Gujarat High Court
Sheikh vs State on 30 August, 2011
Author: S.J.Mukhopadhaya
Bench: S.J. Mukhopadhaya
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/8440/2011 16/ 16 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8440 of 2011
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
=============================================================
1.
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
YES
2.
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
YES
3.
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
NO
4.
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
NO
5.
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
NO
======================================
SHEIKH
RUHAN MOHAMMAD FARUK - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT THROUGH SOCIAL WELFARE DEPTARMENT & 3 - Respondent(s)
======================================
Appearance
:
MR MIHIR JOSHI SR COUNSEL FOR
MR SIRAJ R GORI for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MS KRINA CALLA
ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondents: 1 -
4.
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date
: 30/08/2011
CAV
JUDGMENT
(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1.0 By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner,- a first year M.B.B.S. student has prayed for the following reliefs:
a. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other Writ, Order or directkon quashing and setting aside the impugned order annexed as "Annexure-J"
passed by Respondent No.3 on 20.06.2011.
b. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned order annexed as "Annexure- M"
passed by Respondent No.2 on 28/06/2011 as well as the consequential order annexed at "Annexure-N"
passed by Respondent No.4 on 29/06/2011.
c. That during the admission and pendency of the present petition this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of the impugned orders dated 20/06/2011, 28/06/2011 & 29/06/2011 passed by Respondent no.3, 2 & 4 respectively.
d. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant interim relief by directing the Respondent No.4 to forward the examination form duly filed by the petitioner to the University and permit the petitioner to appear in the Annual Examination of First Year M. B. B. S. as the petitioner has all throughout attended and studied the classes conducted by the college.
e. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass such further Order as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice."
2.0 Facts in brief giving rise to this petition can be summarized as under:
2.1 Petitioner is a student studying in First Year of M.B.B.S. in Government Medical College Vadodara. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that he belongs to a caste recognized as Socially and Educationally Backward Class by the competent authorities.
2.2 It is also the case on behalf of the petitioner that his academic career so far has been absolutely brilliant and outstanding. Petitioner secured 91.54% in Xth standard examination conducted by Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board in March, 2008. Again he secured 85.40% of marks in standard XIIth examinations conducted by Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board for H.S.C. in 2010. Petitioner secured 596 marks out of total marks of 700 aggregate. So far as the subjects which are to be considered for the purpose of admission to medical courses, the petitioner obtained 270 marks out of 300 marks i.e. 90% of marks. Petitioner also appeared in Gujarat Common Entrance Test in 2010 wherein petitioner obtained 86.25% out of 120 marks aggregate.
2.3 Petitioner applied for admission in the First year of M. B. B. S. As petitioner belongs to the caste recognized as Socially and Educationally Backward Class, he made a reference to this fact in the admission form which was presented before the Admission Committee for Professional Medical Educational Courses. Considering the merits of the petitioner as well as the Caste Certificate submitted by the petitioner before the committee, the committee issued Admission Order in favour of the petitioner.
2.4 Pursuant to the order granting admission to the petitioner in Government College, Vadodara, the petitioner deposited the requisite fees. It is pertinent to note that in the copy of the Tuition fee Receipt No.16900595 dtd.21.7.2010 issued by Axis Bank Ltd. on behalf of respondent No.2 the merit number of the petitioner is mentioned as that of 830 in the General Category.
2.5 Petitioner started his studies in the First Year of M. B. B. S. diligently and sincerely at Government Medical College, Vadodara.
2.6 Abruptly petitioner received a letter from the Office of the Respondent No.3 whereby petitioner was called upon for verification of his Caste Certificate which he submitted along with the application for admission to the Medical Courses. Petitioner was asked to remain present along with necessary proofs and evidence regarding his Caste i.e. 'Muslim Julaya'. Petitioner along with his father remained present before the respondent No.3 time to time and adduces necessary proofs and evidences with regard to his caste.
2.7 The case of the petitioner so far as the Caste Certificate is concerned was referred to the Scrutiny Committee constituted by the State Government. The petitioner along with his father remained present before the Scrutiny Committee and submitted necessary documentary evidences to prove that the petitioner's family belongs to the Caste Muslim Julaya. Petitioner submitted the following documents in support of his claim so far as his caste is concerned.
Copy of Caste Certificate issued by District Social Welfare Officer (Developing Castes) No.39991 dated 02.08.2008.
Copy of Certificate No.S.R./1123 dated 30.05.2010 regarding Non-creamy layer.
Copy of the School Leaving Certificate No.1329 dated 20.05.2010 issued by Diwan Ballubhai Secondary / Higher Secondary School.
