Madhya Pradesh High Court
Surendra Singh Mourya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 November, 2017
Equivalent citations: AIR 2018 (NOC) 733 (M.P.) (GWALIOR BENCH)
Bench: Sanjay Yadav, S.K. Awasthi
1
W.P. No. 2185/2017 (Dharmendra Singh Shakya Vs. State of M.P. and others)
W.P. No. 6187/2017 (Surendra Singh Mourya Vs. State of M.P. and others)
W.P. No. 6202/2017 (Hemdutt Mourya Vs. State of M.P. and others)
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR
DIVISION BENCH:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY YADAV
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.K. AWASTHI
W.P. No. 2185/2017
Dharmendra Singh Shakya
Vs.
State of M.P. and others
********************
Shri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Raghvendra Dixit, learned Government Advocate for
respondents No. 1 and 2/State.
Ms.Nidhi Patankar, learned counsel for respondent No. 3.
Shri Vivek Khedkar, Assistant Solicitor General for the
respondent No.4/CBI.
********************
W.P. No. 6187/2017
Surendra Singh Mourya
Vs.
State of M.P. and others
********************
Shri U.K. Bohre, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Praveen Newaskar, learned Government Advocate for
respondents No. 1 and 2/State.
Shri Vivek Khedkar, learned counsel for respondent No. 3.
Ms.Nidhi Patankar, learned counsel for respondent No. 4.
********************
2
W.P. No. 2185/2017 (Dharmendra Singh Shakya Vs. State of M.P. and others)
W.P. No. 6187/2017 (Surendra Singh Mourya Vs. State of M.P. and others)
W.P. No. 6202/2017 (Hemdutt Mourya Vs. State of M.P. and others)
W.P. No. 6202/2017
Hemdutt Mourya
Vs.
State of M.P. and others
********************
Shri Rohit Jagwani, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Praveen Newaskar, learned Government Advocate for
respondents No. 1 and 2/State.
Shri Vivek Khedkar, learned counsel for respondent No. 3.
Ms.Nidhi Patankar, learned counsel for respondent No. 4.
********************
Whether approved for reporting : Yes/No
ORDER
(16/11/2017) Per Justice Sanjay Yadav:
This order shall govern the final disposal of W.P. No. 2185/2017, W.P. No. 6187/2017 and W.P. No. 6202/2017 which though were heard on different dates, but are decided by this common order as the issue involved is similar.
(2) Rustication from the M.B.B.S. Course by order dated 22/03/2017 and 03/06/2017 has driven the petitioners to file these petitions for the quashment of said order. [Relevant facts are taken from Writ Petition No. 2185/2017] (3) The reasons for rustication as borne out from the impugned order is that the petitioner who got admission in the M.B.B.S. Course in the year 2010 used unfair means and got admission through impersonation for which an offence is registered against him forming subject matter of Crime No. 358/2014 for offences punishable under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC and Section 3/4 of Madhya 3 W.P. No. 2185/2017 (Dharmendra Singh Shakya Vs. State of M.P. and others) W.P. No. 6187/2017 (Surendra Singh Mourya Vs. State of M.P. and others) W.P. No. 6202/2017 (Hemdutt Mourya Vs. State of M.P. and others) Pradesh Examination Act. Later on the investigation being taken over by the Central Bureau of Investigation and by letter No. 547 dated 09/04/2016, the case is transferred and remembered as RC2172015S0109.
(4) Contention of the petitioner is that for the same reasons, the petitioner was rusticated by order dated 11/04/2016 which was challenged vide Writ Petition No. 2888/2016. The petition was disposed of in the terms of order dated 01/12/2014 passed in Arun Sharma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh : 2015 (3) MPLJ 206 that, by quashing order dated 11/04/2016, as the same was passed without affording an opportunity, the liberty was granted to take action after affording an opportunity of hearing. (5) That show cause notices were issued to the petitioners whereby they were called upon as to why because of they being prosecuted under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC and Section 3/4 of Madhya Pradesh Examination Act on the allegation of getting admission in the M.B.B.S. Course 2010 through impersonation, their admission be not cancelled in the term of paragraph 3.2 of Madhya Pradesh Medical and Dental Undergraduate Entrance Examination Rules 2010 which stipulated:
"3.2 If it is found that a candidate has hidden any relevant facts and or provided incorrect information while filling up the application form, at the time of allotment of a seat, at the time of scrutiny of the documents or at the time of his/her admission, then the admission shall be cancelled by the Dean/ Principal of the College, at any time during his/her studies."
