v. State of Haryana and Others, (1971) 3 SCC 792.
38. Lastly, it is urged that no complaint has been made by anybody immediately after the examination. It is also urged that the rules of game cannot be changed after examination, as formula to ascertain the fact whether or not a candidate had indulged in use of unfair means was evolved after the examination was held, which amounts to change of rules of game. In support of aforesaid submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions in M/s.Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation and others, AIR 2000 SC 2272 and Ramesh Kumar v. High Court of Delhi and Another, AIR 2010 SC 3714. Learned counsel has also referred to the decision in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 11 to invite our attention to scope of judicial review.
39. Mr. K.C.Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.7295/2014 submitted that by an order dated 27.3.2014, the admission of the petitioner of Pre-Medical Test, 2013 has been cancelled. It is further submitted that the impugned order is wholly illegal, arbitrary and without any justification. It is also urged that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing the impugned order.
40. In Writ Petition Nos.1918/2014, 7529/2014, 7530/2014, 7682/2014, 7776/2014, 7856/2014, 7861/2014, 7876/2014, 7881/2014, 59 7891/2014, 7926/2014, 7982/2014, 8023/2014, 8024/2014, 8030/2014, 8048/2014, 8049/2014, 8050/2014, 8051/2014, 8052/2014, 8068/2014, 8069/2014, 8083/2014, 8144/2014, 8167/2014, 8488/2014, 8985/2014, 8990/2014, 8993/2014, 9318/2014, 9321/2014, 9326/2014, 9327/2014, 9340/2014, 9413/2014, 9415/2014, 9466/2014, 9475/2014, 9577/2014, 9583/2014, 9584/2014, 9585/2014, 9588/2014, 9595/2014, 9596/2014, 9624/2014, 9798/2014, 10149/2014, 10151/2014, 10153/2014, 10155/2014, 10156/2014, 10158/2014, 10159/2014, 10160/2014, 10161/2014, 10162/2014, 10163/2014, 10164/2014, 10165/2014, 10221/2014, 10390/2014, 10391/2014, 10418/2014, 10503/2014, 10507/2014, No.11097/2014, 11099/2014, 11106/2014, 11112/2014, 11119/2014, 11153/2014, 11491/2014, 11493/2014, 11496/2014, 11510/2014 9690/2014 and 8817/2014 no counsel has addressed us separately, therefore, we presume that they have adopted the arguments already made on behalf of the petitioners in other matters.
41. Mr. P.K. Kaurav, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has invited our attention to various paragraphs of the order dated 11.4.2014 passed in W.P. No.20342/2013 (Ku. Pratibha Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others) and has submitted that the issues raised in the instant writ petition are covered by the decision rendered by Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid writ petition. It is further submitted that the common elements, namely tampering/mass copying of roll numbers, involvement of 60 some technical professional racketeers, tampering/mass copying only in selected cities and selected centres and high percentage of matching of correct and incorrect answers in selected cities and centres and the opinion furnished by the Special Task Force in respect of Pre Medical Tests, 2008 to 2012 as well as 2013 exist and, therefore, it can safely be held that candidates even in the Pre Medical Tests of 2008 to 2012 have indulged in mass copying. It is further submitted that on account of revealation made in the course of investigation, a decision was taken to scrutinize the cases of the candidates who had appeared in the Pre Medical Tests between the years 2008 to 2012. The formula evolved by the Computer Experts Committee for ascertaining whether or not the candidates had indulged in use of unfair means, is logical.
42. Learned counsel for the respondents has invited our attention to various pages of the compilation filed by him and has pointed out the seating plan as well as the documents on record to contend that most of the candidates who had indulged in copying were sitting at the back of the row, in certain centres and in selected cities. It was further submitted that the candidates whose matching answers were low and who did not qualify in the examination were excluded from the purview of scrutiny and, therefore, no action was taken against them. However, an undertaking has been given by learned counsel for the respondent before us that action against all the candidates who had indulged in the case of mass copying would be taken as 61 was done in respect of Pre Medical Test, 2013.
It is also submitted that action for cancellation of results of the candidates has been taken on the basis of data which were available with the Board as well as the record, seating plan and the information which was supplied by the Special Task Force. It is also urged that material on record leads to inevitable conclusion that identified candidates had indulged in use of unfair means. It is submitted as under:
(a) The roll numbers were allotted to concerned candidates in a particular pattern and in deviation of prescribed method/norm.
(b) The roll numbers are clearly mis-matching as they have been realigned to facilitate the concerned candidates to indulge in copying.
(c ) The same officers who had manipulated the data and had realigned the roll number of the year 2013 namely Nitin Mohindra, Senior System Analyst, Ajay Kumar Sen, System Analyst and C.K.Mishra, Assistant Programmer were Incharge and responsible for the activity and the same pattern has been adopted for the year 2008 to 2012.
(d) There is high percentage of matching of correct as well as wrong answers given by Scorer and the concerned candidate as has been noticed from the respective answer- sheets.
(e) Many candidates despite scoring very high marks in 2011 and 2012 did not take admission in the MBBS course which indicates that they appeared in the examination only as Scorers to help the candidates sitting behind or in front of them, as the case may be. Many candidates who appeared in 2008, 2009 and 2010 examinations and whose results have been cancelled by the Board, have taken admissions but they had appeared in PMT examinations in the previous years also and performed poorly. The marks scored by these candidates in their previous attempts have been mentioned in Annexure- R/8.
62
(f) The irregularities have been found to be in increasing manner from 2008 to 2013 which also goes to show a gradual increasing trend of commission of irregularities in MBBS Examination for facilitating commission of unfair means by selected candidates.
(g) The graphical chart clearly shows unusual trend of average matching and mismatching of answers in comparison of candidates whose results are cancelled and all students.
(h) Mass copying has taken place at particular centres and in particular cities where the candidates outside from the State of Madhya Pradesh alongwith the candidates from Madhya Pradesh have appeared, at times concentrated number in one room of the Centre. The candidates who have acted as scorers, even though secured higher marks, have neither taken admission in the M.B.B.S. Course nor have filed writ petitions before this Court challenging the cancellation of the results.
43. It is also urged that aforesaid indisputable facts emerging from the official record placed before the Court, are sufficient to justify the decision taken by the authorities and to arrive at the conclusion that identified candidates against whom action has been taken were involved in organized mass-copying and had resorted to unfair means during examination. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has relied on the decisions of Supreme Court in the cases of Bihar School Examination Board vs. Subhash Chandra Sinha, AIR 1970 SC 1269, Maharashtra State Board vs. K.S.Gandhi, (1991) 2 SCC 716, Union of India vs. Anand Kumar, (1994) 5 SCC 663, Biswa Ranjan Sahu Vs. Sushanta Kumar, (1996) 5 SCC 365, M.C.Mehta vs. Union of India, (1999) 6 SCC 237, Aligarh Muslim 63 University vs. Mansoor Ali Khan, AIR 2000 SC 2783, Ram Preeti Yadav vs. U.P.Board of High School and Intermediate Education and others, (2003) 8 SCC 311, State of Maharashtra vs. Jalgaon Municipal Corporation, (2003) 9 SCC 731, Secretary, AP Social Welfare Residential Educational Institute vs. Pindiga, (2007) 13 SCC 352, Chief General Manager, BSNL vs. Surendranath Pandey, 2012 (1) SLJ 73, Tushar Ranjan Sahu (supra) , M.P. Board of Secondary Education vs. Shahi Tomar, 2004 (1) MPLJ 455, Chairman JNK State Board vs. Faiyaz Ahmad, (2000) 3 SCC 59, B.Ramanjini and others vs. State of A.P., (2002) 5 SCC 533, All India Railway Recruitment Board vs. K. Shyam Kumar, (2010) 6 SCC 614, Board of High School and Intermediate Education Vs. Bagleshwar Prasad, AIR 1966 SC 875, Prem Prakash Kaluniya vs. Punjab University, (1973) 3 SCC 424, Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal Vs. Abhilash Shiksha Prasar Samiti, (1998) 9 SCC 236, UPSC Vs. Jagannath Mishra, (2003) 9 SCC 237, Director, Students Dr.Ambedkar Institute of Hotel Management Nutrition and Catering Technology Chandigarh, (2009) 1 SCC 59 and Pravamayee Nayak Vs. Council of Higher Secondary Education, AIR 2003 Orissa 47.
44. In respect of Writ Petition No.7295/2014, learned counsel for the Board, while referring to the return, has submitted that the controversy involved in the petition is covered by the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Pratibha Singh (supra). While referring to 64 paragraph 5 of the return it is pointed out that a candidate having roll number 545059 who was sitting in front of the petitioner in the examination hall was from New Delhi who had opted Shahdol as examination centre and the petitioner who had roll number 545060 and sitting behind the aforesaid candidate from New Delhi belongs to Balaghat, had chosen Shahdol as examination centre. It is further submitted that in the order it has been mentioned that seventy questions were answered in similar manner by the scorer as well as the petitioner and as per information furnished by the Special Task Force the candidate bearing roll number 545059 and the petitioner were in contact with the middleman and their roll numbers were tampered and they had deliberately opted for examination centre, Shahdol whereas for the candidate from New Delhi, Gwalior was the nearest examination centre. Accordingly, it has been held that the petitioner had indulged in use of unfair means and her examination result has rightly been cancelled.
45. We have considered the rival submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. Before proceeding to deal with the issues involved in the instant writ petitions, we deem it appropriate to deal with Interlocutory Applications No.9932/2014 and 9060/2014 filed in Writ Petition No.7121/2014. By means of I.A.No.9060/2014, the petitioner in Writ Petition No.7121/2014 has sought for the production of documents/ software/information. In I.A.No.9932/2014 the petitioner has, inter alia, 65 submitted that the Board had supplied the written programming of the Software, namely, CMP 200 -the programme used by Joint Controller (Computer) for analyzing the answer-sheets of the candidates. However, information, as to said programme, is deficient in following respects:-
(a) Details of the operating system on which the given program CMP 200. PRG was compiled /executed.
(b) Soft copy of the software/compiler/platform which was used for the given program CMP 200.PRG.
(c) Algorithm/flow-chart/state-machine used to construct/ write the program named CMP 200. PRG.
(d) Input and output files used to get the result as mentioned in the order impugned."
The aforesaid information is being sought by the petitioners on the basis of opinion given by Assistant Professors of Pt.Dwarka Prasad Mishra, IIIT-DM, Jabalpur.
46. During the course of submissions when a query was put to learned counsel for the petitioners, whether the petitioners had sought the opinion of the experts in writing, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submitted that he had sought opinion of the experts orally.
47. We have carefully gone through the opinion given by the experts. In the opinion relied upon by the petitioners the experts have stated that the formula does not seem to be based on any scientific background and impugned orders by which the results of the candidates have been cancelled 66 are silent as to any statistical analysis is available in relation to the question paper with respect to the nature/pattern of answers of the questions contained in it. The experts have further stated that the impugned orders of cancellation of results of the candidates are silent as to whether any expert opinion has been taken with respect to answers and question in order to know the relevancy of four options to the question, as many a times, two options are easily recognized as irrelevant, thereby increasing the probability of opting same correct or incorrect options out of remaining two because of seeming proximity/similarity between them. The experts have also stated that the impugned orders do not mention the contents stated in para 4 of the opinion. The background in which the experts have given their opinion is not discernible to us, as the opinion from them was sought orally.
