Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arvind Dhakad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 12 April, 2017
1 W.P.No. 6237/2016
12/04/2017
Shri Amit Lahoti, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Smt. Nidhi Patankar, learned GA for the
respondents/State.
Heard with consent on I.A.No. 2174/2017, an application seeking direction to respondent No. 2 for not insisting on the petitioner No. 4 for production of No Objection Certificate (NOC) at the time of centralized scrutiny and admission process which is scheduled from 11/4/2017 to 15/4/2017. Present application has been preferred at the instance of petitioner No. 4- Laxmi Dhakad.
The present petition has been filed by the petitioners, seeking redressal of their grievance that despite completion of MBBS Course successfully, the respondent No. 2 is not granting them NOC whereas, petitioners are ready to pay the amount of bond in lieu of rural posting. During the pendency of the petition, petitioner No. 4 got selected in the examination called NEET (PG)-2017 undertook for the PG course. Because of the fact, petitioner No. 4 stood successful in the said examination, she has been called for centralized scrutiny and admission process which is scheduled from 11/4/2017 to 15/4/2017. Counsel for the petitioner referred the score card as well as the tentative schedule for the counselling and admission procedure and referred to the clause which stipulates the production of NOC by the Department of Health and Family Welfare/Medical Education Department for serving in the rural area of State of M.P. Her grievance is that respondents are not granting NOD on the pretext that her name figured in the list of tainted candidates who took admission in MBBS Course in year 2008 through allegedly fraudulent means but since then she has neither been charge sheeted nor any investigation has been made so far nor her admission has been cancelled. According to her,if she does not produce the NOC even then she would be entitled for a college 2 W.P.No. 6237/2016 but that would not be of her choice because the insistence for NOC is in respect of State quota seats only and not for All India quota seats for which she would be eligible. According to counsel for the petitioner,she is getting allotment letter (provisional) in Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal in the department of Anaesthesiology. Further, counsel for petitioners referred the order dated 27/3/2014 passed by Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No. 285/2014 and sought parity. It is further submitted that although her name may figure in the criminal case but for a very long period no investigation has been made,therefore, on the pretext of pending case, her future prospects and right to prosecute education as enshrined under Article 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India cannot be suspended.
On the other hand,learned counsel for the State filed the return on behalf of respondents and vehemently submitted that an FIR has been registered against the petitioner at crime No. 449/13 for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471,201, 120-B of IPC and 3/4 of Examination Act. At present investigation is going on. Therefore, petitioners cannot seek any relief from this Court. She further submitted that the question in respect of issuance of Internship Completion Certificate to the petitioner No. 4 is pending consideration in W.P.no. 64/2015. The said writ petition is still pending, although interim order in favour of petitioner No. 4 has been made. She also raised the plea of non-joinder of necessary party, as CBI has not been impleaded as party-respondent in the present litigation. The respondents have also relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Nidhi Kaim Vs. State of M.P. & Another passed in Civil Appeal No. 1727/2016. She prayed for rejection of the application.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3 W.P.No. 6237/2016The petitioner No. 4 has been admitted in MBBS Course in year 2008; wherein, at Gajraraja Medical College, Gwalior she completed her MBBS Course and thereafter she completed her internship. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 15/12/2015 in W.P.No. 64/2015 has given an interim direction to the Dean,Gajraraja Medical College, Gwalior regarding issuance of Internship Completion Certificate to the petitioner. The said petition is still pending. Although, Internship Completion Certificate has been issued to the petitioner No. 4 but same carries the reference of W.P.No. 64/2015. Interestingly, respondents have never challenged the said order dated 15/12/2015 passed in W.P.No. 64/2015 before the Hon'ble Apex Court nor had taken any pro-active step to get the said interim order modified or for early disposal of the writ petition. From the record, it appears that the FIR has been registered on 20th October, 2013 vide Crime No. 449/2013 vide Annexure R/1 and the case has been transferred to CBI in October, 2015 but since then no concrete actions against the petitioner No. 4 shown to have been taken. Neither petitioner No. 4 has been subjected to investigation through custodial interrogation (or otherwise) nor she has been charge sheeted since year 2013. Interestingly, she has been allowed to continue her MBBS Course and even allowed to appear in NEET (PG)-2017 examination.
The allotment letter for M.P. State Combined PG Counselling-2017 reflects that it has been issued by the Government of M.P.; department of Medical Education, wherein, allotment status of the petitioner has been shown as Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal in MD Anaesthesiology course. In W.P.No. 64/2015, the order has been passed in respect of issuance of Internship Completion Certificate and no direction has been issued for allowing the petitioner No. 4 to appear in the NEET (PG)-2017 examination. Still petitioner appeared and her appearance has been allowed by the respondents and now the 4 W.P.No. 6237/2016 allotment letter has been issued. The submission of petitioner No. 4's counsel gains ground when the counsel for the petitioner submits that she may get chance to appear under All India quota also but she may not get the seat of her choice; whereas, in State Quota, she is getting subject of her choice. Therefore, even if this Court does not allow the petitioner No. 4 to appear in the counselling for State Quota seat as opted by the petitioner even then she would be entitled for All India Quota Seat and this would create an anomalous situation and would defeat the very objection which the respondents have raised regarding criminal case against her. Circular dated 2/12/2015 (Annexure R/6) issued by the Director, Medical Education itself reflects a direction that original documents of those candidates should not be returned whose candidature has been cancelled by the VYAPAM. Here the candidature of petitioner No. 4 was in the hands of the respondents and they have not choosen to cancel her candidature till date,therefore, the reasons as advanced by respondents are self contradictory.
Resultantly, the application I.A.No. 2174/2017 preferred by petitioner No. 4 is partly allowed. Petitioner No. 4 is allowed to participate in the centralized scrutiny and admission process and respondents are directed not to insist upon the petitioner to produce NOC in respect of rural service at his stage. Petitioner would submit an undertaking alongwith an affidavit that she is ready to deposit the bond amount in lieu of rural service and/or she shall go for rural service as stipulated in Government Policy once her PG has been completed. She will also further undertake that if any subsequent action of the respondents suggest involvement of petitioner No. 4 in the VYAPAM case as a tainted candidate, then she would undertake to vacate the seat immediately. Respondents No. 2 is directed to take undertaking in this regard and after due verification of the fact regarding continuance of candidature of petitioner No. 4, (respondent No. 5 W.P.No. 6237/2016 2 may enquire from the other authorities like CBI or VYAPAM about the factum of status of petitioner) and after due verification she would be allowed to participate in the process. Respondent No. 2 would further ensure that petitioner No. 4 also fulfills all other conditions in accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by the respondents. It is made clear that petitioner would not claim any equity on the basis of interim order as this interim order is purely provisional in nature,looking to the fact situation of the case and if later on any role of petitioner No. 4 is found as tainted candidate then this interim protection would be of no assistance to the petitioner and she would have to leave the seat immediately. Final allotment order would not be issued without the leave of this Court.
I.A. stand disposed of.
Looking to the nature of the controversy, petitioners are directed to implead CBI as party-respondent by making an application in this regard within seven days.
List the matter on 20th April, 2017.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Anand Pathak) Judge jps/-