(6) Petitioners denied the allegation and questioned the proposed action on the ground that their admission cannot be cancelled merely on the basis of the documents seized by the Central Bureau of Investigation and the registration of offence under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B 4 W.P. No. 2185/2017 (Dharmendra Singh Shakya Vs. State of M.P. and others) W.P. No. 6187/2017 (Surendra Singh Mourya Vs. State of M.P. and others) W.P. No. 6202/2017 (Hemdutt Mourya Vs. State of M.P. and others) IPC and Section 3/4 of Madhya Pradesh Examination Act. It was also contended that the petitioners having not being held guilty by the Court of law as would empower the Authorities to assume them guilty.
(7) The authorities being not satisfied with the reply, passed the impugned order which is reproduced for ready reference:
^^dk;kZy; vf/k"Bkrk xtjkjktk fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; Xokfy;j dzekad 31@,l-,l-@;w-th-@2017 Xokfy;j fnukad 22@03@2017 la'kksf/kr dk;kZy; vkns'k Nk= /kesZUnz dqekj 'kkD; iq= Jh gjh flag 'kkD; ih,eVh izos'k o"kZ&2010 ih,eVh jksy u0 523014 oxZ&,llh irk xzke lqekoyh rglh tkSjk ftyk eqjSuk ds fo:) uxj iqfyl v/kh{kd 'kgj iwoZ Xokfy;j }kjk i= dzekad uiqv@'kgj@iwoZ@LVsuks@ ih,eVh@509@15 fnukad 18-04-2015 ds vuqlkj vijk/k dzekad 358@14 /kkjk;s 419]420]467]468]471] 201]120 ch Hkknfo 3@4 ijh{kk vf/kfu;e ds rgr iathc) izdj.k ,oa dk;kZy; iqfyl v/kh{kd dsUnzh; vUos"k.k C;wjks dsEi Xokfy;j ds }kjk i= dekad 547 fnukad 09-04-2016 }kjk izdj.k la[;k RC2172015S0109 esa izdj.k iathc) gksus ds dkj.k ,oa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ubZ fnYyh vihy flfoy 1727@16 fnukad 17-02-2017 esa ikfjr fu.kZ; dks lS}kafrd :i ls vuqlj.k djrs gq, e/;izns'k O;olkf;d ijh{kk e.My Hkksiky ds ih,eVh izos'k&2010 ds fu;e 3-2 ds lanHkZ esa egkfo|ky; ds ,echch,l ikB~;dze ls rRdky izHkko ls fu"dkflr fd;k tkrk gSA vf/k"Bkrk xtjkjktk fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;
Xokfy;j^^ (8) Similar orders have been passed in respect of petitioners in W.P. No. 6187/2017 and W.P. No. 6202/2017. Reiterating the contentions as raised in reply to show cause notice, it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the case of the petitioners being distinguishable from that of Nidhi Kaim and another Vs. State of M.P. and others [(2017) 4 SCC 1] which was a case wherein the allegation was of "pair matching" cannot be equated with the case as 5 W.P. No. 2185/2017 (Dharmendra Singh Shakya Vs. State of M.P. and others) W.P. No. 6187/2017 (Surendra Singh Mourya Vs. State of M.P. and others) W.P. No. 6202/2017 (Hemdutt Mourya Vs. State of M.P. and others) the present are where the allegation is of impersonation which is yet to be proved. It is urged that even before the registration of Criminal Case in the year 2014, the College in the year 2012 had constituted a Committee to examine the allegation of admission through unfair means in respect of examination held in the year 2010 wherein the Committee had examined the cases from three angles, i.e., (i) address matching or not matching (ii) photograph matching or not matching (iii) signature matching or not matching. It is urged that the Committee in its report submitted on 29/03/2012, found all three parameters matching in the case of the petitioners. It is therefore contended that for same cause, the petitioners cannot be punished without being held guilty of the offences registered.