48. An opinion of an expert has to be understood in the context of query put to him. It is pertinent to note that neither the opinion has been given by the experts on the letter head nor any affidavit in support of the opinion, has been filed. Besides that, we are afraid that while criticising the impugned orders, the experts have travelled beyond the scope of opinion, as experts cannot be permitted to adjudge the validity of the orders passed by the Board which the Court alone is empowered to examine. The experts have not given any opinion that the formula evolved by the committee of experts of the Board is either impermissible or replete with palpable error or by using the formula, the cases of the candidates who had resorted to unfair 67 means, cannot be identified. Therefore, on the basis of aforesaid expert opinion, the petitioners cannot be permitted to seek production of documents/ software/information as prayed by them in I.A. No.9932/2014. It is well settled in law that all the grounds for passing order by an administrative authority need not be mentioned in the order itself, but can be relied upon contemporaneous material later on, in which larger public interest is involved. [See: K.Shyam Kumar (supra) ] Therefore, there is no need of mentioning the basis of formula in the impugned orders of cancellation of results of the candidates. All the material information which has been taken into account by the Board in decision making process while passing the impugned orders and which has been taken into consideration by this Court has been supplied to the petitioners and, therefore, question of prejudice on account of non-supply of the documents, as demanded, does not arise.
49. Now we may deal with the core issue of the case i.e. whether candidates had indulged in use of unfair means i.e. mass copying in Pre Medical Tests 2008 to 2012. The expression 'mass copying' has not been defined in the Rules governing the Pre Medical Test. It has, therefore, to be understood in its common parlance. In Tushar Ranjan Sahu (supra), it has been held that what could be considered mass copying cannot be laid down with mathematical precision and has to be decided in the facts of each case. Now, we may refer to the facts year-wise to ascertain whether the candidates 68 had indulged in mass-copying. The Committee constituted to identify the candidates who had indulged in use of unfair means in Pre Medical Test, 2012 in its report, inter alia, found that:-
(i) Roll numbers of 701 candidates were tampered after their generation and there was departure from settled norms for allotment of roll numbers in respect of aforesaid candidates.
(ii) In Bhopal, in examination centres, namely, Raja Bhoj Higher Secondary School, Bhopal; Government Kamla Nehru Higher Secondary School, Bhopal; and Government Kasturba Higher Secondary School, Bhopal, 12, 18, 22 candidates respectively were sitting in pairs at the end of the row whose roll numbers were tampered and their right match answers and wrong match answers are similar.
(iii) Similarly, in Indore in examination centres, namely, Shri K.B.Patel Gujrati Girls Higher Secondary School, Indore; PMB Gujarati Science College, Indore; and RRMB Gujarati Higher Secondary School, Indore, 46, 44 and 116 candidates respectively were sitting in pairs, whose roll numbers were tampered and their right match answers and wrong match answers are identical.
(iv) In Government India Gandhi Girls College, Shahdol, 14 candidates were sitting in pairs and their right match answers and wrong match answers are identical.
(v) The candidates whose roll numbers were altered 69 and who were sitting in pairs, one of the candidate from the pair was from outside the State and the other candidate in most of the cases did not belong to the city where the examination centre was located.
For the facility of reference relevant extract of the chart annexed with the Compilation-I at Page 165 as well as seating plan of the candidates is reproduced below which shows that candidates sitting in pairs in selected cities and in selected examination centres have secured same marks and one of the candidates of the pair was from outside the State of Madhya Pradesh, and other candidates in most of the cases did not belong to the city where examianation centre was located.
Pre-Medical Test -2012 Examination City - Bhopal Examination Centre - Govt. Raja Bhoj Higher Secondary School S.No. Candidate's name and permanent Roll No. Marks Match Right Wrong residence obtained answer match match answer answer
2. Anand Kumar, Patna (Bihar) 412035 163 199 151 48 Samrudhi Dixit, Balaghat 412036 162
4. Sonu Kumar, Patna (Bihar) 412095 155 195 142 53 Farukh Shah, Ujjain 412096 155 Examination City - Bhopal Examination Centre - Govt. Kamla Nehru Girls Higher Secondary School S.No Candidate's name and permanent Roll No. Marks Match Right Wrong . residence obtained answer match match answer answer
12. Richhapal Galwa, Kota (Rajasthan) 413103 172 195 160 35 Avijeet Prasad, Gwalior 413104 167
13. Ashok Kumar, Indore 413109 165 196 152 44 Ashish Swami, Jhunjhunu 413110 165 (Rajasthan) Examination City - Bhopal Examination Centre - Govt. Kasturba Higher Secondary School 70 S.No. Candidate's name and permanent Roll No. Marks Match Right Wrong residence obtained answer match match answer answer
18. Shakir Seekar (Rajasthan) 413567 163 182 148 34 Raghuveer Yadav, Morena 413568 165 21. Pradeep Kumar Verma, 413597 165 198 152 46 Narsinghpur 413598 163 Jaikaran Yadav, Bhopal Examination City - Indore Examination Centre - Shri K.B.Patel Gujrati Girls Higher Secondary School S.No. Candidate's name and permanent Roll No. Marks Match Right match Wrong residence obtained answer answer match answer 28. Brajesh Mishra, Katni 433007 163 188 145 43 Natasha Cam, Dewas 433008 159
31. Vinayak Chandra Diwakar, Patna 433025 141 194 129 65 (Bihar) 433026 142 Deepak Chouhan, Dhar
35. Prakhar Garg, Bulundshahar (U.P.) 433037 122 170 99 71 Rahul Chouhan, Badwani 433038 116
37. Vivek Kumar, Patna (Bihar) 433066 149 191 134 57 Ashish Dawar, Dhar 433067 146
46. Mohammad Daidan, Hamirpur (U.P.) 433125 168 193 156 37 Anil Dabar, Indore 433126 173 Examination City - Indore Examination Centre - P.M.B. Gujrati Science College S.No. Candidate's name and permanent Roll No. Marks Match Right Wrong match residence obtained answer match answer answer
51. Pradeep Kumar Bharadwaj, Indore 433417 139 197 128 69 Jitendra Akhdiya, Jhabua 433418 139
54. Darvesh Singh, Bareli (U.P.) 433435 139 190 124 66 Vinod Mehta, Khargone 433436 137
57. Alok Agrahari, Sultanpur (U.P.) 433453 158 192 142 50 Gaurav Solanki, Khargone 433454 155
60. Anil Singh, Kanpur (U.P.) 433471 170 193 155 38 Rajkumar Kanash, Dhar 433472 169
65. Anuj Kumar Maurya, Kanpur (U.P.) 433513 165 195 149 46 Pushplata Solanki, Dahi 433514 161
70. Juber Ahmad, Bareli (U.P.) 433533 165 199 153 46 Sonal Saryam, Seoni 433534 166 Examination City - Indore Examination Centre - R.R.M.B. Gujrati Higher Secondary School S.No. Candidate's name and permanent Roll No. Marks Match Right Wrong residence obtained answer match match answer answer
72. Mohammad Feroz, Bareli (U.P.) 433903 147 182 134 48 Anoop Kumar Sharma, Nagda 433904 156 75. Vivek Patel, Indore 433917 151 193 137 56 Vivek Chourasiya, Tikamgarh 433918 149
80. Anil Kumar, Rampur (U.P.) 433929 172 197 157 40 Parak Nayak, Chhattarpur 433930 169 83. Laxman Gupta, Satna 433939 133 191 122 69 Shruti Saxena, Bhopal 433940 137
87. Muktadeer Ahmad Pilibheet (U.P.) 433953 143 186 132 54 Chitranshi Garg, Indore 433954 152 91. Rahul Gurjar, Bhind 433970 163 197 152 45 Neeraj Pathak, Indore 433971 167
95. Devendra Kumar, Indore 433981 145 181 135 46 Rohit Hada, Jhabua 433982 162 98. Kamal Akhtar, Kanpur 433989 162 198 150 48 Arpit Patidar, Khargone 433990 161
105. Priyanka Chhapre, Durg 434019 163 192 146 46 Shradda Gupta, Badwani 434020 158 71
108. Mohammad Afroz, Kanpur 434031 126 185 112 73 Manisha Kanare, Mandleshwar 434032 124
113. Hemant Sevriya, Gwalior 434054 155 182 143 39 Budhvilas Singh, Satna 434055 162
129. Sohaib Aajam, Kanpur 434101 145 186 128 58 Umashankar Gahlot, Jhabua 434102 144
130. Vijay Kumar Singh, Jabalpur 434113 165 196 151 45 Chetan Chouhan, Indore 434114 163
131. Madhvi Singh, Indore 434128 140 188 129 59 Deepshika Damor, Jhabua 434129 143 Examination City - Shahdol Examination Centre - Govt. Indira Gandhi Girls College S.No. Candidate's name and permanent Roll No. Marks Match Right Wrong residence obtained answer match match answer answer
132. Rupesh Kumar Shrivastava, 453635 169 199 156 43 Patna 453636 168 Ankit Tiwari, Katni
133. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Patna 453665 166 191 153 38 Anshul Ochhani, Shahdol 453666 168
135. Mithlesh Kumar, Patna 453725 165 183 145 38 Abhay Surana, Balaghat 453726 157
136. Vijay Kumar Singh, Patna 453755 163 185 149 36 Ruchika Kurvey, Umariya 453756 168
137. Ravishankar Kumar, Patna 453815 161 177 143 34 Dipika Bakshi, Betul 453816 166
138. Satish Chandra, Kota (Raj.) 453845 171 195 155 40 Shailesh Kumar Raghuwanshi, 453846 168 Sarni PMT 2012-(701) Candidates - Seating Plan S. City Name of Roo Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 No Name Examinati m . on No. Center/ Name of Invigilato rs 1 Bhopal Raja Bhoj 12 412001 412007 412013 412019 412025 H.S.Scho 412002 412008 412014 412020 412026 ol, Bhopal 412003 412009 412015 412021 412027 412004 412010 412016 412022 412028 Smt.Mad 412005/ 412011 412017 412023 412029 huri 195 412012 412018 412024 412030 Singh 412006/1 Smt.Push 95 pa Thapak 2 Bhopal Raja Bhoj 13 412031 412037 412043 412049 412055 H.S.Scho 412032 412038 412044 412050 412056 ol, Bhopal 412033 412039 412045 412051 412057 412034 412040 412046 412052 412058 Smt.Sush 412035/ 412041 412047 412053 412059 ma 199 412042 412048 412054 412060 Smt.Sunit 412036/ 199 7 Bhopal Govt.Kam 1 413051 413057/105 413063 413069 413075 la Nehru 413052 413058 413064 413070 413076 Girls 413053 413059 413065 413071 413077 H.S.S. 413054 413060 413066 413072 413078 413055/A 413061/197 413067/ 413073/ 413079/ Smt.Nasr 413056/10 413062/197 190 196 184 at Khan 5 413068/ 413074/ 41380/ Smt.Arch 190 196 184 ana Sharma 9 Bhopal Govt.Kam 3 413111 413117 413123 413129 413135 la Nehru 413112 413118 413124 413130 413136 Girls 413113 413119 413125 413131 413137 H.S.S. 413114 413120 413126 413132 413138 413115/ 413121/55 413127/ 413133/ 413139/ 72 Bhavana 53 413133/55 200 195 161 Sharma 413116/ 413128/ 413134/ 413140/ Bharat 53 200 195 161 Khare 11 Bhopal Govt. 1 413551 413557 413563 413569 413575 Kasturba 413552 413558 413564 413570 413576 Girls 413553 413559 413565 413571 413577 H.S.S. 413554 413560 413566 413572 413578 413555/ 413561/ 413567/ 413573/ 413579/ Smt.Kiran 186 195 182 167 173 Verma 413556/ 413562/ 413568/ 413574/ 413580/ Smt.Rajni 186 195 182 167 173 Gupta 13 Bhopal Govt.Kast 3 413611 413592/NA 413623 413629 413635 . urba Girls 413612 413617 413624 413630 413636 H.S.S. 413613 413618 413625 413631 413637 413614 413619 413626 413632 413638 Smt.Vibh 413615/ 413620 413627/ 413633 413639 a 197 413621/ 186 413634 413640 Shrivasta 413616/ 200 413628/ va 197 413622/ 186 200 Smt.Ruk mani Choubey 17 Indore Mata 25 429601 429611 429621 429631 429641 429651 Jijabai 429602 429612 429622 429632 429642 429652 Govt. 429603 429613 429623 429633 429643 429653 P.G. Girls 429604 429614 429624 429634 429644 429654 College, 