Madhya Pradesh High Court
Supreet Pratap Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 December, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63248
1 WP-20254-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY
ON THE 2 nd OF DECEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 20254 of 2023
SUPREET PRATAP SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anil Khare, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Priyank Agrawal,
Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Manas Mani Verma, Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1 -
State.
Shri Shubham Manchani, Advocate for respondents No. 2 & 3.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vivek Agarwal This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 11.10.2021, Annx.P/3 and 25.04.2023, passed by the Dean of Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal, respondent no.3, whereby Dean of Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal has cancelled the certificate of completion of internship as was granted in favour of the petitioner and, thereafter on correspondence being made by the petitioner vide reply dated 25.04.2023, in regard to revocation of cancelled certificate of internship completion has been denied on the ground that no documents were attached by the petitioner Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI KUMAR PRAJAPATI Signing time: 09-12-2025 10:27:42 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63248 2 WP-20254-2023 in support of his claim. This order dated 25.04.2023 is Annx.P/12.
2. Shri Anil Khare, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had undertaken examination of Pre-Medical Test in the year 2010, as was conducted by M.P. Vyavsayik Pariksha Mandal (Vyapam) and, thereafter, took admission in MBBS Course at Gandhi Medical College Bhopal.
3. Petitioner had joined the classes regularly and completed the MBBS Degree along with one year compulsory rotatory internship training at Hamidia Hospital and Sultania Zanana Hospital, Bhopal, for which he was granted a certificate of completion of internship on 28.05.2018. It is submitted that copy of the degree of MBBS issued by the Barkatullah University Bhopal is part of Annx.P/1 along with certificate of registration granted by M.P. Medical Council, so also the certificate of completion of internship.
4. Petitioner's contention is that after receiving internship certificate and certificate of practice, the respondent No.3 Dean of Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal, had issued a show cause notice on 13.05.2021 as contained in Annx.P/2, asking him to show cause that since he has cleared PMT Examination 2010, using unfair means which was in violation of the applicable Examination Rules and CBI after investigation had filed a charge sheet under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC, therefore, petitioner was served with a show cause as to why his internship certificate be not cancelled.
5. It is submitted that petitioner had furnished a detailed reply dated Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI KUMAR PRAJAPATI Signing time: 09-12-2025 10:27:42 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63248 3 WP-20254-2023 27.05.2021 to the said show cause notice. Thereafter, Annx.P/3 dated 11.10.2021 was passed by the Dean of Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal cancelling the certificate of internship.
6. Shri Anil Khare, learned Senior Advocate, for the petitioner submits that in fact petitioner was a juvenile when he had taken admission in Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal, in the year 2010. He was also a juvenile when entrance examination was undertaken on his behalf and, therefore, in terms of the provisions contained in Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, specifically as contained in Section 19 of the Juvenile Justice Act (Care and Protection of Children), Act 2000, deals with removal of disqualification attaching to conviction, it is submitted that since sub-section (1) of Section 19 provides that "notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a juvenile who has committed an offence and has been dealt with under the provisions of this Act, shall not suffer disqualification if any, attached to a conviction of an offence under such law."
7. It is submitted that Sub-section (3) of Section 19 provides for a direction to the Juvenile Justice Board to make an order directing the relevant record of such conviction to be removed after the expiry of the period of appeal or a reasonable period as prescribed under the Rules, as the case may be.
8. Thus, it is submitted that since the petitioner admitted his guilt resulting in orders of the Juvenile Justice Board contained in the concerned order; copy of which was obtained by Shri Anil Khare, learned Senior Advocate, as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court which would Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI KUMAR PRAJAPATI Signing time: 09-12-2025 10:27:42 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63248 4 WP-20254-2023 reveal that vide order dated 14.12.2021 learned Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Bhopal, in Cr. Case No.281/2019, had passed orders of probation etc.