Copy of the certificate issued by Chhipa Noormohammad Yakubji Sevaijiwala Urdu School No.4, Jamalpur, Ahmedabad dated 16.07.2008 regarding father of the petitioner herein. (The school is under the administration of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation).
Copy of the Caste Certificate of the father of the petitioner issued by City Mamlatdar, Ahmedabad n 11.11.1982 indicating the caste of father of petitioner as "Musalman Julaya".
Copy of the Caste Certificate of the brother of petitioner bearing no.4756/1996 dated 02.08.1996 wherein also the caste is mentioned as "Musalman Julaya".
Copy of the School Leaving Certificate of uncle of the petitioner bearing no.464 dated 07.05.68 issued by Municipality Primary Education Committee, Ahmedabad.
Copy of School Leaving Certificate of father of the petitioner bearing no.141 issued by Municipality Primary Education Committee, Ahmedabad on 31.07.1996.
2.8 It is also the case of the petitioner that over and above the above referred documents few other documents were also placed on record to show that the petitioner herein belongs to Julaya caste which is included in the Socially and Educationally Backward Class category (SEBC). It is his case that the Julaya clan are people who are professing Islam and they are Muslims.
2.9 The Scrutiny Committee vide impugned order dated 20.06.2011 came to the conclusion that petitioner does not belong to Julaya community and the Caste Certificate bearing No.39991 dated 02.08.2008 issued by District Welfare Officer, Ahmedabad is a false certificate. After the order was passed by the Scrutiny Committee declaring that the Caste Certificate of the petitioner is a false certificate, a detailed representation was preferred wherein it was brought to the Notice of the Committee that there was no reason for the petitioner to produce a false Caste Certificate because even otherwise the petitioner secured 90 percent of marks in the Science subjects in H.S.C. and was entitled to admission in First Year M. B. B. S. in General category as other students who have obtained less percentage of marks than the petitioner got themselves admitted in the open category.
2.10 It is also the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the oral and written representation of the petitioner and his father on 22.06.2011 the respondent No.3,-the Director, Developing Castes Welfare Department was pleased to issue a letter No.1136 dtd.23.06.2011 stating that looking to the bright future of the petitioner, if the petitioner is entitled to admission in the General category necessary steps may be taken in this regard. However, to the utter shock and dismay of the petitioner, the petitioner received the impugned order dated 28.06.2011 whereby respondent No.2,- Chairman, Admission Committee for Professional Medical Educational Courses, was pleased to pass an order canceling the admission of the petitioner to the First Year M. B. B. S. It is at that stage that the petitioner was left with no other option but to prefer the present writ petition being Special Civil Application No.8440 of 2011 wherein the petitioner has challenged both the orders i.e. the order dated 26.02.2011 passed by the Scrutiny Committee canceling the Caste Certificate on the ground of being a false certificate and the order dated 28th June, 2011 passed by Respondent No.2 cancelling the admission of the petitioner in First Year M. B. B. S. 3.0 We have heard learned senior counsel Mr. Mihir Joshi appearing with learned counsel Mr.Siraj R. Gori, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Krina Calla, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents.
4.0 Learned senior counsel for the petitioner put forward the following contentions.
(A) That the Respondent No.3 has committed an error in passing the impugned order dated 20.06.2011, as the Respondent No.3 has not considered the relevant documents placed on record by the petitioner herein.
(B) That the Respondent No.3 ought to have appreciated that the connotation "Musalman Sheikh Julaya" mentioned in the column of caste in the various certificates in fact conveys a clear meaning that the petitioner belongs to "Julaya" caste, which is admittedly included in SEBC Category.
(C) That the Respondent No.3 has utterly failed to take into consideration the General Register maintained by Urdu School No.4 of the then Ahmedabad Municipality. It is submitted that the Respondent No.3 ought to have considered the copy of page no.188 of General Register which conclusively demonstrates that the father of the petitioner belongs to Julaya Community and as such document having strong probative value ought not to have been ignored.
(D) That the fishing inquiry made by the Respondent No.3 was targeted only to disprove the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner on absolutely flimsy grounds. Hence this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 20.06.2011, which is passed on the grounds not germane to the provisions.