429605 429615 429625 429635 429645 429655 Indore 429606 429616 429626 429636/A 429646 429656 429607 429617 429627 429637/ 429647 429657 Dr.Nisha 429608 429618 429628 53 429648 429658 Modi 429609 429619 429629 429638/ 429649 429659 429610 429620 429630 53 429650 429660 429639 Babita 429640 Jain 18 Indore Shri Atal 40 431841 431851 431861 431871 Bihari 431842/ 431852 431862 431872 Bajpai 85 431853 431863 431873 Govt. 431843/ 431854 431864 431874 Arts 85 431855 431865 431875 &Comme 431844 431856 431866 431876 rce 431845 431857 431867 431877 College 431846 431858 431868 431878 431847 431859 431869 431879 Dr.Kavita 431848 431860 431870 431880 Rawat 431849 431850 Dr.S.P. Pandey 28 Indore P.,M.B. CB-0 433449 433455 433461 433467 Gujrati 7 433450 433456 433462 433468 Science 433451 433457 433463 433469 College, 433452 433458 433464 433470 Indore 433453/ 433459/ 433465/ 433471/ 192 190 196 193 Smt.Raje 433454/ 433454/ 433466/ 433472/ sh Dubey 192 190 196 193 Shri B.Chawd e 32 Indore RRMB 2 433933/ 433941/126 433949 433957/ Gujrati 197 / 433950 197 School, 433934/ 180 433951/ 433958/ Indore 197/15 433942/180 195 197/106 433935/ 433943 433952/ KU.Sonal 152/19 433944 195/143 433959/ Soni 433936/ 433945/48 106/167 197 433946/48/ 433953/ 433937 152 143/186 Ku.Rinku 433938 433947/ 433960/ Sharma 433939/ 152/ 197 167 191 433940/ 433948/ 433955 433961 191/12 197 433956 433962 73 433963/ 192 433964/ 192/ 43 37 Indore RRMB 7 434093 434101/186 434109/13 434117 Gujrati 434094 434102/186 3 434118 School, 434095/ /434103 434110 434119 Indore 197 434104 434111 434120 434096/ 434105 434112 434121/A Dr.Rekha 197/15 434106 434113/ 434122/ Jain 434097/ 434107/A 196 NA Smt. 150/19 434108/133 434114/ 434123 Jyotsana 434098/ 196/32 434124 Sisangiya 198 434115/32 434099 / 26 434100 434116/26 42 Indore Govt. 11 436591 436598 436605 436612 436619 436625 Nutan 436592 436599 436606 436613 436620 436626 H.S. 436593 436600/50 436607 436614 436621 436627 School 436594 436601/50 436608 436615 436622 436628 436595 436602 436609 436616 436623 436629 Smt. 436596 436603 436610 436617 436624 436630 Neeta 436597 436604 436611 436618 Vaishnav Vinod Joshi 44 Indore Sikka S.S. 21 437809 437815 437821 437827 437833 437839 School 437810 437816 437822 437828 437834 437840 437811 437817/73 437823 437829 437835 437841 Manoj 437812 437818/73 437824 437830 437836 437842 Parasar 437813 437819 437825 437831 437837 437843 437814 437820 437826 437832 437838 437844 Swati Sarvate 47 Shahdol Govt. IG 2 453601 453607 453613 453619 453625 453631 Girls 453602 453608 453614 453620 453626 453632 College 453603 453609 453615 453621 453627 453633 453604 453610 453616 453622 453628 453634 Dr.M.S. 453605/ 453611 453617 453623 453629 453635/19 Shrivasta 165 453612 453618 453624 453630 9 va 453606/ 453636/19 165 9 Dr.Rajend ra Gupta 49 Shahdol Govt. IG Girls 4 453673 453679 453685 453691 453697 453703 College 453674 453680 453686 453692 453698 453704 453675 453681 453687 453693 453699 453705 Dr.Pratibha Shrivastava 453676 453682 453688 453694 453700 453706 453677 453683 453689 453695/ 453701 453707 453678 453684 453690 191 453702 453708 R.C.Gutpa 453696/ 191
50. Thus, from perusal of the report of the Computer Experts Committee it is apparent that Roll Numbers of 701 candidates were altered in deviation from the settled norms for allotment of roll numbers i.e. according to date of birth and month of birth and the aforesaid candidates were made to sit in pairs in selected examination centres in selected cities and the marks obtained by them are also nearly identical. There is striking 74 similarity in the right match answers and wrong match answers which cannot be a coincidence. It is also pertinent to mention here that the candidates who acted as scorers i.e. who facilitated copying, were mostly from out of State and had chosen the particular examination centres sitaute far away from their home town. Similarly, most of the candidates who indulged in copying also chose that very particular centres chosen by the scorers which are situate away from their places of residence, even though examination centre was available at their place of residence or nearby their places of residence and they were sitting in pairs with the scorers. This again cannot be a coincidence. It is also noteworthy that, scorers who were mostly from outside the State of Madhya Pradesh and had secured good marks have neither taken admission nor have filed writ petitions against the orders by which their examination results have been cancelled by the Board. We may also take note of the statement made by Mr.P.K.Kaurav, learned counsel for respondents, that 131 candidates whose roll numbers were tampered and opted for Indore as examination centre were outside the State of Madhya Pradesh or were not from Indore as per address furnished by them.
51. The Committee constituted to identify the candidates who had indulged in use of unfair means in Pre Medical Test, 2011 in its report, inter alia, found as under:-
(i) In examination centres, namely, Government Kasturba Higher Secondary School, Government Kamla Nehru Girls 75 Higher Secondary School and Government Nutan Subhash Higher Secondary School in Bhopal 16, 24 and 3 candidates respectively were sitting in pairs at the end of the row and their right match answers and wrong match answers are similar.
(ii) In examination centres, namely, Government Maharani Laxmi Bai P.G.Girls College, Mata Jija Bai Government Girls P.G.College Moti Tabela, Government Bal Vinay Mandir Excellence Higher Secondary School, Swami Vivekanand Government Model Higher Secondary School, Government Ahilyashram Higher Secondary School, Government Maharaj Shivajirao Higher Secondary School, P.M.B.Gujrati Science College, R.R.M.B. Gujrati Higher Secondary School and Shri K.V.Patel Gujrati Middle School in Indore 4, 6, 10, 2, 10, 10, 4, 4 & 2 candidates respectively were sitting in pairs in the end of the row and their right match answers and wrong match answers are similar.
(iii) In Government P.G.College, Khargone 04 candidates were sitting in pairs at the end of the row and their right match answers and wrong match answers are identical.
(iv) The candidates whose roll numbers were altered and out of the candidates who were sitting in pair, one of the candidate of the pair was from outside the State and the other candidate in most of the cases did not belong to the city where the examination centre was located.
For the facility of reference, relevant extracts of the chart annexed with the Compilation-I is at Pages 131 & 161 as well as seating plan of the 76 candidates and relevant of right match and wrong match answers of the candidates, are reproduced below which shows that candidates appearing in selected cities and in selected examination centres have secured same marks and their right match answers and wrong match answers are similar. From such candidates sitting in pairs, one of the candidate was from outside the State of Madhya Pradesh and the another candidate had chosen the examination centre situated away from his place of residence even though examination centre was available either at his place of residence or nearby or was a local candidate residing nearby the examination centre.
Pre Medical Test, 2011 Examination City- Bhopal Exam Centre- Government Kasturba Higher Secondary School Gro Name of Candidate and city of Roll Number Marks Match Right match Wrong up permanent residence Obtain answer answer match No. ed answer 01 Mahendra Kumar Yadav, Jaipur 206205 165 188 154 34 Yusuf Saifi, Mandleshwar 206206 165 02 Harlal Singh, Sikar, Rajasthan 206223 154 180 137 43 Rakshand Khantal, Tikamgarh 206224 142 03 Bhavna Aharwal, Jabalpur 206247 131 171 115 56 Pawan Kumar Maida, Ratlam 206248 124 Examination City- Bhopal Exam Centre- Govt. Kamla Nehru Girls Higher Secondary School Gro Name of Candidate and city of Roll Number Marks Match Right match Wrong up permanent residence Obtain answer answer match No. ed answer 01 Ramaram Choudhary, Ubermer 207161 153 175 143 32 Rahil P. Veera, Jabalpur 207162 155 02 Pradeep Kumar, Ajmer, 207173 164 184 152 32 Shantanu Vyas, Dewas 207174 161 03 Deepak Pandey, Kanpur 207215 166 183 156 27 Jitendra Malviya, Dhar 207216 168 P.M.T., 2011 Roll No.-Wise List of 26116 Candidates S.No. Roll No. Scan No. Form No. Birth Candidate's Name Actual DD/ MM 3276 206203 205462 160104 04/12/1993 Aishwaraya MB Sagar 77 3277 206204 204090 155083 05/01/1988 Abhishek Gupta 3278 206205 207511 137122 15/02/1988 Mahendra Kumar 05/01 Yadav 3279 206206 205581 151735 10/08/1992 Yusuf Saify 05/01 3280 206207 206410 157774 05/01/1990 Saddam Abrar 3281 206208 204986 154281 05/01/1990 Raju Rawat 3282 206209 206287 160662 05/01/1992 Divya Bajpai 3283 206210 204445 157149 05/01/1992 Monika Yadav PMT-2011 (Tentative) Seating Plan S.No City Name of Examination Ro Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column5 . Name center/ Invigilator's om Name No. 1 Bhopal Govt. K.N.G.H.S.S. TT 1 207151 207157 207163 207169 207175 Nagar Bhopal 207152 207158 207164 207170 207176 207153 207159 207165 207171 207177 Smt.Archana M 207154 207160 207166 207172 207178 207155/15 207161/175 207167/196 207173/ 207179/161 207156/15 207162/175 207168/196 184 207180/161 Smt.Sunita Bhatnagar 207174/ 184 2 Bhopal Govt. K.N.G.H.S.S. TT 2 207181 207187 207193 207199 207205 Nagar Bhopal 207182 207188 207194 207200 207206 207183 207189 207195 207201 207207 Smt. Bhavana Sharma 207184 207190 207196 207202 207208 207185/ 207191/151 207197/183 207203/176 207209 185 207192/151 207198/183 207204/176 207210 Smt. Sunita 207186/ Premchandani 185
3. Bhopal Govt. Kasturba Girls 1 206201 206207 206213 206219 206225 H.S.School, Bhopal 206202 206208 206214 206220 206226 206203 206209 206215 206221 206227 Shahina Khan 206204 206210 206216 206222 206228 206205/ 206211/152 206217/195 206223/180 206229 188 206212/152 206218/195 206224/180 206230 Shaila Chourasia 206206/ 188
4. Bhopal Govt. Kasturba Girls 2 206231 206237 206243 206249 206255 H.S.School, Bhopal 206232 206238 206244 206250 206256 206233 206239 206245 206251 206257 Dr. Smt. Uma Tiwari 206234 206240 206246 206252 206258 206235/ 206241/34 206247/171 206253 206259/85 194 206242/34 206248/171 206254 206260/85 Smt. Manjulata 206236/ Shourti 194 Chart showing striking similarity in right match answers and wrong match answers Gro Name of Candidate and city of Roll Number Marks Match Right match Wrong Additiona Name of up permanent residence Obtain answer answer match l answer College No. ed in answer other of PMT, than Admissio 2011 match n answer 03 Satish Kumar, Alwar, Raj. 206217 150 195 144 51 56 Chirayu Tausif Ahmad, Basti, U.P. 206218 150 Medical College, Bhopal 10 Manoj Soni, Jaipur, Rajasthan 207167 165 196 155 41 45 N.S.C. Shreyansh Soni, Raipur 207168 161 Bose Medical College, Jabalpur 19 Sharad Yadav, Kanpur 207227 171 176 154 22 46 S.S. Nikhil Jain, Sagar 207228 166 Medical College, Rewa 27 Brajendra Pratap Singh, 225207 148 161 115 46 85 M.G. Pratapgarh, U.P. 225208 119 Medical Dharmendra Prajapati, Anuppur College, Indore 78 39 Vinod Kumar, Indore 226639 127 155 121 34 79 M.G. Hariram Hatila, Jhabua 226640 149 Medical College, Indore 41 Tahir Hussain, Indore 226719 121 152 105 47 95 Gajraja Avinash Dodiyar, Ratlam 226720 118 Medical College, Gwalior 48 Daiyan Mohd. Khargone 234579 147 170 123 47 77 Gandhi Gorelal Bamne, Badwani 234580 128 Med.