(9) Respondent No. 3 on its turn seeks dismissal of petition. It is urged that the petitioners are not entitled for any relief in view of the fact that the petitioners are the accused in Vyapam Scame and FIR has been registered against them and the accusation is being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation. Placing reliance on the decision in Nidhi Kaim (supra), it is contended by learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 that, the modus adopted for getting admission by unfair means in this case may be different from the modus in Nidhi Kaim (supra); however, principle of law laid down therein in case of the candidates who obtained admission to the M.B.B.S. Course through unfair means would apply in the case at hand. While not disputing the fact as adverted to by the College Committee in 2012, it is urged that the Central Bureau of Investigation having got the FSL report prima facie establishes that the petitioner did not appear in the examination held in the year 2010. On these contentions respondent No. 3 seeks dismissal of petition.
6W.P. No. 2185/2017 (Dharmendra Singh Shakya Vs. State of M.P. and others) W.P. No. 6187/2017 (Surendra Singh Mourya Vs. State of M.P. and others) W.P. No. 6202/2017 (Hemdutt Mourya Vs. State of M.P. and others) (10) The Central Bureau of Investigation being called upon, has filed the status report. It is urged that in compliance to order passed by the Supreme Court on 09/07/2015 the CBI has registered the instant FIR bearing No. RC2172015(S)0096 (arising out of Crime No. 358/2014 of PS Jhansi Road, Gwalior). Similar FIR has been registered against the petitioners in W.P. No. 6187/2017 and W.P. No. 6202/2017. It is further contended that case was initially registered in PS Jhansi Road, Gwalior on 19/09/2014 under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC and Section 3/4 of Madhya Pradesh Recognized Examination Act 1937 against accused Jitendra Tijoria, Dhuaaram Gurjar, Badaim Singh and Dharmendra Singh. On the allegation that these candidates did not appear in the PMT Examination 2010, had arranged solvers for themselves with the help of other middlemen, entered in criminal conspiracy with the other unknown persons and committed the offences. It is contended that name of 13 more individual surfaced during the investigation conducted by the SIT Gwalior during course of investigation. It is contended that charge sheet is already filed against 11 persons. Other 4 persons are absconding and one person has reportedly expired. As against the petitioners, it is contended that the charge-sheets have been filed. It is urged that in the investigation conducted revealed that the petitioners did not appear in the examination and arranged a solver who appeared in the said exam on behalf of the petitioner. That during investigation conducted by the SIT expert of FSL had confirmed as to petitioners not appearing in examination.
(11) Considered the rival submissions. And perused the entire material on record.
7W.P. No. 2185/2017 (Dharmendra Singh Shakya Vs. State of M.P. and others) W.P. No. 6187/2017 (Surendra Singh Mourya Vs. State of M.P. and others) W.P. No. 6202/2017 (Hemdutt Mourya Vs. State of M.P. and others) (12) In Pratibha Singh Ku. (Minor) Vs. State of M.P. and others [2014 (III) MPJR 178], a Division Bench of this Court dwelling on similar issue arising from FIR registered bearing Crime No. 539/2013 and the cancellation of admission of students observed:
"40. Indisputably, the obligation to conduct free and fair preadmission professional examinations is fully vested in the State Government and which has been entrusted to the existing Board. That power not only encompasses authority to conduct the examination but also enquire into all matters concerning therewith or incidental thereto. That authority does not cease with the declaration of results of such examination. Any other view would not only be a pedantic view but also against public policy. For, that may result in perpetrating injustice caused to the better deserving and meritorious candidates, but, also perpetrating fraud played on the public examination process. In Law, any act of fraud vitiates the entire action. The product of fraud must be visited with the finding that it is non-est in the eyes of Law and viewed seriously. That issue can be considered even in collateral proceedings. In the case of Ram Preeti Yadav (supra) the Apex Court observed that once fraud is proved it will deprive the persons of all advantages or benefits obtained thereby and further delay in detection or in taking action so as to invoke argument of equity would be completely misplaced. The Court also restated the legal position that in the case of mass copying, principles of natural justice need not be strictly complied with. In that case the appellant had taken employment as a teacher on the basis of results in B.A. examination as well as M.A. examination. Result of the concerned examination was cancelled on 16th October, 1996, though the examination was conducted in the year 1984. Notwithstanding this fact, the Court opined that since the result of the examination was founded on commission of fraud that would deprive the appellant of all advantages or benefits obtained thereby.
