Madhya Pradesh High Court
Vikram Singh Raman vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 May, 2017
1
WP.8959 / 2016
Vikram Singh Raman Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
03 .05.2017
Shri U.K. Bohre, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Praveen Newaskar Govt. Advocate for respondents /
State.
Shri Vivek Khekdar, Assistant Solicitor General for the respondent No.3.
Mrs. Nidhi Patankar, counsel for the respondent No.4 / G.R. Medical College.
1. Writ Jurisdiction of this Court u/A 226 of the Constitution of India is invoked praying for the following reliefs :-
** 1- izfr;kfpdkdrkZ dz-4 ,oa 5 dks vkns'k @ funsZ'k fn;k tk;s ;kfpdkdrkZ dk ,e-ch-ch-,l izh&Qkbuy dh ijh{kk ifj.kke ?kksf"kr fd;k tk;sA 2- vU; U;k;ksfpr lgk;rk tks izdj.k dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds vuq:i mfpr gks og ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk ;kfpdkdrkZ ds fgr esa tkjh dh tk;sA 3- ;kfpdkdrkZ dks eqdnesa dk gtkZ [kpkZ Hkh izfr;kfpdkdrkZx.k ls fnyk;k tk;s vkSj ;kfpdkdrkZ dh ;kfpdk Lohdkj dh tk;s rks ekuuh; U;k;ky; dh vfrd`ik gksxhA**
2. The facts in nutshell are that the petitioner after being subjected to 2010 PMT Examination was admitted to M.B.B.S. course. Crime No. 224/2014 was registered against the petitioner in which charge-sheet was filed before the Court of competent criminal jurisdiction alleging offences of cheating and forgery against the petitioner and 12 others for having indulged in unlawful means for passing the P.M.T. 2010. The admission of the petitioner was canceled by the Dean of the Medical College which impelled the petitioner to approach this Court. This Court in a common order passed in various petitions in the case of Arun Sharma v. State of MP reported in 2015 (3) MPLJ 206, on the 2 WP.8959 / 2016 ground of violation of principle of natural justice quashed the rustication by extending liberty to the M.P. Professional Examination Board and the Dean of the concerned college to pass fresh orders in accordance with law and after affording opportunity of hearing. Thereafter the petitioner was permitted to attend the classes of M.B.B.S. Course. The petitioner is now before this Court in present petition seeking declaration of result of M.B.B.S. Pre- Final Examination.
3. In regard to the aspect of the right of the candidate against whom criminal cases are registered, the Apex Court has concluded the issue in decision of Nidhi Kaim Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2017 (4) SCC 1, holding that no prior opportunity of hearing is necessary.
3.1. Whether said decision of the Apex Court applies to the case of the petitioner which is required to be gone into by the Dean of the concerned college, who is the competent authority in terms of clause 3.2 and 3.3 of M.P. P.M.T. Rules. The competency of the Dean for taking action in respect of irregularity or illegality committed by a candidate in any of the processes right from applying for PMT till admission in the concerned college has been upheld by this Court in the case of Nitin Ken v. State of MP & Ors. in WP No. 8200/2016 decided on 5.12. 2016.
3.2 In view of the subsequent development of the passing of verdict in respect of the number of candidates, who are admitted to MBBS Course and who had adopted unfair means to get admission, having been decided by the Apex Court in the case of Nidhi Kaim (supra) , this Court is of the considered view that no relief can be granted to the petitioner as prayed for and the matter has to be left open for the competent authority, 3 WP.8959 / 2016 the Dean of the concerned college to be dealt with.
4. The very admission of the petitioner is in question in present case where offences have been registered alleging forgery and cheating for adopting unfair means in passing the said PMT entrance examination which has led to his admission in MBBS. More so even the judicial intervention extended to the petitioner is of interim nature without any final adjudication of the validity of his admission or rustication. More so the issue of certain students involving adoption of unfair means in similar examination of different years has been decided by the Apex Court in the case of Nidhi Kaim (supra) holding inter alia that in view of the illegality having been found proved on a probe conducted by an expert body, there is no requirement of affording prior opportunity of hearing before rusticating the students who were before the Apex Court.
5. Thus, now the Dean has to enquire into the applicability of the verdict of the Apex court to the case of the petitioner and thereafter pass appropriate order of rustication or retention of the petitioner as the case may be.
6. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with following directions :-
(i) The Dean of the concerned college, where petitioner is admitted, is required to conduct enquiry first on the aspect as to whether decision in the case of Nidhi Kaim (supra) of the Apex Court applies to the case of the petitioner. If the answer to this question is in affirmative then the competent authority i.e. Dean is directed to proceed ahead by passing appropriate orders without affording any opportunity to the petitioner in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in Nidhi Kaim (supra).4 WP.8959 / 2016
(ii) In case the answer to the question is in the negative, then the Dean of the concerned college shall pass appropriate orders in terms of the relevant statutory PMT Rules in accordance with law after giving due and sufficient opportunity to the petitioner of being heard.
(iii) It is needless to emphasize that if the Dean does not rusticate the petitioner then he be allowed to pursue his course, appear in the examination and be informed about the result of the same.
No Cost.
(Sheel Nagu) (S.A. Dharmadhikari) sarathe Judge Judge