College, Bhopal
52. The Committee constituted to identify the candidates who had indulged in use of unfair means in Pre Medical Test, 2010 in its report, inter alia, found as under:-
"(i) In examination centres, namely, Government Kasturba Higher Secondary School, Government , Bhopal; Government P.G.College, Dhar; Government Holkar Science College, Indore and Government Malav Girls Higher 4Secondary School, Indore and Government Excellent Bal Vinay Mandir, Indore and Government P.G.College, Khargone, 2, 4, 50, 2, 14, 18 candidates respectively were seated in pairs at the end of the row and their right match answers and wrong match answers are identical.
(ii) All the aforesaid candidates who were seated in pairs have received similar marks."
For the facility of reference relevant extracts of the charts annexed with the Compilation-I at Pages 27 & 124 and relevant extracts of roll number- wise chart tampering in roll numbers and relevant extract of chart showing similarity in right match answers and wrong match answers of such candidates who were sitting in pairs are reproduced below. The aforesaid relevant extract establishes the fact that the scan numbers of the candidates 79 were tampered so as to change their roll numbers to enable them to sit in pair and there is striking similarity in right match and wrong match answers of such candidates. The same reads as under:-
Pre Medical Test-2010 Exam City- Bhopal Exam Centre-Govt. Kamla Nehru Girls Higher Secondary School Grou Name of Candidate and city of Roll No. Marks Match Right Wrong p permanent residence Obtained Answers Match Match No. Answers answers 01 Subi Singh Bhadoriya, Bhind 504963 167 161 140 21 Sonu Pachori, Bhopal 504964 163 P.M.T.: 2010 Roll No.-Wise List of 26711 Candidate's S.No. Roll No. Scan No. Form No. Birth Candidate's Name Actual Scan No. 3142 504962 104443 414883 29/10/1991 Neetu Sahu 3143 504963 106791 418832 12/08/1991 Subi Singh Bhadoriya 104445 3144 504964 107122 420299 22/10/1987 Sonu Pachori 104447 3145 504965 104449 424260 18/06/1991 Pankaj Malviya 3146 504966 104451 424219 22/02/1988 Rajendra Kumar Baghel P.M.T. : 2010 Comparison of 68 Pairing Report From 26711 Candidates (Total Match A/S + Wrong Match A/S- Mismatch A/S) = 142.66 ========================================= Roll No.1 Roll No.2 Match Mismatch Blank Total Right Wrong New FLD Answer Answer Answer Match Match Answer Answer Centre Name: Govt.Geetanjali Girls College P.G.B.T. College Campus Bairasia Road Bhopal 503559 503560 159 41 0 200 97 62 180 Centre Name: Govt. Science & Commerce College, Benazir, Gokhale Hostel Bhawan, Jahangirabad, Bhopal 504831 504832 169 31 0 200 138 31 169 Centre Name: Laxmi Narayan College of Technology, Kalchuri Nagar, Raisen Road, Bhopal 505946 505947 198 2 0 200 146 52 248 506227 506228 169 31 0 200 139 30 168 506389 506390 188 23 0 200 141 36 190 Centre Name: Govt.Malav Girls H.S.School, Moti Tabela, Indore 519453 519454 168 32 0 200 148 20 156 519486 519487 153 47 0 200 101 52 158 Centre Name: Govt. Science & Commerce College, Bhanwar Kuan, A-B Road, Indore 517716 517717 177 23 0 200 130 47 201 Centre Name: Govt. Excellent Bal Vinay Mandir, Nehru Park Road, Indore 520715 520716 159 41 0 200 121 38 156 80 Centre Name: Shri Guru Tech Bahadur Khalsa College, Mahanada, Jabalpur 523828 523829 171 29 0 200 150 21 163 Centre Name: Rewa Engineering College, Rewa 529010 529011 148 52 0 200 58 90 186 529391 529392 166 34 0 200 143 23 155 Centre Name: Govt.Autonomous Girls PG. Excellence College, Sagar 532031 532032 187 13 0 200 157 30 204 Centre Name: Govt. Arts & Commerce, Tilisagar 532552 532553 137 63 0 200 66 71 145 Gr Name of candidate and city of Roll No. Marks Match Right Wrong Additio ou permanent residence Obtained answers match match nal p in PMT, answers answer answer No. 2010 s s than match answer s 01 Subi Singh Bhadoriya, Bhind 504963 167 161 140 21 60 (Unreserved) ---------------- 163
----------------------------------------------------- 504964 Sonu Pachori, Bhopal (Unreserved) 03 Rakesh Kumar Mishra, Dhar 509102 145 161 131 30 69 Balram Kanel, Indore 509103 167 09 Amarnath Verma, Indore 517069 156 190 142 48 58 Shailesh K. Barua, Indore 517070 152 15 Govind Kumar Indore 517198 170 190 151 39 49 Amit Kumar Pipaliya, Badwani 517199 161
18. Puneet Kumar Mishra, Indore 517249 159 184 144 40 56 Nidhi Jain, Sagar 517250 154 22 Vijay Kumar Yadav, Indore 517349 170 195 158 37 42 Akshay Shandilya, Khargone 517350 172 26 Jahiruddin Ansari, Indore 517419 171 192 155 37 45 Nirmal Choudhary, Jhabua 517420 166 30 Namrata Damor, Jhabua (ST) 520715 144 159 121 38 79 Bhavesh Bhamaniya, Bhopal 520716 144 33 Mahima Singh Chandel, Indore 520795 161 172 139 33 61 Suntil Atal, Gwalior 520796 156 35 Gopal Patidar, Indore 520891 165 162 138 24 62 Rajesh Singh Argal, Indore 520892 160 39 Arvind Kumar Yadav, Khargone 526014 159 188 142 46 58 Natasha Sheikh, Khargone 526015 154 42 Rakesh Kumar Khargone 526046 138 192 127 65 73 Neha Verma, Sendhwa (ST) 526047 141 45 Krishna Dev Ojha, Khargone 526062 159 176 129 47 71 Arun Kirade, Khargone 526063 139 47 Ajay Nishad, Khargone 526095 152 163 134 29 66 Ravikumar Dewade, Badwaha 526096 166
53. The Committee constituted to identify the candidates who had indulged in use of unfair means in Pre Medical Test, 2009 in its report, inter alia, found as under:-
"(i) In examination centres, namely, Government M.L.B. Girls School, Guna; M.B.Khalsa College, Indore; Maharaja 81 Ranjeet Singh College of Professional Science, Indore; Central India Institute of Technology, Indore; Trilok Chand Jain Higher Secondary School, Indore; Government Malav Girls Higher Secondary School, Indore; and Government Holkar Science College, Indore the roll numbers of the candidates were altered and they were sitting in pairs in the aforesaid examination. It was found by the Committee that such candidates were sitting at the end of the row and their right match answers and wrong match answers are identical.
(ii) It was found by the Committee that 2, 5, 4, 3, 3, 30, 3, 4 and 31 candidates were sitting in pairs in the aforesaid examination centre respectively whose roll numbers were tampered and whose right match answers and wrong match answers are identical."
For the facility of reference relevant extracts of the chart annexed with the Compilation-I at Page 22 are reproduced below which show that candidates appearing in selected cities and in selected examination centres have secured same marks:
Pre-Medical Test-2009 Examination City - Guna Examination Centre - Government M.L.B. Kanya Vidyalaya.
S. Candidate's name and Roll No. Marks Match Right Wrong
No. permanent residence obtained answers match match
answers answers
01 Abhay Singh Yadav, Ujjain 843023 151.31 164 137 27
Hitesh Patidar, Indore 843024 164.12
Examination City - Indore
Examination Centre - M.B. Khalsa College
S. Candidate's name and Roll No. Marks Match Right match Wrong
No. permanent residence obtained answers answers match
82
answers
02 Radheshyam Bamaniya, 853005 132.34 180 118 62
Badwani 853006 131.30
Nitin Kumar Balke, Rajpur
03 Rakesh Kumar Garg, Indore 853028 134.53 197 126 71
Pooja Arya, Pansemal 853029 133.46
04 Pooja Arya, Pansemal 853029 133.46 197 124 73
Ravindra Baghel, Kukshi 853030 130.30
Examination City - Indore
Examination Centre - Maharaja Ranjeet Singh College of Professional Science.
S. Candidate's name and Roll No. Marks Match Right match Wrong
No. permanent residence obtained answers answers match
answers
07 Mahendra Singh Rana, 854654 126.86 191 120 71
Gwalior 854655 125.80
Deepak Bundela, Manawar
08 Deepak Bundela, Manawar 854655 125.80 190 117 73
Sunil Dabar, Indore 854656 122.68
Examination City - Indore
Examination Centre - Trilokchand Jain Higher Secondary School.