41. Suffice it to observe that a candidate who indulges in unfair and fraudulent means during the "public examination"
cannot be allowed to reap benefit of his own wrong merely because of the fortuitous situation of that fraud has been unravelled by the concerned Authority after declaration of result of the examination or for that matter inaction of the officials of the Board in acting with dispatch. Since the authority of the present Board is to conduct examinations and deal with all matters connected therewith and incidental thereto, it pre-supposes that it is only the Board, being an extended wing of the State, competent to enquire into the 8 W.P. No. 2185/2017 (Dharmendra Singh Shakya Vs. State of M.P. and others) W.P. No. 6187/2017 (Surendra Singh Mourya Vs. State of M.P. and others) W.P. No. 6202/2017 (Hemdutt Mourya Vs. State of M.P. and others) question regarding unfair and fraudulent means adopted during the examinations conducted by it - be it before declaration of results or, for that matter, after declaration of results. The fact that the candidate has already taken admission in some professional course on the basis of those results cannot be the basis to hold that the Board has become functus officio or it has ceased to have authority to pronounce on the matters connected with the examination conducted by it and, in particular, regarding unfair and fraudulent means adopted thereat, by an individual candidate or large number of candidates, as the case may be.
64. The next question is: whether impugned decisions fulfil the requirement of Chapter-IV of the Brochure. In the first place, the Brochure is only a handbook issued for guidance and the procedure to be followed. That would not limit the expansive powers of the Board to take action having found that organized mass-copying was indulged during the examination conducted by it. Assuming that the power vested in the Board could be limited to the provisions contained in the Brochure being advance declaration of the procedure to be followed by it, we have no hesitation in taking a view that the impugned decisions are well within the parameters specified in the Brochure. For the sake of convenience, we will reproduce the relevant extract of the Brochure.
^^v/;k; &4 funsZ'k ,oa ijh{kk lapkyu fu;e egRoiw.kZ %& vkWuykbZu vkosnu i= esa Hkjh xbZ tkudkjh dk lR;kiu dkmalfyax@izos'k ds le; ewy nLrkostksa ds vk/kkj ij lacaf/kr foHkkx@laLFkk }kjk fd;k tk;sxkA vr% ckn es ;g irk pyrk gS fd lQy vkosnd }kjk vkWuykbZu vkosnu&i= Hkjrs le; xyr vFkok vlR; tkudkjh vFkok fdlh tkudkjh dks Nqik;k gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa ;fn ;g ik;k x;k fd dksbZ mEehnokj >wBh@xyr tkudkjh nsdj ;k lqlaxr rF;ksa dks Nqik dj izos'k ikus esa lQy gks x;k gS ;k izos'k ds i'pkr~ fdlh Hkh le; ;g ik;k x;k fd vkosnd dks fdlh xyrh ;k pwdo'k izos'k fey x;k gS] rks vkosnd dks fn;k x;k izos'k laLFkk izeq[k@izos'k izkf/kdj.k@e/;izns'k O;kolkf;d ijh{kk e.My }kjk mlds v/;;u dky ds nkSjku rqjar fcuk fdlh lwpuk ds j) fd;k tk ldsxkA xxx xxx xxx 4-12 vuqfpr lk/ku ¼Unfair Means, UFM½ %& vuqfpr lk/ku ¼;w-,Q-,e-½ %& fuEufyf[kr esa ls dksbZ Hkh fØ;kdyki@xfrfof/k ijh{kkFkhZ }kjk mi;ksx esa ykus ij mls vuqfpr lk/ku ¼;w-,Q-,e-½ ds varxZr ekuk tkosxk %& ¼d½ ijh{kk d{k esa vU; ijh{kkFkhZ ls fdlh Hkh