9. It is also submitted that in para 5 of the said order, it is mentioned that juveniles were again read over the charges pertaining to offence under Sections 419 read with Section 120-B, 420 read with Section 120-B, 467 read with Section 120-B, 468 read with Section 120-B and 471 read with Section 120-B of IPC, so also under Section 3-D(1)(2)/04 of The Madhya Pradesh Recognized Examination Act, 1937, which charges were admitted by the petitioners and on the basis of such admission, they were found to be child in conflict with law as defined in Sub-Section (ii) of Section 3 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and in terms of Section 2-d, a child in need of care and protection and, accordingly, the Juvenile Justice Board invoking its authority under Section 15(1) of the Act of 2000, which deals with passing of orders regarding juvenile, directed the petitioner to deposit a fine of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand) and remitted him to the period of probation of two years in care of his legal guardian for which guardian was required to execute a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand).
10. Thus, Shri Anil Khare, learned Senior Advocate, submits that once juvenile has deposited the fine imposed and completed the period of probation, subsequent disability will not come in the way of cancellation of certificate of internship.
11. It is also submitted that even if for the sake of arguments, it is Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI KUMAR PRAJAPATI Signing time: 09-12-2025 10:27:42 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63248 5 WP-20254-2023 accepted that he is not conceding that provision of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, are applicable then also in terms of the provisions contained in Section 24, which deals with removal of disqualification on the findings of an offence will protect the petitioner. It is also submitted that proviso below Sub-section (1) of Section 24, shall not be applicable because offence was not so heinous.
12. It is submitted that sub-section (33) of Section 2 of the Act of 2015, defines "heinous offence" which includes the offence for which the minimum punishment under the IPC (45 of 1860), or any other law for the time being in force, is imprisonment for seven years or more. It is pointed out that the learned Juvenile Justice Board did not demit proper to try the petitioner under the category of heinous offences.
13. It is also submitted that in terms of sub-section (xiv) of Section 3 of the Act of 2015, principles of best interest of the child and fresh start will be applicable. Thus, it is submitted that Section 74 of the Act of 2015, since prohibits the disclosure of identity of children, disqualification would stand regularise and past disqualification will not come in the way of petitioner from maintaining his degree even if it is held that it was obtained through unfair means.
14. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in Union of India and others Vs. Ramesh Bishnoi [(2019) 19 SCC 710] and referring to paras 7, 8 & 9, it is submitted that even if an appointment is obtained by a person, after committing an act of delinquency as a minor, then also the principles of fresh start will be applicable as laid down in Section 3(xiv).
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI KUMAR PRAJAPATI Signing time: 09-12-2025 10:27:42NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63248 6 WP-20254-2023
15. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in SB WP (Civil) 7214/2023 [Sunil Vs. State of Rajasthan and others], wherein placing reliance on para 2, 3 and 6, it is submitted that if at the relevant point of time when offence was committed petitioner was minor, Juvenile Justice Board conducted the trial and passed the order dated 14.09.2022, whereby, petitioner was convicted and in that connection, was directed to remain under probation for a period of six months, subject to furnishing of a bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand), to the effect that petitioner shall maintain his good conduct in the society and the learned Juvenile Justice Board further extended the petitioner the benefit of Section 24 to the effect of removal of such conviction order as a disqualification, then subsequent appointment of the petitioner cannot be set at naught, merely on account of his past conduct.
16. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in Jitendra Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan [SB WP (Civil) 9143/2021]. Reliance is also paced on the case of Rajasthan High Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Bhawani Shankar Moorh [DB Spl. Appl. Writ No.816/2022, 2023 SCC Onlike Raj 381], to suggest that past conduct of the petitioner will not be a disability for him to continue with the hard earned degree which includes not only passing of MBBS course, but also of undergoing community service for a period of one year through rotatory internship etc.