S. Candidate's name and Roll No. Marks Match Right Wrong No. permanent residence obtained answers match match answers answers 12 Neelam Kumari, Indore 855660 154.79 197 146 51 Nisha Chauhan, Manawar 855661 154.79 13 Nisha Chauhan, Manawar 855661 154.79 194 144 50 Vaishali Bariya, Alirajpur 855662 152.68 18 Achal Kumar Mandhare, Indore 855691 157.71 194 149 45 Praveen Kumar Harode, Multai 855692 159.79 22 Priyanka Bharke, Indore 855739 163.03 198 154 44 Vikrant Mandloi, Alirajpur 855740 161.99 Examination City - Indore Examination Centre - Government Post Graduate Girls College Moti Tabela.
S. Candidate's name and Roll No. Marks Match Right Wrong
No. permanent residence obtained answers match match
answers answers
27 Manoj Kumar Chandra, Indore 856078 157.78 191 148 43
Shalini Khatri, Gwalior 856079 160.95
28 Shalini Khatri, Gwalior 856079 160.95 191 148 43
Amit Kumar Pipliya, Badwani 856080 157.78
Examination City - Indore
Examination Centre - Government Malaw Girls Higher Secondary School.
S. Candidate's name and Roll No. Marks Match Right Wrong
No. permanent residence obtained answers match match
answers answers
29 Nitin Arya, Pansemal 856555 153.53 194 143 51
Mukesh Deol, Jhabau 856556 151.40
Examination City - Indore
83
Examination Centre - Government Holkar Science College.
S. Candidate's name and Roll No. Marks Match Right Wrong
No. permanent residence obtained answers match match
answers answers
35 Rushabh Momaya, Sendhwa 857629 133.72 192 124 68
Amit Choudhary, Indore 857630 132.67
37 Vishal Man, Indore 857678 150.45 177 133 44
Deovrath Pandey, Shivpuri 857679 145.13
38 Deovrath Pandey, Shivpuri 857679 145.13 161 127 34
Arbaz Ali Sheikh, Dewas 857680 149.31
39 Akhil Arora, Indore 857689 139.92 158 123 35
Akshay Kumar Trivedi, Jabalpur 857690 151.46
46 Arvind Kumar Pipaliya, Anjad 857769 145.26 181 131 50
Vasudeo Pawak, Indore 857770 142.07
P.M.T. 2009
Comparison of 96 Pairing report from 29162 candidates (Total Match A/s. + Wrong Match A/s - Mismatch A/s) = 138.62 Centre Name: Bhabha Engineering & Research College, Back of Vrindavan Garden, Jatkhedi, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal Roll No.1 Roll. No.2 Match Mismatch Blank Total Right Wrong New Answer Answer Answer Match Match Fld.
Answer Answe
r
832534 832535 175 25 0 200 133 42 192
832788 832789 192 0 0 200 126 66 250
Centre Name: Govt. MLB Girls School, Infront of City Kotwali, Guna Roll No.1 Roll. No.2 Match Mismatch Blank Total Right Wrong New Answer Answer Answer Match Match Fld.
Answer Answe
r
843023 843024 164 36 0 200 137 27 155
Centre Name: Govt. Girls Gajra Raja H.S.School, Bada, Lashkar, Gwalior Roll No.1 Roll. No.2 Match Mismatch Blank Total Right Wrong New Answer Answer Answer Match Match Fld.
Answer Answe
r
845096 845097 193 7 0 200 146 47 233
845097 845098 177 23 0 200 140 37 191
Centre Name: Shrimant Madhav Rao Scindia Govt. Model Science College, Jhansi Road, Gwalior Roll No.1 Roll. No.2 Match Mismatch Blank Total Right Wrong New Answer Answer Answer Match Match Fld.
Answer Answe
r
845661 845662 172 28 0 200 55 117 261
845896 845897 166 34 0 200 132 34 166
Centre Name: Govt. Kamala Raja Girls College, Kampoo, Gwalior Roll No.1 Roll. No.2 Match Mismatch Blank Total Right Wrong New Answer Answer Answer Match Match Fld.
Answer Answe
r
847358 847359 169 31 0 200 135 34 172
847475 847476 169 31 0 200 149 20 158
84
Centre Name: M.B. Khalsa College, Raj Mohalla Chouraha, Near Gangwal Bus Stand, Indore Roll No.1 Roll. No.2 Match Mismatch Blank Total Right Wrong New Answer Answer Answer Match Match Fld.
Answer Answe
r
853005 853006 180 20 0 200 118 62 222
853028 853029 197 3 0 200 126 71 265
Centre Name: Govt. Arts & Commerce College, A.B. Road, Indore Roll No.1 Roll. No.2 Match Mismatch Blank Total Right Wrong New Answer Answer Answer Match Match Fld.
Answer Answe
r
853638 853639 162 38 0 200 147 15 139
853924 853925 162 38 0 200 145 17 141
Centre Name: Institute of Engineering & Technology, D.A.V.V. Khandwa Roll No.1 Roll. No.2 Match Mismatch Blank Total Right Wrong New Answer Answer Answer Match Match Fld.
Answer Answe
r
854155 854156 156 30 14 200 111 45 171
854178 854179 144 56 0 200 87 57 145
Centre Name: Central India Institute of Technology, Dewas Bypass Road, Ardia Indore Roll No.1 Roll. No.2 Match Mismatch Blank Total Right Wrong New Answer Answer Answer Match Match Fld.
Answer Answer
855154 855155 189 11 0 200 134 55 233
855155 855156 174 24 2 200 126 48 198
Centre Name: Tirlok Chand Jain H.S. School, In front of Chhatripura Thana, Indore Roll No.1 Roll. No.2 Match Mismatch Blank Total Right Wrong New Answer Answer Answer Match Match Fld.
Answer Answer
855655 855656 190 10 0 200 142 48 228
855660 855661 197 3 0 200 146 51 245
Centre Name: Govt. P.G. Girls College, Moti Tabela, Indore 856078 856079 191 9 0 200 148 43 225 856079 856080 191 9 0 200 148 43 225 Centre Name: Govt. Malav Girls H.S. School, Moti Tabela, Indore 856555 856556 191 6 0 200 143 51 239 856579 856580 167 33 0 200 122 45 179 Centre Name: Govt. Holkar Science College, Indore 857579 857580 177 23 0 200 125 52 206 857589 857590 170 30 0 200 123 47 187 Centre Name: Govt. Mankunwar Bai Arts & Commerce Womens College, Napier Town, Jabalpur 861211 861212 162 38 0 200 134 28 152 Centre Name: Govt. Model Science College, Pachpedi, Jabalpur 862831 862832 169 31 0 200 116 53 191 Centre Name: Govt. Engineering College, Ranjhi, Jabalpur 85 863508 863509 188 12 0 200 155 33 209 Centre Name: Bappa Shri Narayan Vocational P.G. College (K.K.V.) Station Road, Charbag, Lucknow 873255 873256 155 45 0 200 120 35 145 873343 873344 154 46 0 200 111 43 151 Centre Name: Kendriya Vidhyalaya, Near Dilkusha Garden, Lucknow Cantt., Lucknow 873508 873509 165 35 0 200 145 20 150 873898 873899 184 16 0 200 153 31 199 Centre Name: Govt. Girls College, Mhow Neemuch Road, Mandsaur 875033 875034 160 40 0 200 136 24 144 Centre Name: Rajeev Gandhi Govt. P.G. College, Mhow Neemuch Road, Mandsaur 875328 875329 128 72 0 200 44 84 140 Centre Name: Kendriya Vidhyalaya, Sector - 4, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 878171 878172 141 59 0 200 76 65 147 878313 878314 164 36 0 200 139 25 153 Centre Name: Govt. T.R.S. College, Rewa 881475 881476 150 50 0 200 62 88 188 Centre Name: Govt. Model Science College, Rewa 881805 881806 178 22 0 200 98 80 236 Centre Name: Rewa Engineering College, Rewa 882332 882333 175 25 0 200 80 95 245 882369 882370 150 50 0 200 43 107 207 Centre Name: Govt. M.L.B. Girls H.S. School No.1, Sagar 885005 885006 165 35 0 200 126 39 169 885128 885129 185 15 0 200 142 43 213 Centre Name: Govt. Autonomous Excellence Girls P.G. College, Sagar 885797 885798 161 39 0 200 136 25 147 Centre Name: Govt. P.G. College, Naveen Bhawan, Gahra Nala, Satna 887235 887236 164 36 0 200 138 26 154 887271 887272 144 56 0 200 83 61 149 Centre Name: Pt. Shambunath Shukla P.G. College, Shahdol 889101 889102 163 37 0 200 146 17 143
54. The Committee constituted to identify the candidates who had indulged in use of unfair means in Pre Medical Test, 2008 in its report, inter alia, found as under:-
"(i) In examination centres, namely, Government Holkar 86 Science College, Indore; Trilokchand Jain Higher Secondary School, Indore; Government Arts & Commerce College, Indore;
Government Madhav Science College, Ujjain the candidates whose roll numbers were altered were sitting in pairs in the aforesaid examination.
(ii) The Committee further found that right match answers and wrong match answers of the aforesaid candidates who were sitting in pairs were identical.
(iii) It was found by the Committee that 20, 7, 12 and 3 candidates were sitting next to each other in the aforesaid examination centres.
(iv) The committee further found that the marks secured by such candidates in Pre Medical Test, 2008 are identical."
For the facility of reference relevant extracts of the chart annexed with the Compilation-I at Page 19 are reproduced below which show that candidates appearing in selected cities and in selected examination centres have secured same marks.
P.M.T. 2008 Comparison of 59 Pairing report from 38378 candidates (Total Match A/s. + Wrong Match A/s - Mismatch A/s) = 138.74 Centre Name: Govt. Motilal Vigyan Mahavidyalaya, Near Old Vidhan Sabha, Bhopal Roll No.1 Roll. No.2 Match Mismatch Blank Total Right Wrong New Answer Answer Answer Match Match Fld.
Answer Answer
205088 205089 166 34 0 200 158 8 140
205471 205472 179 21 0 200 99 80 238
Centre Name: Govt. Jiwaji Rao H.S. School, Lashkar, Gwalior Roll No.1 Roll. No.2 Match Mismatch Blank Total Right Wrong New Answer Answer Answer Match Match Fld.
87
Answer Answer
2224388 224389 164 36 0 200 90 74 202
224498 224499 161 39 0 200 144 17 139
Centre Name: Govt. Kamla Raja Girls, P.G. Autonomous College, Kampoo, Gwalior Roll No.1 Roll. No.2 Match Mismatch Blank Total Right Wrong New Answer Answer Answer Match Match Fld.
Answer Answer
224576 224577 128 50 22 200 59 69 147
224669 224670 169 31 0 200 160 9 147
Centre Name: Madhav College, Nai Sadak, Lashkar, Gwalior Roll No.1 Roll. No.2 Match Mismatch Blank Total Right Wrong New Answer Answer Answer Match Match Fld.
Answer Answer
226104 226105 196 3 1 200 116 80 273
2262158 226159 164 36 0 200 153 1 139
Centre Name: J.C. Mill Girls College, Birla Nagar, Gwalior Roll No.1 Roll. No.2 Match Mismatch Blank Total Right Wrong New Answer Answer Answer Match Match Fld.
Answer Answer
226663 226664 180 20 0 200 117 63 223
226742 226743 150 50 0 200 76 74 174
Centre Name: Trilokchand Jain H.S. School, Chhatripura, In front of Police Station Biyabani, Indore Roll No.1 Roll. No.2 Match Mismatch Blank Total Right Wrong New Answer Answer Answer Match Match Fld.
