Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajneesh Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 December, 2014
Equivalent citations: AIR 2015 (NOC) 348 (M.P.)
W.P. Nos.3983/2013, 6232/2013, 1931/2014,
2001/2014, 2003/2014, 2014/2014, 2027/2014,
5451/2014, 6015/2014, 8088/2014, 8120/2014,
8399/2014, 8411/2014, 8469/2014, 8534/2014,
8535/2014, 8540/2014, 8757/2014, 10360/2014,
10371/2014, 10602/2014, 10698/2014, 10700/2014,
11571/2014, 11742/2014, 11946/2014, 11955/2014,
12137/2014, 12623/2014, 12767/2014, 13283/2014,
13380/2014, 13587/2014, 14026/2014, 14119/2014,
14196/2014, 16281/2014 & 16476/2014
01.12.2014
W.P. Nos.3983/2013, 6232/2013, 1931/2014,
2001/2014, 2003/2014, 2014/2014, 2027/2014,
5451/2014, 6015/2014, 10698/2014, 13587/2014,
16281/2014 & 16476/2014
Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate
with Shri Parag Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioners
in Writ Petition Nos.3983/2013, 1931/2014, 2001/2014,
2003/2014, 2014/2014, 2027/2014, 6015/2014 &
10698/2014.
Shri Amit Khatri, learned counsel for the
petitioner in W.P. No.6232/2013.
Shri Raj Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the
petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.5451/2014, 16281/2014
& 16476/2014.
Shri M.P. Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner in
W.P. No.13587/2014.
Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government
Advocate for the respondents/State.
Shri P.K. Kaurav, learned counsel for the Professional Examination Board.
These writ petitions involve identical issues and arise out of the common order dated 10.12.2013 passed by the Dean, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Medical College, Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Medical College, Jabalpur').
2. The background facts leading to filing of the writ petitions briefly stated are that the petitioners had appeared in the Pre-Medical Test Examination conducted by the Professional Examination Board in the year 2008 and 2009 and were declared successful. Thereafter, the petitioners were admitted in the Medical College, Jabalpur. The petitioners were served with show-cause notices by which the petitioners were directed to submit their photographs annexed by them alongwith the on-line application forms submitted for appearing in the PMT Examination. The petitioners, on receipt of the aforesaid notices, informed the Dean of the Medical College, Jabalpur that they are not in possession of photographs as demanded vide show- cause notices. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 10.12.2013, the admissions of the petitioners to MBBS Course were cancelled on the ground that their photographs annexed with mark sheets issued by Professional Examination Board are not matching with the photographs affixed on the documents submitted at the time of taking admission in MBBS Course. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioners have approached this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners while inviting the attention of this Court to the show-cause notices, pointed out that the petitioners were asked to submit their photographs annexed with the application form submitted by them at the time of appearing in PMT Examination. However, on their inability to supply the photographs, the impugned order has been passed. It was further submitted that the documents referred to in the impugned order, inter alia, documents received by the college from Professional Examination Board such as the application forms submitted by the petitioners at the time of appearing in the PMT Examination, were not supplied to the petitioners. Therefore, the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice.
4. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate has supported the impugned order. However, learned Government Advocate was unable to refute the contentions made on behalf of the petitioners that the documents in question which were made the foundation of the impugned order, were not made available to the petitioners.
5. We have considered the respective submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. It is well settled in law that notice must mention the grounds on which action is proposed to be taken. [See Thahira Haris vs. Govt. of Karnataka, (2009) 11 SCC 438]. The Supreme Court in the case of Joseph Vilangandan Vs. The Executive Engineer (P.W.D.) Ernakulam and others, AIR 1978 SC 930 has held that if notices mention one ground but the action has taken on some other ground, the same would amount to violation of principles of natural justice. In the case of Raymond Wollen Mills Limited and Another Vs. Director General (Investigation and Registration) and Another, (2008) 12 SCC 73, it has been held that if the material on which an adverse action is taken against a person, is not mentioned in the notice, the same would tantamount to violation of principles of natural justice. It is equally well settled in law that adverse material on which reliance is placed by an Authority has to be supplied, the same would tantamount to violation of principles of natural justice. [See: Indu Bhushan Dwivedi vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, (2010) 11 SCC 278].
6. In these cases, by the show-cause notices, the petitioners were directed to submit their photographs annexed by them along with the on-line application forms for appearing in the PMT Examination. However, admissions of the petitioners to MBBS Course were cancelled on the ground that the photographs annexed with the mark sheet issued by the Professional are not matching with the photographs annexed on the documents submitted at the time of taking admission in the MBBS Course. In other words, the show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioners on one ground and the action has been taken against them on another ground about which neither notice was given to the petitioners nor the documents in possession of the college presumably obtained/received from Professional Examination Board were furnished to the petitioners. In fact, the documents submitted by the petitioners at the time of taking admission in the MBBS Course and the photographs annexed by them along with the on-line application forms submitted by them while appearing in the PMT Examination were not supplied to them.