17. Shri Shubham Manchani, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 & 3, submits that in the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in Sunil (supra), Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court has noted as under :-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI KUMAR PRAJAPATI Signing time: 09-12-2025 10:27:42NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63248 7 WP-20254-2023 "12.2. This Court further observes that the intention of the legislature behind introducing Section 3 (xiv) & 24 of the Act of 2015 as well as the Rules 14 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children Model Rules, 2016, is to extend the protection to the juvenile against the conviction, and to remove the said conviction as disqualification for future prospects of the juvenile concerned. This Court also observes that the legislative intent behind such enactment is clear that if the juvenile is convicted for the offence and the concerned Court/Board is having an option to extend the benefits of Section 24 of the Act of 2015 by removing the disqualification, coupled with the fact that the language of the said Section also requires destroying of such conviction record. After extending such benefits of Section 24 of the Act of 2015, the then juvenile concerned cannot be declared ineligible for any future employment in any government department etc. and/or any other prospects in public employment."
18. Thus, it is submitted that the intention of the legislature behind introducing Section 3(xiv) and 24 of the Act of 2015, as well as Rule 14 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016 is to extend the protection to the juvenile against the conviction and to remove the said conviction as disqualification for future prospects of the juvenile concerned.
19. Thus it is submitted that if petitioner would have secured admission post conviction, then there would not have been any bar from seeking admission on account of past misconduct.
20. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is evident that Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar and others Vs. Devendra Sharma [(2020) 15 SCC 466], has held that illegal appointment on the basis of forged appointment letter or forged registration certificate are void ab initio vitiating recruitment process. The same is the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI KUMAR PRAJAPATI Signing time: 09-12-2025 10:27:42 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63248 8 WP-20254-2023 ratio of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.P. State Cooperative Bank Limited Bhopal Vs. Nanuram Yadav and others [(2007) 8 SCC 264] , wherein it is held that :-
"(1) The appointments made without following the appropriate procedure under the rules/government circulars and without advertisement or inviting applications from the open market would amount to breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
(2) Regularisation cannot be a mode of appointment.
(3) An appointment made in violation of the mandatory provisions of the statute and in particular, ignoring the minimum educational qualification and other essential qualification would be wholly illegal.
Such illegality cannot be cured by taking recourse to regularisation.
(4) Those who come by back door should go through that door.
(5) No regularisation is permissible in exercise of the statutory power conferred under Article 162 of the Constitution of India if the appointments have been made in contravention of the statutory rules.
(6) The court should not exercise its jurisdiction Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI KUMAR PRAJAPATI Signing time: 09-12-2025 10:27:42 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63248 9 WP-20254-2023 on misplaced sympathy.
(7) If the mischief played is so widespread and all pervasive, affecting the result, so as to make it difficult to pick out the persons who have been unlawfully benefited or wrongfully deprived of their selection, it will neither be possible nor necessary to issue individual show-cause notice to each selectee. The only way out would be to cancel the whole selection.
(8) When the entire selection is stinking, conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, individual innocence has no place and the entire selection has to be set aside."
21. Thus, it is evident that the ratio of the law is that those who come by backdoor should go through backdoor only.
22. It is an admitted fact that petitioner did not appear in the entrance examination and had deployed 'solver' to appear for him and then on the strength of such tactics secured admission through backdoor. Thereafter, there is an admission of this guilt as is evident from the orders of the learned Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, wherein in para 4, subject matter of the crime is discussed that how they became party to the crime by allowing solvers to appear for them in their own place and secured admission.
23. In para 5, there is an admission of the guilt and, therefore, an admission sought through backdoor by deploying illegal means guilt for Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI KUMAR PRAJAPATI Signing time: 09-12-2025 10:27:42 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63248 10 WP-20254-2023 which has been admitted, when examined in the light of the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in Sunil (supra) in para 12.2, then Section 3 (xiv) and 24 of the Act of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 as well as Rule 14 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016, removes disqualification on account of conviction for future prospects of the juvenile concerned and the legislative intent is that if the juvenile is convicted for the offence and the concerned Court/Board is having an option to extend the benefit of Section 24 of the Act of 2015 by removing the disqualification, coupled with the fact that the language of the said Section also requires destruction of such conviction record, when juvenile concerned cannot be declared ineligible for any future employment in any Government department etc. and/or any other prospects in public employment. Thus, right to be forgotten is a right for future engagement and will not wipe out the past misdeeds on the basis of which foundation of admission to a cause is built. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Ramesh Bishnoi (supra) is to be read in proper context.