Answer Answer 236505 236506 189 11 0 200 149 40 218 226511 236512 175 25 0 200 133 42 192
Centre Name: Govt. Arts & Commerce College, A.B. Road, Bhanwarkuan Main Road, Indore Roll No.1 Roll. No.2 Match Mismatch Blank Total Right Wrong New Answer Answer Answer Match Match Fld.
Answer Answer
236905 236906 186 14 0 200 127 59 231
236906 236907 183 17 0 200 127 56 222
Centre Name: Govt. Mankunwar Bai Arts & Commerce Women's College, Napier Town, Jabalpur Roll No.1 Roll. No.2 Match Mismatch Blank Total Right Wrong New Answer Answer Answer Match Match Fld.
Answer Answer
241937 241938 184 16 0 200 129 55 223
Centre Name: Gyanganga Institute of Technology & Science, Tilwaraghat Road, Jabalpur Roll No.1 Roll. No.2 Match Mismatch Blank Total Right Wrong New Answer Answer Answer Match Match Fld.
Answer Answer
243104 243105 142 58 0 200 78 64 148
88
Centre Name: Navyug Arts & Commerce College, Civil Lines, Jabalpur Roll No.1 Roll. No.2 Match Mismatch Blank Total Right Wrong New Answer Answer Answer Match Match Fld.
Answer Answer
243976 243977 155 45 0 200 126 29 139
Centre Name: Govt. Science College, Rewa
Roll No.1 Roll. No.2 Match Mismatch Blank Total Right Wrong New
Answer Answer Answer Match Match Fld.
Answer Answer
257129 257130 147 52 1 200 71 76 171
257318 257319 149 51 0 200 105 44 142
Centre Name: College of Agriculture, Rewa
Roll No.1 Roll. No.2 Match Mismatch Blank Total Right Wrong New
Answer Answer Answer Match Match Fld.
Answer Answer
257641 257642 179 21 0 200 152 27 185
Centre Name: Govt. M.L.B. Girls H.S. School No.1, Sagar Roll No.1 Roll. No.2 Match Mismatch Blank Total Right Wrong New Answer Answer Answer Match Match Fld.
Answer Answer 261256 261257 163 37 0 200 149 14 140
Centre Name: Govt. Madhav Science College, Ujjain Roll No.1 Roll. No.2 Match Mismatch Blank Total Right Wrong New Answer Answer Answer Match Match Fld.
Answer Answer
269415 269416 165 35 0 200 151 14 144
269416 269417 191 9 0 200 157 34 216
Centre Name: S.A.T.I. (Degree) Vidisha
Roll No.1 Roll. No.2 Match Mismatch Blank Total Right Wrong New
Answer Answer Answer Match Match Fld.
Answer Answer
271075 271076 182 18 0 200 150 32 196
271242 271243 161 39 0 200 141 20 142
Pre-Medical Test -2008
Examination City - Indore
Examination Centre - Govt. Holkar Science College S. Candidate's name and permanent Roll No. Marks Match Right Wrong N residence obtained answer match match o. answer answer
1. Vikram Raj Sable, Betul 232019 161.62 158 129 29 Soundrya Bodh, Sanawad 232020 139.88
3. Rashmi Tiwari, Rewa 232037 100.40 147 82 66 Parag Panthi, Indore 232038 107.68
7. Anil Katara, Indore 232098 177.21 177 158 19 Sunil Barua, Indore 232099 166.88 89 Examination City - Indore Examination Centre - Trilokchand Jain, H.S.School S. Candidate's name and permanent Roll No. Marks Match Right Wrong N residence obtained answer match match o. answer answer 1 Lallan Pratap Singh, Indore 236505 160.51 189 149 40
2. Jitendra Garg, Indore 236506 155.34 1 Varun Nahale, Manawar 236511 150.13 175 133 42
3. Sameer Sonkar, Indore 236512 150.14 Examination City - Indore Examination Centre - Govt. Arts & Commerce College S. Candidate's name and permanent Roll No. Marks Match Right Wrong N residence obtained answer match match o. answer answer 1 Amand Kumar Mandare, Dewas 236905 137.69 186 127 59
6. Manish Kushwaha, Indore 236906 134.55 1 Jitendra Gupta, Indore 236962 118.01 177 107 70
9. Priya Bharke, Indore 236963 122.18 2 Priya Bharke, Indore 236963 122.18 150 109 41
0. Abhishek Verma, Dewas 236964 150.25 2 Chandrashekhar Pal, Dhar 236988 151.27 185 151 34
2. Nisha Kanash, Indore 236994 166.80 2 Nisha Kanash, Indore 236995 159.58 185 143 42
3. Pinky Kannoj, Manawar 236996 150.28 The fact that the candidates have indulged in use of unfair means in Pre-Medical Tests of 2008 to 2012 is also evident from the following chart mentioned at page 182 of Compilation 1, which shows that in cases where the results of the examinations have been cancelled, the average of wrong match answers as compared to the general average of wrong match answers given by the candidates who were not involved in use of unfair means, is much higher:
Examination Name Average Match Average Average Right Average of Wrong Answer Mismatch Match Answer Match Answer/ (Total Answer Attempted- Right Match Answer) P.M.T. 2013 60.95 138.94 25.97 0.20 P.M.T. 2013 148.36 50.54 96.99 0.59 Candidature Cancelled P.M.T. 2012 69.51 130.45 39.98 0.19 P.M.T. 2012 169.05 30.88 129.38 0.65 Candidature Cancelled P.M.T. 2011 63.55 136.29 33.98 0.18 P.M.T. 2011 176.02 23.61 131.12 0.67 Candidature Cancelled P.M.T. 2010 71.33 128.61 44.80 0.17 P.M.T. 2010 177.34 22.64 137.79 0.65 Candidature Cancelled P.M.T. 2009 69.32 130.64 39.03 0.19 P.M.T. 2009 178.47 21.02 131.41 0.71 Candidature Cancelled P.M.T. 2008 69.37 130.59 41.84 0.17 90 P.M.T. 2008 172.36 27.60 127.80 0.62 Candidature Cancelled
55. Another aspect of the matter which is worth noticing is that though large number of candidates who were qualified for admission in medical colleges yet they did not take admission in the medical colleges whose results were subsequently cancelled on account of their involvement in mass-
copying, reinforces the facts inferred by the authorities that they acted as scorers and this fact is evident from the following chart:
Summary report of cancelled cases due to roll number tampering and admitted in various medical colleges.
Year 2008 to 2012.
S. P.M.T. Cancelled cases Admitted in various Candidates who did
No Year due to roll medical colleges not take admission
. number
tampering
1. 2008 42 10 32
2. 2009 85 45 40
3. 2010 90 53 37
4 2011 98 39 59
5. 2012 319 121 198
56. No explanation has been offered on behalf of the petitioners as to why the roll numbers allotted to the petitioners were not in conformity with the norm prescribed by the Board for allotment of roll numbers and why in case of the petitioners and the candidates who have acted as Scorers, there is similarity in the right match answers as well as wrong match answers. We may also state that in an enquiry such as in the present case, the Board was justified in proceeding on the basis of indisputable circumstances pointing finger towards involvement of the concerned candidates and record its subjective satisfaction in that behalf. The Committee has arrived at the 91 conclusion that candidates had indulged in mass copying in Pre Medical Tests, 2008 to 2012, on the basis of data and records available with Board, report of the Computer Experts committee and information furnished by the Special Task Force. Thus, the facts narrated supra leads to inevitable conclusion that the candidates whose results have been cancelled have indulged in mass-copying in Pre Medical Tests, 2008 to 2012.
57. Before proceeding to deal with the common contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners it is noteworthy to mention here that the results of 439 candidates who had indulged in unfair means in Pre Medical Test, 2013 were cancelled. The candidates approached this Court by filing several writ petitions which were decided by the common order dated 11.4.2014 passed in a batch of Writ Petitions headed by Writ Petition No.20342/2013 [Ku.Pratibha Singh (minor) Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others].
The Division Bench of this Court by a detailed and judgment dealt with the contentions raised by the petitioners therein, most of which have again been raised in some form or the other in this Batch of writ petitions. It is pertinent to mention here that the order dated 11.4.2014 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid writ petitions has attained finality as the Special Leave Petition preferred against the said order (dated 11.4.2014 passed in batch of writ petitions) has been dismissed by Supreme Court vide order dated 8.8.2014 passed in Special Leave Petitions No. 18791-18792. In order to appreciate the fact that some of the issues raised in these writ 92 petitions have already been examined in detail and extensively by the Division Bench of this Court in said writ petitions, it would be apposite to refer to the following chart:-
Contention of the Petitioners Contentions dealt with in the raised in present batch of writ order dated 11.4.2014 passed by petitions Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.20342/2013 and other connected writ petitions
(i) Sequence of question paper in The Division Bench for the reasons four different sets was different, assigned in paragraph 84 of the therefore, it is not possible for a order and in view of paragraphs 11 candidate to indulge in copying &12 of decision of Supreme Court in Bagleshwar Prasad (supra)has rejected this contention.
(ii) Neither any Centre This contention has been dealt with Superintendent was examined nor in paragraph 114 of the order and it any report of Invigilator of the has been held as follows:-
Examination Centre was obtained "As the theory propounded by the to ascertain the factum of mass- respondent-Board that all this has copying. happened as a large scale conspiracy, is plausible one, even the involvement of concerned Supervisor or Invigilator or officials at the concerned examination centres 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 93 bounden duty of the Board to do so in public interest even in absence of any report from the Supervisors or Invigilators.
(iii) The Board had no authority This argument was dealt with by to cancel examination results of the Division Bench in paragraphs 39 to candidates who had taken 42 of the order and has been admission in M.B.B.S. Course. rejected.
(iv) The impugned action against For the reasons assigned in the petitioners is vitiated on account paragraphs 91 to 106 and taking of violation of principles of natural note of several decisions of justice. Supreme Court it has been held that principles of natural justice do not have any application in case of mass copying.
(v) The petitioners have brilliant For the reasons assigned in past academic record and, therefore, paragraph 107 of the order this no inference with regard to their contention has been rejected.
involvement in unfair means can be drawn.
58. Since the aforesaid issues have already been dealt with in extenso in the order passed in the case of Pratibha Singh (supra) which has been upheld by the Supreme Court, therefore, it is not necessary for us to further deal with those contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner in this regard. Therefore, we proceed to deal with other issues.
59. The petitioners have taken a stand that the formula applied for ascertaining the unfair means score is required to be explained and the expert 94 opinion is not beyond the scope of judicial review and same can be examined by this Court. In this connection, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Natwar Singh (supra), East Coast Railway (supra) and Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited (supra). In view of the stand taken by the petitioners with regard to the basis of the formula evolved by the Board, we called upon the Board to explain the same to reassure ourselves and not to sit over the opinion by the experts as Court of appeal, in pursuance of which Mr. A.P. Shrivastava, the then Chairman of the Board and Dr. Santosh Kumar Gandhi, Joint Controller of the Board appeared before us. The qualification of Mr. A.P. Shrivastava is B.Sc. in Mathematics, Physics & Statistics and M.Sc. in Mathematics from Allahabad University. He has also qualified I.A.S. examination with the subjects- Mathematics and Physics. Mr. A.P. Shrivastava had an excellent academic record and he has been awarded National Science Talent Research Scholarship from HCERC. Similarly, Mr. Santosh Kumar Gandhi holds the Bachelor degree in Electronics and Master degree and Ph.D. in Computer Applications from Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology, Bhopal. Mr. A.P. Shrivastava has stated before us as follows:
"1. Average or Mean of a set of measurements indicates the value around which the values of the measurement are centered. The Standard Deviation of a set of measurements indicates the variability or dispersion around the average.
