Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raghuveer Singh Jatav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 March, 2017
WP-10730-2016
(RAGHUVEER SINGH JATAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
16-03-2017
Shri Anoop Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rahul Dewakar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
Shri Deepak Awasthy, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 07.10.2015 by which the respondent authorities have reaffirmed the cancellation of admission granted to the petitioner in the M.B.B.S. course pursuant to the pre-medical test conducted in the year 2009.
It is pertinent to note that the authorities found that the petitioner had in fact indulged in impersonation and by substituting the photographs in the admit-card some other person had appeared on behalf of the petitioner in the examination and it was on this count that his admission was initially annulled by the authorities. The petitioner along with several other students had filed W.P. No. 20939/2013 before this Court, which was allowed by this Court by order dated 27.03.2014 with a direction to the authorities to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass a fresh order after re-examining the case.
Pursuant to the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid case, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 02.02.2015 asking him to produce documents to establish that no impersonation had been practiced and that the photographs in the records of the institution as well as the admit-card were a perfect match and there was no impersonation as alleged.
Admittedly, inspite of the aforesaid notice dated 02.02.2015, the petitioner did not file any document in support of his submission, though he has filed a reply to the same, which has been annexed in the petition, however, we do not find any endorsement or acknowledgment of receipt on the same. Thereafter, the authorities again re-examined the matter and passed the impugned order on 07.10.2015 reaffirming the findings and also reaffirming the order of cancellation of admission of the petitioner on the ground of impersonation.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in similar cases this Court has quashed the order passed by the authority and directed them to conduct an inquiry after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and therefore, in the instant case also similar orders be passed. The petitioner also prayed that during the intervening period he may be permitted to prosecute studies and his result be declared.
Apparently, the relief prayed for by the petitioner claiming parity with others is misplaced inasmuch as the petitioner has already approached this Court on the previous occasion and has been granted this benefit. It is also clear that after the orders passed by this Court, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner informing him the reasons for cancellation of his admission and asking him to produce documents to establish that the ground of impersonation is not made out, but the petitioner did not do so. Even before this Court the petitioner has not filed any documents to indicate that the findings recorded by the authorities are perverse.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is apparent that the petitioner has already been given adequate and full opportunity to present his case, inspite of which he has not been able to do so nor has he produced any documents in his support.
Quite apart from the above, it is also undisputed that during the pendency of this petition certain orders, passed by this court annulling the orders of admission and granting interim relief to the petitioner, were assailed by the authority concerned before the Supreme Court in C.A. No. 1727/2016 Nidhikaim Vs. State of M.P. & others and the Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 13.02.2017 has upheld the orders of cancellation of admission and has also withdrawn all interim orders permitting similar petitioners to pursue their studies in the intervening period.
It is also brought to the notice of this Court that in several identical petitions: W.P. Nos. 18422/2014, 2053/2015, 2143/2015, 2709/2015, 5710/2015, 6768/2015, 6769/2015, 6772/2015, 6774/2015, 6775/2015, 6777/2015, 7133/2015, 13304/2015, 19762/2015, 5737/2016, 5856/2016, 6554/2016, 6555/2016, 6664/2016, 6878/2016, 6768/2015 and 6772/2015 this aspect of the matter has been considered and the Division Bench of this Court, after expressing a prima facie view that all the petitions relating to such issues deserved to be dismissed in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Nidhikaim (supra), has rejected the prayer for grant of interim relief made by the petitioners therein, but has adjourned the petitions on the request of the counsel for the petitioner to go through the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Nidhikaim (supra).
In view of the aforesaid, while we are in respectful agreement with the prima facie view expressed by the Division Bench in the aforementioned writ petitions that they deserve to be dismissed in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Nidhikaim (supra), however keeping the concept of parity in mind, this petition is also directed to be listed along with W.P. No. W.P. Nos. 18422/2014, 2053/2015, 2143/2015, 2709/2015, 5710/2015, 6768/2015, 6769/2015, 6772/2015, 6774/2015, 6775/2015, 6777/2015, 7133/2015, 13304/2015, 19762/2015, 5737/2016, 5856/2016, 6554/2016, 6555/2016, 6664/2016, 6878/2016, 6768/2015, 6772/2015, 14677/2016 and 10731/2016.
(RAVI SHANKAR JHA) (ASHOK KUMAR JOSHI)
JUDGE JUDGE
kundan