(E) That this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to appreciate that the connotation "Musalman Julaya" directly conveys the meaning that the candidate belongs to "Julaya" Caste. It would be relevant to note that the word mentioned "Sheikh" before the word "Julaya" in the caste column reflects the Surname of the petitioner and in fact the connotation "Sheikh" has nothing to do with the caste of the petitioner. It is submitted that the above most relevant aspect has apparently been ignored by the Respondent No.3 while passing the impugned order; therefore the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
(F) That this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to appreciate that the Respondent No.3 has failed to take into account the genuine probative value of the documents placed on record by the petitioner. It is submitted that the absolutely flimsy ground taken by the Respondent No.3 to ignore the relevant documents, to the effect that in the caste column the word "Musalman Julaya" or "Musalman Sheikh Julaya"
are mentioned in place of "Julaya" is not germane to the provisions and therefore such observation and finding are uncalled for and unwarranted, hence the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
(G) That the finding of the Respondent No.3 in the impugned order to the effect that the petitioner and his father has produced forged and concocted documents are without any basis or merit and in fact such finding are based on merely presumption drawn by the Respondent No.3. Hence, the impugned order dated 20.06.2011 deserves to be quashed and set aside.
(H) That the Respondent No.3 has further committed an error and failed to appreciate that the connotations "Musalman Julaya" , "Musalman Sheikh Julaya" and "Julaya"
signifies only one meaning and conveys the caste of the petitioner as that of "Julaya" believe in religious virtue of Islam.
(I) That the Respondent No.3 ought to have appreciated that Caste Certificate issued by District Welfare Officer, Ahmedabad bearing no.39991 dated 02.08.2008 is genuine and was issued properly by the Competent Authority by follow in due procedure.
(J) That the Respondent No.2 has also committed an error in passing the impugned order dated 28.06.2011 by not taking into consideration the communication dated 23/06/2011 issued by the Respondent No.3. It is submitted that communication dated 23/06/2011 is self explanatory and was apparently issued by the Respondent No.2 in good faith to protect and safeguard the interest of an innocent student whose career is at the stake. It is submitted that before passing the impugned order dated 28.06.2011 the Respondent No.2 ought to have taken into consideration and appreciated the contents and observation of the letter dated 23/06/2011.
(K) That the Respondent No.2 ought to have appreciated that the petitioner herein was otherwise also eligible and entitled to get admission in First Year M. B. B. S. on Open General Category also as the students who have secured less merit marks then the petitioner have also secured admission on Open Category and still pursuing their studies in First Year M. B. B. S. 5.0 Per contra, Ms. Calla, learned Assistant Government Pleader put forward the following contentions.
(i) That the present petition is not maintainable inasmuch as that the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee dated 20.06.2011 before the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court which is not permissible as per the Rules of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. Therefore, the challenge of the said order of the Scrutiny Committee may not be entertained before this Hon'ble Court in the present petition and therefore, the petition to that extent, deserves to be dismissed. .
(ii) That the order of the Committee shall be final and conclusive only subject to the provisions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in para 13(13), it is observed that in any case as per its procedure the writ petition/misc petition it should be disposed off by Learned Single Judge, then no other appeal would lie against that order to the Division Bench and would be the subject of Special Leave Petition under Article 136. In the backdrop of this it can be interpreted that the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee can be challenged before this Hon'ble Court and it is also clarified that when an order is passed by the Learned Judge no appeal lies against same before same Hon'ble Court. Therefore, the petitioner's challenge to the order of the scrutiny committee in the present petition is not maintainable and therefore same requires to be dismissed.
6.0 Relying on decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Anr. Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and Ors. reported in 1994 Part-VI SCC 241 , she submitted further that the High Court is not a Court of appeal to appreciate the evidence. The Committee which is empowered to evaluate the evidence placed before it when records the findings of fact, it ought to prevail unless found vitiated by judicial review of any High Court subject to limitations of interference with findings of fact.
7.0 Ms.Calla, learned AGP has also relied upon the affidavit in reply filed by respondent No.2 wherein it has been averred as under:
"6.
I submit that so far as the merits of the case are concerned, the petitioner had produced caste certificate of Muslim " Julaya" issued by the District Social Welfare Officer (VJK) Ahmedabad being caste certificate no. 3991 dated 02.08.2008 for getting the admission in the medical course for the year 2010-2011.
7. The primary scrutiny team had some doubts about the said certificate and hence it was produced before the Director, Developing Caste Welfare for further verification. The petitioner was called for primary scrutiny to produce his evidence and documents so as to enable him to prove that his caste certificate was genuine.
8. I submit that the case of the petitioner was put before the Scrutiny Committee and the Scrutiny Committee had called the petitioner with his evidences on 15.06.2011. The Scrutiny Committee had taken into account the judgment referred in Madhuri Patil, supra, the certificate produced by the petitioner and the statements made by the petitioner, had given a detailed reasoning as to why the certificate of the petitioner is cancelled, vide order dated 20.06.2011 and therefore, the Scrutiny Committee has not only scrutinized all the evidences and documents produced by the petitioner but also has given detailed reasonings by every observations made by the committee for canceling the caste certificate of the petitioner and therefore, order passed is just and legal and therefore, no interference may be called for by this Hon'ble Court in the documents produced by the petitioner and the petition to the extent deserves to be dismissed.