A large number of random variables observed in 95 nature possess a frequency distribution that is approximately mound-shaped which is known as Normal Probability Distribution.
2. If µ is the mean and σ is the Standard Deviation of a distribution of measurements that is approximately mound-shaped or Normal, then the following Empirical Rules applies :
(i) The interval (µ±σ) contains approximately 68.27% of the measurements.
(ii) The interval (µ±2σ) contains approximately 95.45% of the measurements.
(iii) The interval (µ±3σ) contains approximately 99.73% of the measurements.
The above empirical rule is also called the three- sigma rule. This empirical rule is often used to quickly get a rough probability estimate of something given its standard deviation, if the population is assumed normal, thus also a simple test for outliers (if the population is assumed normal).
3. For each question, there was only one correct answer but three incorrect answers in the objective type examination of PMT. Therefore, the number of incorrect matching answers indicates the higher likelihood of the candidates having helped each other in answering questions. On the other hand, the number of mismatch answers for a pair of candidates indicates the independent application of mind of the candidates. If the mismatch number is relatively large, the likelihood of the candidates having helped each 96 other in answering questions is low.
The inference about collusive copying of answers by a pair of candidates sitting next to each other cannot be based solely on the number of matching answers. The inference must take into account the number of mismatches and the number of incorrect matches also.
4. Therefore, the formula for filtering out the suspects for PMT-2011 was first modified by assigning weight of three to the number of incorrect matching answers. But, with this modification the filtered list contained candidates who had performed badly as the number of incorrect answers was very large for them.
The difference between the number of incorrect matches and mismatches indicates the likelihood of answering in collusion or copying the answers. Therefore, the number of matching answers has been adjusted for this factor to arrive at a better indicator. This indicator has been called Unfair Means Score. This indicator can also be seen as a weighted score of matching answers in which the weight of one has been assigned to number of correct matches, weight of two to number of incorrect matches and weight of minus one to number of mismatches. The list of suspects based on this formula was then examined by the Enquiry Committee constituted for this purpose. Each candidate's case was individually examined keeping in mind the number of incorrect matches, mismatches and correct matches.
5. A relatively high cut-off value has been chosen for 97 filtering out the list of suspects. This cut-off value two times the Average of number of matching answers. Ideally, the cut-off value shoud have been Average plus 3 times Standard Deviation as hardly 0.3% measurements are expected to exceed this value in case of Normal Distribution. Because of the Higher cut-off value, it was easy to finally identify the candidates who had indulged in unfair means in answering questions."
60. The formula has been applied in Pre-Medical Tests of 2008 to 2011 in a reasonable and fair manner as the candidates have been subjected to process of filteration at various stages, which is evident from the following charts:
Professional Examination Board, Bhopal Statistical Analysis of PMT 2008 PMT-2008 Match Mismatch Blank Total Right Wrong UFM Match Match Score Entire Population Average 69 131 0 200 42 28 -34 Population size 33682 Std Deviation 17 17 1 0 21 10 33 For Match > 103 Average 122 78 0 200 106 16 60 Population size 1491 Std Deviation 16 16 1 0 18 11 37 For Match > 120 Average 137 63 0 200 121 16 90 Population size 641 Std Deviation 15 15 2 0 16 14 38 For Match > 137 Average 152 48 0 200 132 20 123 Population size 239 Std Deviation 14 14 2 0 18 21 43 For UFM score > 138 Average 168 31 1 200 121 47 185 Population size 59 Std Deviation 17 15 5 0 32 28 42 Cancellations Average 172 28 0 200 127 44 188 Population size 21 Std Deviation 14 14 0 0 22 14 32 Professional Examination Board, Bhopal Statistical Analysis of PMT 2009 PMT-2009 Match Mismatch Blank Total Right Wrong UFM Match Match Score Entire Population Average 70 130 0 200 39 31 -31 Population size 23754 Std Deviation 19 19 1 0 23 10 38 For Match > 108 Average 130 70 0 200 108 21 81 Population size 1102 Std Deviation 19 19 1 0 17 11 43 For Match > 127 Average 145 55 0 200 122 23 114 98 Population size 494 Std Deviation 17 17 1 0 14 15 45 For Match > 146 Average 165 35 0 200 133 33 163 Population size 158 Std Deviation 16 16 1 0 16 20 47 For UFM score > 140 Average 174 26 0 200 134 41 194 Population size 94 Std Deviation 13 14 0 0 20 13 38 Cancellations Average 181 19 0 200 134 47 209 Population size 42 Std Deviation 15 14 2 0 15 11 34 Professional Examination Board, Bhopal Statistical Analysis of PMT 2010 PMT-2010 Match Mismatch Blank Total Right Wrong UFM Score Match Match Entire Population Average 71 129 0 200 45 27 -31 Population size 21415 Std Deviation 20 20 2 0 23 10 40 For Match > 111 Average 130 70 0 200 110 19 78 Population size 998 Std Deviation 17 17 1 0 16 9 39 For Match > 131 Average 149 51 0 200 128 21 119 Population size 339 Std Deviation 16 16 1 0 13 12 40 For Match > 151 Average 168 32 0 200 138 30 167 Population size 104 Std Deviation 13 13 0 0 11 14 38 For UFM score > 142 Average 174 26 0 200 134 41 189 Population size 64 Std Deviation 13 14 0 0 20 13 28 Cancellations Average 177 23 0 200 138 39 193 Population size 45 Std Deviation 12 12 0 0 12 10 29 Professional Examination Board, Bhopal Statistical Analysis of PMT 2011 PMT-2011 Match Mismatch Blank Total Right Wrong UFM Score Match Match Entire Population Average 64 136 0 200 34 30 -43 Population size 22121 Std Deviation 17 17 3 0 19 10 36 For Match > 98 Average 117 83 0 200 96 21 56 Population size 750 Std Deviation 20 20 1 0 18 12 46 For Match > 115 Average 136 64 0 200 113 23 94 Population size 290 Std Deviation 21 21 2 0 17 16 54 For Match > 132 Average 156 44 0 200 124 32 145 Population size 114 Std Deviation 21 21 1 0 19 21 56 For UFM score 128 Average 174 26 0 200 125 49 197 > Population size 108 Std Deviation 17 16 1 0 26 17 34 Cancellations Average 175 25 0 200 131 45 195 Population size 49 Std Deviation 16 16 1 0 18 12 37
61. It is well settled in law that the academic issues must be left to be decided by the Expert Body which deserves great respect. The Court cannot act as an appellate authority in such matters. When two views are possible 99 and if the Expert Body has taken a possible view the same deserves acceptance. It is equally settled legal proposition that an opinion of expert body deserves higher degree of acceptance. [See: Ganpat Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput Vs. Gulbarga University, (2014) 3 SCC 767]. Notably, in the instant case, no effort was made to substantiate that the formula evolved by the Board is impermissible. Further, the formula is not the only means to identity the candidates who had indulged in the use of unfair means. The aforesaid enquiry has been made on the basis of other circumstances noted in the preceding paragraphs year-wise. Therefore, the formula is not the only factor to ascertain whether a candidate had indulged in use of unfair means. In view of the facts stated supra, we are unable to hold that there is no logical basis in respect of the formula evolved by the Board for ascertaining the unfair means score. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the formula evolved by the Board is either arbitrary or irrational or by applying the formula it is not possible to ascertain whether the candidate has indulged in use of unfair means in the examination. It could also not be pointed out on behalf of the petitioners that formula evolved by the Board cannot be applied at all to detect the cases of the candidates who had indulged in use of unfair means. The extracts, referred to from websites, namely, www.purplemath.com and en.wikipedia.org on behalf of the petitioners, are of no assistance to the petitioners as on the basis of the aforesaid documents no inference can be drawn that the formula evolved by the Board cannot be applied at all for ascertaining the cases of the candidates who had indulged in 100 use of unfair means. Therefore, it is not necessary for us to appoint any other expert committee or to permit the petitioners to keep the experts present before us. We may reiterate that in the opinion of the experts relied on behalf of the petitioners, the experts have not stated the formula applied by the Board is unworkable or by applying the formula it is not possible to ascertain whether a candidate had indulged in use of unfair means in the examination. The Expert Body of the Board has taken plausible view and has applied the formula with great circumspection. The formula was adopted by the Board after the same was evolved by Expert Body and in such matters the Court cannot sit in judgment and interfere with the same, unless it is proved that it was an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power. [See: Subhash Chandra Dixit (supra)]. Therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that there is no logical basis for evolving the formula is hereby repelled.
62. In Council of Civil Service Unions (CCSU) Vs. Minister for the Civil Service (1984) 3 All ER 935 it has been held that any administrative action is subject to control by judicial review only on three grounds namely illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. The aforesaid principle has been accepted by the Supreme Court in several decisions. Reference in this connection be made to the decisions in the cases of Tata Cellular (supra) and Heinz India Private Limited and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2012) 5 SCC 443. In the case of S.R. Tewari Vs. 101 Union of India and another, (2013) 6 SCC 602, it has been held that the scope of judicial review is limited to the decision making process and not against the decision itself, and in such a situation the court cannot arrive at on its own independent finding. In Air India Ltd. Vs. Cochin International Airport Ltd., (2000) 2 SCC 617 it has been held that Court must act with great caution and should exercise power of the judicial review only in furtherance of public interest, and not merely on making out of a legal point.
63. In the background of aforesaid well settled legal principles, we may examine whether the action of the Board in canceling the results of the candidates is amenable to judicial review in the facts of the case. Undoubtedly, it is the responsibility of the Board to ensure that free and fair entrance examination is held for admission to professional courses. The Board on receipt of information by the Special Tasks Force has constituted the expert committee, which after due diligence, submitted it's report. In the report, the expert committee has opined that there is sufficient material on record to indicate that candidates have indulged in use of mass scale unfair means in an organized manner. The reports of the expert committee have duly been considered by the competent authority of the Board and thereafter, the orders of cancellation of results of the candidates who had indulged in unfair means have been passed. Thus, the decision making process in the instant cases cannot be said to be illegal, irrational or 102 suffering from any procedural impropriety.
64. So far as the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that the action against the petitioners was taken in hot haste is concerned, it is necessary to notice few relevant facts before answering the same, which are as under:
"1. Computer expert committee was constituted on 30.8.2013 to check allotment of roll numbers in PMT 2013.
2. On 27.9.2013, expert committee found mismatch in 876 candidates.
3. On 9.10.2013 order of cancellation of 345 candidates was issued.
4. On 23.10.2013, STF wrote a letter to Vyapam informing that there has been tampering of roll numbers in 2012.
5. On 24.10.2013, Vyapam wrote a letter to STF stating that there is mismatch of roll numbers of about 700 candidates and requesting the STF to investigate the matter.
6. On 6.12.2013 order passed to cancel eligibility of 70 candidates.
7. On 31.12.2013 letter sent by AIG, STF requesting Vyapam to examine the PMT exam 2009-2010 and 2011in light of the scam done in PMT 2012 and PMT 2013.