24. Section 4 of M.P. Recognized Act, 1937, provides for penalty of imprisonment of either description which may extend to 3 years or with fine which may extend to Rs.5,000/- or both.
25. Section 5 of the Act of 1937, provides for conviction to be act of moral turpitude disqualifying for service or employment under State. Thus, conviction under Section 3, being an act of moral turpitude, petitioner is not entitled to keep his degree.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI KUMAR PRAJAPATI Signing time: 09-12-2025 10:27:42NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63248 11 WP-20254-2023
26. In case of Union of India Vs. Ramesh Bishnoi (supra), facts were that an advertisement was issued on 28.03.2015 for recruitment on the post of Sub-Inspector and the CISF issued by the Staff Selection Commission. Respondent had appeared in the written examination and physical endurance test and was thus, selected and offered appointment on 15.09.2016. Respondent was then required to submit a form wherein there was a column relating to whether any FIR was lodged against the respondent in the past. Respondent had given details of the FIR under Sections 354, 447 and 509 of the Penal Code. It has come on record that matter was compromised and respondent was acquitted of the aforesaid offence on 24.11.2011 as there was no evidence adduced against the respondent. The standing Screening Committee found respondent to be unsuitable for appointment in CISF on the ground that a criminal case was lodged against him in the past. Consequently, his appointment was cancelled.
27. The Apex Court in this backdrop noted that complaint/ FIR was lodged against the respondent when he was a minor. He had teased a girl a few times and went to the extent of holding of her hands. In this backdrop, it is noted that since the respondent was minor at the time of the incident and matter was compromised, then Hon'ble Supreme Court noted that " thrust of the legislation i.e. the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, is that even if a juvenile is convicted, the same should be obliterated, so that there is no stigma with regard to any crime committed by such person as juvenile." This is with the clear object to reintegrate such juvenile back in the society as a normal person, without any stigma. Then in that backdrop Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI KUMAR PRAJAPATI Signing time: 09-12-2025 10:27:42 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63248 12 WP-20254-2023 principle of fresh start as laid down in sub-section (xiv) of Section 3 of the Act of 2015 has been dealt with.
28. When this aspect of 'principle of fresh start', is taken into consideration in the light of the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in Sunil (supra), then it is crystal clear that fresh start means that past stigma of any offence or criminal past of a juvenile will not come in the way of a fresh start. it does not mean that an admission sought through forgery and misrepresentation will allow the petitioner to continue to hold his degree and license. If we get swayed with the arguments of learned Senior counsel, then we will guilty of perpetuality. 'Munna Bhai' phenomenon in the true sense of the word.
29. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that for whatever reasons, petitioner being a delinquent in that sense will be entitled to make a fresh start in his career and his past may not come in the way of such fresh start, but an admission which was secured on the basis of forgery and criminal antecedents despite being obliterated in view of the provisions of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, will not allow him to keep such degree as was secured on the foundation of illegal entry.
Therefore, in the light of eight principles as enumerated in M.P. State Cooperative Bank Limited Bhopal Vs. Nanuram Yadav and others (supra), and also in terms of the interpretation to Section 3(xiv) of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 as well as Section 4 of the M.P. Recognized Examinations Act, 1937, that degree cannot be allowed to be held to be valid and maintained.
30. In the result, petition fails and is dismissed.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI KUMAR PRAJAPATI Signing time: 09-12-2025 10:27:42 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:63248 13 WP-20254-2023 (VIVEK AGARWAL) (RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY) JUDGE JUDGE A.Praj. Signature Not Verified Signed by: ASHWANI KUMAR PRAJAPATI Signing time: 09-12-2025 10:27:42