9. I most humbly submit that not only the petitioner has produced false and fabricated certificate before the authorities but has also, time and again i.e. 3 times produced different and false evidences and tried to mislead and misrepresent the Scrutiny Committee and the Scrutiny Committee has taken into account other aspects of the matter and all the documents and statements made by the petitioners are rightly entered into committed.
10. I submit that one of the reasons of canceling the caste certificate of the petitioner is that looking at, the certificate produced by the petitioner, it refer to as "(Sheikh Julaya)" whereas when the original record of the school was verified and it was found that word "Julaya" was added subsequently. Therefore, it is clear that it is a case of fabrication of documents.
11. I submit that the case of the petitioner is that he is a "Shaikh"
but that does not mean that he is of caste "Julaya" in as much as that there are about 144 categories of the SEBC in the State of Gujarat and the caste of Julaya and other are at Sr.No.29 of the State List. A copy of the same is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure R I to this reply.
12. I submit that in the whole list there is nothing which specifically states that "(Sheikh Julaya)" and "(Julaya)"
are to be considered the same and therefore, the case of the petitioner that as he is a "Shaikh" he should be considered as "Shaikh Julaya" or "Julaya"
cannot be accepted. It is settled legal position reported in AIR 2001 Supreme Court page 393 in that there has to be a specific mention of any caste or tribe or category in the president order, of any list of a particular State to include a particular caste, tribe or category to be called as Schedule Caste, Schedule Tribe or other backward category. I submit that therefore something which is not in the state list cannot be introduced indirectly and therefore, the case of the petitioner could not be accepted and the order passed by the Scrutiny Committee is just and proper, and may not be interfered by this Hon'ble Court."
8.0 Ld. AGP has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) . Relevant paras 15 and 16 of which are as under:
"15. The question then is whether the approach adopted by the High Court in not elaborately considering the case is vitiated by an error of law. High Court is not a court of appeal to appreciate the evidence. The Committe which is empowered to evaluate the evidence placed before it when records a finding of fact, it ought to prevail unless found vitiated by judicial review of any High Court subject to limitations of interference with findings of fact. The Committee when considers all the material facts and records a finding, though another view, as a court of appeal may be possible, it is not a ground to reverse the findings. The Court has to see whether the Committee considered all the relevant material placed before it or has not applied its mind to relevant facts which have led the Committee ultimately record the finding. Each case must be considered in the backdrop of its own facts.
16. Whether appellants are entitled to their further continuance in the studies is the further question. Often the plea of equities or promissory estoppel would be put forth for continuation and completion of further course of studies and usually would be found favour with the courts. The courts have constitutional duty and responsibility, in exercise of the power of its judicial review, to see that constitutional goals set down in the Preamble, the Fundamental Rights and the Directive Principles of the Constitution, are achieved. A party that seeks equity, must come with clean hands. He who comes to the court with false claim, cannot plead equity nor the court would be justified to exercise equity jurisdiction in his favour. There is no estoppel as no promise of the social status is made by the State when a false plea was put forth for the social status recognized and declared by the Presidential Order under the Constitution as amended by the SC & ST (Amendment) Act, 1976, which is later found to be false. Therefore, the plea of promissory estoppel or equity have no application. When it is found to be a case of fraud played by the concerned, no sympathy and equitable considerations can come to his rescue. Nor the plea of estoppel is germane to the beneficial constitutional concessions and opportunities given to the genuine tribes or castes. Courts would be circumspect and vary in considering such cases."
9.0 We have given our anxious thoughts and considerations to the rival contentions of the respective parties.
10.0 We may now proceed to examine the matter on merits. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner secured 85.40% of marks in Std. XIIth examinations i.e. H.S.C. conducted by the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board for the academic year 2010. It is also an undisputed fact that the petitioner secured 596 marks out of total marks of 700 aggregate. Most importantly so far as the subjects which are to be considered for the purpose of admission to medical courses, the petitioner obtained 270 marks out of 300 marks i.e. 90% of marks. It is also an undisputed fact that the petitioner appeared in Gujarat Common Entrance Test, 2010 wherein the petitioner secured 86.25 % out of 120. However, for whatever reasons the respondents thought fit to take the Caste Certificate in scrutiny we are of the view that the Scrutiny Committee has failed to considered some very vital piece of evidence having lot of bearing on the issue in question. We just fail to understand the approach of the Scrutiny Committee. The findings which we are recording may not be considered as appreciating the evidence as we are conscious of our limitations while exercising our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are conscious of the fact that we cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the Scrutiny Committee while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but at the same time we also can not ignore the fact that if vital piece of evidence has been ignored or the committee has turned a blind eye to some of relevant aspects then it will definitely make the decision vulnerable and to that extent this Court can always look into the matter in the interest of justice.