8. On 1.2.2014 order passed to blacklist 6 centres and Invigilators and Observers have been restricted from allotment of duties in examinations.
9. On 11.4.2014 order passed by Hon'ble High Court in the case of W.P. No.20342/14 - Pratibha Singh Vs. State 103
10. On 24.4.2014 order passed by Vyapam cancelling examination of 272 candidates in PMT 2012.
11. On 26.4.2014, order passed by Vyapam constituting internal expert committee to examine roll number tampering in PMT 2009, PMT 2010 and PMT 2011.
12. On 3.5.2014, the internal committee examined possibility of roll number tampering in PMT 2011.
13. On 3.5.2014, order passed by Vyapam further cancelling examination of 42 candidates of PMT 2012.
14. On 3.5.2014, order passed by Vyapam cancelling examination of 98 candidates in PMT 2011, therefore, from 26.4.2014 to 3.5.2014 the exercise was done.
15. Internal committee of Vyapam examined the case of roll number tampering in 2010 from 26.4.2014 and recommended cancellation of examination of 90 candidates.
16. On 6.5.2014, order passed by Vyapam cancelling examination of 90 candidates in PMT 2010 after examining the matter from 26.4.2014 till 6.5.2014.
17. On 7.5.2014, the internal committee examined the documents in relation to PMT 2009 and recommended cancellation of 85 candidates.
18. On 8.5.2014, order passed by Vyapam cancelling examination of 85 candidates in PMT 2009 after the exercise was done from 7.5.2014.
19. On 15.5.2014, order passed by Vyapam to create an internal committee to examine the case of those students who appeared in PMT 2008 in pairs.
20. On 16.5.2014, committee examined PMT 2008 and recommended cancellation of 42 candidates.
21. On 19.5.2014, order passed by Vyapam cancelling examination of 42 candidates in PMT 2008 after exercise was done from 15.5.2014."104
Thus, from perusal of the aforesaid facts, it is crystal clear that the contention of the petitioners that action for cancellation of results has been taken in hot haste, cannot be accepted.
65. So far as the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that action for cancellation of results taken against the candidates selectively is concerned, the same deserves only to be stated to be rejected, in view of the undertaking given by learned counsel for the respondents that Board is re- examining the possibility of use of unfair means in relation to the candidates who have taken admission in the college but have been left out and action would be taken against such candidates. For yet another reason, the aforesaid submission does not deserve acceptance as even if action has not been taken against some of the candidates inadvertently, the same does not confer the right on the petitioners who have been found guilty of using unfair means during Pre-Medical Tests. It is trite law that Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not envisage negative equality. [State of U.P. and Others v. Rajkumar Sharma and others, (2006) 3 SCC 330]
66. Now, we may deal case of the petitioner in W.P. No.7619/2014 (Puneet Patel Vs. State of M.P. and others). From perusal of page 43 of the reply, it is evident that at S.No.99, one Mohammad Ashfaq of Indore has been shown to be the Scorer and Raksha Maladhari of Dhar has been shown to be the beneficiary, who has filed writ petition No.8069/2014. From 105 perusal of S.Nos. 25 and 26, at page No.52 of the return, the following position emerges:-
Examination City - Indore Examination Centre - R.R.M.B. Gujrati H.S. School S.No Candidate's name and permanent Roll No. Marks Match Right Wrong . residence obtained answer match match answer answer
25. Rajesh Yadav, Indore 433993 135 147 122 25 Puneet Patel, Mandla 433994 170
26. Puneet Patel, Mandla 433994 170 156 138 18 Mohammad Ashfaq, Indore 433995 163
67. It is pertinent to mention here that roll numbers of Rajesh Yadav, Puneet Patel, Mohammad Ashfaq, Raksha Maladhari are 433993, 433994, 433995, and 433996, respectively. The aforesaid candidates were sitting behind each other. Mohammad Ashfaq has acted as Scorer for Puneet Patel as well as Raksha Maladhari. The aforesaid aspect has been taken into account in order dated 7.5.2014. It is clearly stated that certain candidates whose roll numbers have been mentioned, assisted in copying to those candidates, who were sitting in front of and behind them. The roll number of petitioner in W.P. No.7619/2014 has also been mentioned in the order dated 7.5.2014. In W.P. No.10414/2014, which has been filed by one Gunjeet Nayak, the roll numbers of the candidates who were sitting in front of and behind him, are as follows:-
1. Sant Kumar Maruya Roll No.433086
2. Gunjeet Nayak Roll No.433087
3. Anshuman Singh Roll No.433088
4. Meena Sihore Roll No.433089 It is pertinent to mention that Anshuman Singh has been shown as 106 Scorer for Gunjeet Nayak and Meena Sihore, who had filed writ petitions No.10414/2014 and 4711/2014. It is relevant to mention here that Anshuman Singh did not take admission in the MBBS course. The fact that the candidate sitting as Scorer has helped the candidates sitting in front of him as well as the candidates sitting behind him in copying, has specifically been taken into account in the order dated 7.5.2014. In the said order, the roll number of the petitioner in W.P. No.10414/2014 has also been mentioned. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to show from the aforesaid order, which has been passed after due consideration of the report, that at one place he has been treated as beneficiary and at another place he has been treated as Scorer. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that some where he has been treated as Scorer and some where as beneficiary, cannot be accepted.
68. So far as Writ Petition No.7295/2014 is concerned, the same relates to Pre-Medical Test-2013 in which the result of the petitioner has been canelled vide order dated 27.3.2014. The controversy involved in the aforesaid writ petition is covered by the decision rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Pratibha Singh (supra). Therefore, for the reasons assigned by Division Bench of this Court in Pratibha Singh (supra) and the stand taken by the Board in its return, the inevitable conclusion is that the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition had indulged in use of unfair means and, therefore, her result has rightly been cancelled.107
69. While referring to the documents from the compilation as well as return, it has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that if the right match answers and wrong match answers are added, their score crosses 200 marks which is not possible and, therefore, the formula is erroneous and illogical. The aforesaid submission is noted only to be rejected, as on the basis of the formula, the Board has only ascertained the volume of unfair means score and not the actual marks.
70. Now, we may deal with the contention of the petitioners that there was no material to order inquiry in respect of Pre-Medical Tests, 2009 to 2011 and for constitution of the Committee. If the impugned orders are read carefully, it is evident that the Special Task Force who was investigating the criminal cases from time to time apprised the Board with regard to irregularities committed in previous Pre-Medical Tests on the basis of information furnished by the Special Task Force, the Board constituted the Committee of the experts and after consideration of the report by the Expert Committee, the impugned orders have been issued, therefore, the contention of the petitioners that there was no material to order enquiry does not deserve acceptance. Similarly, the contention that there is no material on record to arrive at the conclusion that candidates were involved in use of unfair means needs only to be rejected as we have already indicated the material available on record against the candidates who had indulged in use of unfair means in 108 preceding paragraphs. Even otherwise, it is not open for this Court to go into the sufficiency of material and the instant cases are not the cases where no subjective satisfaction has been recorded by the authority with regard to use of unfair means or that it is recorded without there being any material on record.
71. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that since formula to identify the candidates was evolved by the Board after examination was held, the same amounts to changing the rules of the game, is misconceived.
The candidates had indulged in mass copying in an organised manner by tampering their roll numbers in collusion with officials of the Board and racketeers. The candidates had secured admissions in MBBS course by playing fraud. Therefore, such candidates cannot be permitted to retain an advantage obtained by fraud and mere delay in detection of fraud would not create any equities in favour of such candidates. [See: Ram Preeti Yadav, (supra)]
72. We have already held that the candidates had indulged in mass copying in Pre-Medical Tests, 2008 to 2012 therefore, for the reasons assigned by Division Bench in paras 91 to 106 of the decision in the case of Pratibha Singh, (supra) the principles of natural justice would have no application in the peculiar fact situation of these cases. In order to examine the contention of the petitioners who had appeared in Pre Medical Test, 2010 109 that their cases do not fall within the purview of Rule 3.8 of Madhya Pradesh Medical and Dental Under Graduate Entrance Examination Rules, 2010, it is necessary to reproduce the aforesaid rule, which reads as under:-
"Rule 3.8 UNFAIR MEANS (UFM) If any candidate is found using unfair means during the examination, which includes, referring to a book/note book/loose sheets, talking, giving assistance or seeking/receiving help from any source, indulging in any malpractice or misbehavior in any manner in the test hall, harassing or doing harm to other candidates or invigilation or supervisory staff or if any action of the candidate is interpreted by the Observer/Centre Superintendent/ Invigilator as amounting to adopting unfair means, a case will be registered under unfair means and shall be legally dealt with accordingly. The answer sheet of the candidate booked under UFM shall not be valued and his/ her candidature shall be cancelled. Additionally, any case of use of unfair means on the part of the candidate may be handed over to the police. Criminal proceedings shall be initiated against such candidates."
Thus, it is evident that definition of 'unfair means' is inclusive and provides that additionally in any case of use of unfair means, enumerated in the rule which would include the case of 'mass copying' as well, under the aforesaid rule and action can be taken against the petitioners. Besides that, in any case, if the Board has power to conduct the examination, it has implicit power to cancel the results of the candidates as well. It has been held by the Division Bench in the case of Pratibha Singh (supra) that Board alone has the authority to take action against the candidates for cancellation of results. Therefore, the aforesaid contention cannot be accepted. 110
73. Now, we may deal with the submission made in the rejoinder reply by way of written submissions in W.P. No.7576/2014 and 7121/2014 - that in case this Court does not agree to exercise power of judicial review in favour of the petitioners, this Court may permit the petitioners to resort to the remedy of civil suit. Notably, the petitioners elected the remedy of writ jurisdiction. Not only that, they chose to argue the matter in extenso on all aspects including on the issue of scope of judicial review and also the duty of the Court to interfere with the impugned action of the Authorities on the ground that the same was irrational, unjust, arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal and untenable. It was also argued with vehemence that there was no basis for the formula evolved by the Board, for identifying the erring candidates. Rather, the approach of the Authorities was illogical and unscientific. Each of these argument has been addressed and answered by us hitherto. After having undertaken that exercise, the question of granting liberty to the petitioners to now approach the Civil Court by way of a civil suit would be nothing short of encouraging multiplicity of proceedings. No tangible contention, which has been left out from consideration in this judgment, and needs to be adjudicated by way of a civil suit in the context of challenge to the impugned action, has been brought to our notice. Moreover, as the alternative relief for permission to resort to remedy of civil suit being afterthought and taken at a belated stage after exhausting the marathon arguments by the counsel for the concerned petitioners by engaging the 111 Court for couple of days; coupled with the fact that the petitioners have not pointed out any tangible ground or plea on which the petitioners should be permitted to resort to remedy of civil suit after the decision of this Court on the points dealt with in this judgment (which obviously will be binding on the Civil Court), the question of acceding to the request under consideration does not arise. Suffice it to observe that the alternative plea taken by the petitioners is an argument of desperation and without any legal basis. As a result, the same will have to be negatived.
74. In view of the preceding analysis, we do not find any merit in the writ petitions. The same fail and are hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Similarly, all the Interlocutory Applications in the respective writ petitions, are also disposed of.
(A.M. Khanwilkar) (Alok Aradhe)
Chief Justice Judge
rm/a/rc/s/ks