7. For the aforementioned reasons, we have no hesitation in holding that the impugned order has been passed in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice and the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
8. The alleged irregularity of affixing different photographs on the on-line application forms has been committed during the examination which concerns the process of examination. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in paragraphs 37 and 41 of the judgment in the case of Ku. Pratibha Singh (Minor) Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others, 2014 (III) MPJR 178, the Professional Examination Board alone is competent authority to take action against the petitioners, in that behalf. This decision has attained finality consequent to the order dated 8.8.2014 by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition Nos. 18791-18792.
9. In the result, the impugned order dated 10.12.2013 is hereby quashed and set aside. However, liberty is granted to Professional Examination Board as well as to the concerned College to commence an independent inquiry against the petitioners by supplying all the documents on which reliance is placed. We hope and trust that Professional Examination Board/Deans of respective Medical Colleges will commence the proposed inquiry against the concerned petitioners in the light of liberty given in this order and conclude that inquiry expeditiously preferably not later than six weeks from today. The concerned petitioners must extend full cooperation for conclusion of that inquiry, if opportunity of hearing is required to be given to the concerned petitioners during the inquiry. We may not be understood to have said that the petitioners are entitled for personal hearing during such inquiry. That is a matter to be considered by the Inquiring Authority in the light of the observations in the decision of this Court in similar cases on the subject matter. It would be open to the petitioners to submit representations to the Competent Authority of the College for permission to attend the classes. The said Authority shall examine the representations of the petitioners and shall deal with it on merits in accordance with law.
10. Accordingly, the writ petitions stand disposed of.
W P Nos. 8088/2014, 8120/2014, 8399/2014, 8411/2014, 8469/2014, 8534/2014, 8535/2014, 8540/2014, 8757/2014, 10360/2014, 10371/2014, 10700/2014, 11571/2014, 11742/2014, 11946/2014, 12137/2014, 12623/2014, 12767/2014, 13283/2014, 13380/2014 Shri A.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 8088/2014, 8120/2014, 8534/2014, 8535/2014, 11742/2014 and 12137/2014.
Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate along with Shri Parag Shrivastava, advocate for the petitioners in W.P. Nos.8399/2014, 8411/2014, 8757/2014, 10360/2014, 10700/2014, 13283/2014 and 13380/2014.
Shri R.M. K. Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.8469/2014.
Shri M.P. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 8540/2014 and 11946/2014.
Shri Nishant Datt, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.10371/2014.
Shri Vijay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. Nos.11571/2014 and 12623/2014.
Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents State.
Shri P.K. Kaurav, learned counsel for the respondent Professional Examination Board.
In this batch of the writ petitions, the petitioners inter alia have assailed the validity of the orders dated 21.5.2014, 22.7.2014, 7.5.2014, 14.7.2014, 25.7.2014 and 24.5.2014 by which the admissions of the petitioners to the MBBS course have been cancelled by the Dean of the respective Medical Colleges.
2. The facts, giving rise to filing of the writ petitions, briefly stated, are that the petitioners had appeared in the Pre Medical Test conducted by the Professional Examination Board and were declared successful. Thereafter, the petitioners were admitted in different medical colleges in the State of Madhya Pradesh. In compliance of the letter dated 17.12.2009 issued by the Department of Medical Education, a Committee was constituted to examine and compare the records of the students who were admitted in different medical colleges of State of Madhya Pradesh in the year 2009. The Committee found that the photographs of the twenty-one students including the petitioners who were prosecuting their studies in different medical colleges did not match. The Committee also referred the cases of the petitioners to the Forensic Laboratory, Sagar. Forensic Laboratory, Sagar submitted the report on 11.11.2011 in which mismatch of photographs was found in respect of some students and in respect of some students it was opined that the documents supplied are not sufficient. Thereafter, the first information report was lodged against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 474 of the Indian Penal Code. In compliance of the order passed by this Court, notices were issued to the petitioners to show cause as to why they be not expelled from the colleges. The petitioners submitted reply to the aforesaid show-cause notices. Thereafter, by the impugned orders, the admissions of the petitioners to the MBBS course were cancelled.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the impugned orders have been passed in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the documents referred to in the impugned orders were neither supplied to the petitioners nor were referred to in the show-cause notices. It is further submitted that the copy of the report of Forensic Laboratory was also not supplied to the petitioners. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate has supported the order passed by the Dean of respective medical colleges. However, learned Government Advocate could not dispute the assertion made on behalf of the petitioners that the documents referred to in the impugned order were neither supplied to the petitioners nor the same were referred to in the show- cause notices.
4. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. In the instant case, in the show-cause notices it is mentioned that the Committee after due scrutiny found that there is discrepancy with regard to photographs of the petitioners annexed with the on-line forms submitted by the petitioners while appearing in the Pre Medical Test and the photographs annexed with the application forms submitted by them at the time of admissions to MBBS course. It was further mentioned that photographs annexed with the documents were referred to the Forensic Laboratory, Sagar and as per the report dated 11.11.2011 submitted by the Police Station, Gopalganj, Sagar, discrepancy has been found with regard to photographs of the petitioners. Accordingly, the admissions of the petitioners were cancelled.
5. In the instant case, there is no reference to the report submitted by the Police Station, Gopalganj, Sagar in the show-cause notices issued to the petitioners on which reliance was placed while passing the impugned orders. The report submitted by the Committee mentioned in the show-cause notice was not supplied to the petitioners. Similarly the report submitted by the Police Station, Gopalganj, Sagar which has been made basis for taking action against the petitioners, was also not supplied to them. Thus, the material on the basis of which adverse action has been taken has not been supplied to the petitioners. We have dealt with the consequences of such infirm inquiry entailing in vitiating the decision while dealing with the companion cases referred to above.
6. For the same reasons, we have no iota of doubt that the impugned orders have been passed in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice and the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
7. In the result, the impugned orders dated 21.5.2014, 22.7.2014, 7.5.2014, 14.7.2014, 25.7.2014 and 24.5.2014 are hereby quashed and set aside. However, liberty is granted to the Professional Examination Board and the concerned College as well as to the petitioners in paragraph 9 of the order passed today in W.P. No.3983/2013 and other companion cases shall apply to the present cases mutatis mutandis.
8. Accordingly, the writ petitions stand disposed of.
W.P. Nos.10602/2014, 11955/2014, 14026/2014 & 14196/2014 Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Parag Shrivastava, coulsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.10602/2014.
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.11955/2014.
Shri A.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. Nos.14026/2014 & 14196/2014.
Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State.
Shri P.K. Kaurav, learned counsel for the Professional Examination Board.
In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners, inter alia, have assailed the validity of the order dated 24.5.2014 by which the admissions of the petitioners to MBBS course have been cancelled.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the material/ground on which the impugned order has been passed has neither been mentioned in the show-cause notice nor has been supplied to the petitioners. It was further submitted that the documents were not supplied to the petitioners but were merely shown to them as is evident from the impugned order. It was further submitted that reference was placed on the communication sent by the Police Station which were also not supplied to the petitioners and no independent inquiry into the matter has been conducted by the respondents.
3. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate has supported the order. However, learned Government Advocate could not dispute the assertions made on behalf of the petitioners that the documents in question were not supplied to the petitioners.
4. We have considered the submissions made on both sides. In the instance case, in the show-cause notice, reference has been made to the report submitted by the Inquiry Committee. The impugned order has been passed on the basis of the report submitted by the Committee as well as the communication sent by the Police Station. However, neither the report of the Committee nor the communication sent by the police station was supplied to the petitioners. Besides that, the petitioners were only allowed for inspection of the file and the documents were also not supplied to them which is evident from the impugned order dated 25.4.2014. The respondents have also taken into account the admission allegedly made by the petitioners before the Police Officer. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nikita Saxena Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh vide order dated 16.10.2014 passed in W.P. No.8372/2014 has held that admission made before the Police during the investigation alone cannot be used against the petitioners and an independent inquiry is required to be held.
5. In view of the preceding analysis, it is evident that the impugned order has been passed in the flagrant violation of principles of natural justice and, therefore, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Accordingly, it is quashed and set aside. However, liberty is granted to the Professional Examination Board and the concerned Colleges as well as to the petitioners in paragraph 9 of the order passed today in W.P. No.3983/2013 and other companion cases shall apply to the present cases mutatis mutandis
6. The writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly.
W.P. No.14119/2014Shri Nishant Datt, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State.
Shri P.K. Kaurav, learned counsel for the Professional Examination Board.
The issue raised in this petition, it is fairly agreed, is covered by the decision in the case of Neetu Singh Markam and others Vs. State of M.P. and others, 2014 (4) MPHT 393.
2. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of on the same terms.
(A.M. Khanwilkar) (Alok Aradhe)
Chief Justice Judge
snb/-