11.0 We have noticed that authorities have not found any fault with the certificates so far as the father of the petitioner is concerned. For example, the most important document seems to have been overlooked. This document is a General Register maintained by Urdu School No.4, run by Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (at the relevant point of time Ahmedabad Municipality) and in the said register necessary entries have been effected with the name of the father of the petitioner wherein the cast is mentioned as that of " Muslman Sheikh Julaya".
This document in the form of General Register maintained by Urdu School No.4 has been annexed at page-188 of the paper-book. We do not understand as to on what basis Scrutiny Committee comes to the conclusion that the word 'Julaya' has been inserted in the said register subsequently. This particular entry seems to have been made more than 45 years back. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in submitting that the respondents ought to have taken into consideration the fact that "Sheikh" is the surname of the petitioner and the connotation "Sheikh" does not reflect caste or sub-caste of the petitioner. At the same time, connotation "Musalman" or " Sheikh"
also reflects the religious faith of the petitioner and the connotation "Musalman" or "Sheikh" does not in any manner reflect the caste or sub-caste of the petitioner. The connotation "Musalman Sheikh Julaya" mentioned in the Column of caste in the various certificates in fact conveys a clear meaning that the petitioner belongs to "Julaya" caste which is admittedly included in S.E.B.C. category.
12.0 Not only this, but way back in the year 1982 the City Mamlatdar, Ahmedabad also issued a certificate in favour of the father of the petitioner certifying that father of the petitioner falls in the category of Socially and Educationally Backward Class. We have noticed the reference of the word "Julaya" in the said certificate too. We have also noticed the leaving certificate dated 07.05.1968 of the father of the petitioner wherein once again in column no.2 it has been stated as "Musalman
- Sheikh - Julaya"
. We have also noticed one another finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee which in our view appears to be perverse. To say that 'Julaya' community will not fall within the category of Socially and Educationally Backward Class is a different thing and to allege that a person has created or forged a certificate showing himself to be belonging to ' Julaya' community is altogether a different thing.
13.0 Prima facie, it appears that the authority themselves are not clear and there is some confusion in this regard. Further, we have also noticed that the Scrutiny Committee has found some fault with the certificate of the petitioner's aunt i.e. petitioner's father's sister name viz. Rukshana Bibi. We do not understand that if one certificate of a relative is found to be doubtful that by itself will render the certificate issued in favour of the petitioner also a false certificate.
14.0 We are not satisfied at all with the manner in which the committee has adjudicated the controversy.
15.0 We are of the view that the petitioner appears to be a very bright and a promising student possessing excellent academic record. We also can not ignore the fact that even otherwise without the certificate he was eligible to be admitted in the First Year M. B. B. S. Course in the general category. The whole career of the petitioner having a bright future is now at stake and would be seriously affected if we do not grant reliefs as prayed for in this petition. Once again, at the cost of repetition, we say that the High Court is not a Court of Appeal and can not enter into sufficiency, adequacy or even otherwise of the evidence before the authority. At the same time, however, a student should not be punished nor his career be jeopardized only on the basis of suspicion, surmises and conjectures without there being any evidence worth the name. On the contrary relevant evidence which has a bearing on the issue in question seems to have been overlooked, ignored and omitted from being considered. In our view there is no evidence whatsoever which has some probative value in eye of law and merely on the basis of suspicion impugned action is taken by the respondents which are arbitrary, irrational and perverse and no reasonable man may, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, would reach to that conclusion and, therefore, it is required to be interfered with in exercised of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
16.0 In the aforesaid view of the matter, the petition succeeds. The impugned order dated 20th June, 2011, bearing No.VJK/ General/ JPP/ 11-12/1994 passed by the Scrutiny Committee, State of Gujarat in its Social Welfare Department canceling the caste certificate bearing No.16900595 dtd.21.07.2010 issued in favour of the petitioner, is hereby quashed and set aside and consequently the order dated 28th June, 2011 passed by respondent No.2 Admission Committee for Professional Medical Educational Courses canceling the admission of the petitioner to the First Year M. B. B. S. is also hereby quashed and set aside.
[S.J. MUKHOPADHAYA, CJ.] [J.B.PARDIWALA, J.] Amit Top