Madhya Pradesh High Court
Santosh Kumar Shukla vs The Registrar on 28 January, 2016
WP-210-2016
(SANTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA Vs THE REGISTRAR)
28-01-2016
Shri Anil Kumar Mishra, counsel for petitioner. The petitioner has filed this writ petition and the grievance of petitioner is that he had appeared in the B.Ed., Ist semester examination conducted by Chitrakoot Gramoday Vishwavidhyalaya, Chitrakoot, Satna in the year 1993-94. When his results were declared vide Annexure P-1 dated 15.3.1994 and when the marksheet was issued he received 171 marks in all out of 300 marks. It is said that he sought for revaluation and after revaluation he got increase of 22 marks. Accordingly his marksheet was corrected and his total was increased to 22 marks. Making a complaint that this change of total from 171 to 193 is not recorded in the consolidated marksheet issued in 1995, so also in Annexure P-2 issued on 17.8.1994, petitioner has filed this writ petition and making a complaint that inspite of repeated representations submitted, his marksheets are not being corrected. Except for making such an allegation now after a period of 22 years, petitioner does not indicate as to when and in what manner he sought revaluation of answer book for the subjects in question, when the revaluation fees was submitted by him and how and in what manner he was intimated about increase in the marks.
It is surprising to note that the increase in the marks is indicated in the marksheet Annexure P-1, which is a photo copy and if we go through the aforesaid document, we find that except for scoring of the original mark received in paper 1 and paper 3 and indicating grant of additional marks by a different ink, there is no authenticity, signature or endorsement in this marksheet by any competent authority, it only shows that the total marks of petitioner was increased from 171 to 193 marks. In the marksheet issued after petitioner completed his second examination Annexure P-2, the original marks obtained for the first semester is not included as is reflected in Annexure P-1 and total marks appears as 171 in both the marksheets issued after 15.3.1994, i.e., on 21.12.1994 and 17.8.1994 Annexure P-2. The manner in which this petition is presented and the marksheet dated 15.3.1994 is filed, makes the claim of petitioner doubtful and this Court is of the considered view that in the facts and circumstances of the case a notice should be issued to the Registrar, Chitrakoot Gramoday Vishwavidhyalaya, Chitrakoot, Satna, with a copy of the petition and annexures and the Registrar, Chitrakoot Gramoday Vishwavidhyalaya, Chitrakoot, Satna is directed to conduct an enquiry into the matter and if it is found that petitioner has committed any fraud in presenting the marksheet dated 15.3.1994 (Annexure P-1), the Registrar should bring it to the notice of this Court.
Office is directed to issue notice to the Registrar, Chitrakoot Gramoday Vishwavidhyalaya, Chitrakoot, Satna alongwith a copy of this order and the Registrar is directed to submit a report on or before 29.2.2016. We are issuing notice to the Registrar, as prima facie we feel that the petitioner has committed manipulation and by misusing the process of law, as the marksheet dated 15.3.1994 (Annexure P-1) seems to be a false and fabricated document, we shall proceed to take legal action against the petitioner, in case our doubts are found to be correct.
List the matter on 1st March, 2016.
Even though learned counsel for petitioner lateron sought permission to withdraw the petition, but looking to the totality of the facts and circumstances, the permission is not granted. The defence of the petitioner, if any, shall be considered after the report is received from the Registrar.
List the matter on 1st March, 2016.
(RAJENDRA MENON) (SUSHIL KUMAR PALO)
JUDGE JUDGE