izdkj dk lEidZA 9 W.P. No. 2185/2017 (Dharmendra Singh Shakya Vs. State of M.P. and others) W.P. No. 6187/2017 (Surendra Singh Mourya Vs. State of M.P. and others) W.P. No. 6202/2017 (Hemdutt Mourya Vs. State of M.P. and others) ¼[k½ vius LFkku ij fdlh vU; O;fDr ls ijh{kk fnykuk ;k ijh{kkFkhZ d LFkku ij vU; dksbZ O;fDr mifLFkr gksukA ¼x½ ijh{kk d{k esa vius ikl fdlh Hkh izdkj dh izfrcaf/kr lkexzh j[kukA ¼?k½ ijh{kk ds nkSjku fpYykuk] cksyuk] dkukQwlh djuk] bZ'kkjs djuk o vU; izdkj ls laidZ lk/kukA ¼M-½ vU; ijh{kkFkhZ dh mRrj'khV ;k iz'uiqfLrdk ls vU; fdlh izdkj ls udy djukA ¼p½ vU; ijh{kkFkhZ ds lkFk mRrj'khV ;k iz'uiqfLrdk dh vnyk&cnyh djukA ¼N½ izfrcaf/kr lkexzh ik;s tkus ij ijh{kkFkhZ }kjk mls lkSaius ls badkj djuk ;k mls Lo;a u"V djukA ¼t½ udy izd.k ls lacaf/kr nLrkostksa@izi=ksa ij gLrk{kj djus ls euk djukA ¼>½ l{ke vf/kdkjh ds funsZ'kksa dh vogsyuk@voKk djuk ;k muds funsZ'kksa dk ikyu u djukA ¼´½ l{ke vf/kdkjh ds funsZ'kkuqlkj mRrj'khV ;k vU; nLrkost okil ugha djuk ;k okil djus ls euk djukA ¼V½ ijh{kk dk;Z esa yxs deZpkfj;ksa@vf/kdkfj;ksa dks ijs'kku djuk] /kedkuk ;k 'kkjhfjd pksV igqWapkukA mijksDr vuqfpr lk/kuksa rFkk vH;FkhZ ds fdlh vU; d`R; dks i;Zos{kd@dsUnz v/kh{kd@oh{kd }kjk vuqfpr lk/ku dh Js.kh ekuk tkrk gS] rks ml ij U;kf;d dk;Zokgh dh tk;sxhA vH;FkhZ dh mRrjiqfLrdk dks vuqfpr lk/ku ds varxZr ekurs gq, ewY;kadu ugha fd;k tk;sxk rFkk mldk vH;fFkZRo fujLr dj fn;k tk;sxkA blds vfrfjDr fdlh vU; izdkj ds vuqfpr lk/ku dk mi;ksx fd;s tkus ij vH;FkhZ dks iqfyl dks vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq lkSik tk;sxk vkSj mlds fo:) oS/kkfud dk;Zokgh dh tk;sxhA ;fn dksbZ O;fDr fdlh vU; mEehnokj ds LFkku ij ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gksrk gS rks og d`R; ij:i/kkj.k (IMPERSONATION) dh Js.kh esa vk;sxkA ij:i/kkj.k dk d`R; fof/k ds vuqlkj vijk/k gSA ,sls vijk/k ds fy, vkosnudrkZ ,ao mlds LFkku ij ijh{kk esa cSBus okyk O;fDr fof/k ds vuqlkj ltk ;k tqekZuk ,oa nksuksa ls nf.Mr fd;s tk ldsaxsA lkFk gh mEehnokj dk ijh{kk ifj.kke Hkh fujLr fd;k tk;sxk A foHkkx }kjk nLrkostksa ds ijh{k.k@lR;kiu o fu;qfDr ds le; dksbZ vko nd ;k mlds nLrkost QthZ ;k lafnX/k ik;s tkrs gSa] rks foHkkx }kjk mDr vH;FkhZ dh fu;qfDr fujLr djrs gq, iqfyl Fkkus esa fjiksVZ ntZ djok dj eaMy dks voxr djk;k tk;sxk] rkfd eaMy Lrj ls lacaf/kr vH;FkhZ dk ijh{kk ifj.kke fujLr fd;k tk ldsA^^ The opening part of the Brochure gives important instructions. The same, inter alia, stipulates that the candidate must give correct information while submitting the application form but it also goes on to mention that if it is 10 W.P. No. 2185/2017 (Dharmendra Singh Shakya Vs. State of M.P. and others) W.P. No. 6187/2017 (Surendra Singh Mourya Vs. State of M.P. and others) W.P. No. 6202/2017 (Hemdutt Mourya Vs. State of M.P. and others) noticed that the applicant got entry (in the examination conducted by the Board) because of any mistake, that can be cancelled. The overarching power of the Board does not get whittled down by this instruction. Clause 4.12 of the Brochure refers to unfair means. The said clauses are only illustrative instances when the act of commission or omission of a candidate will result in indulging in unfair means during the examination. We find force in the argument of the counsel for the Board that clauses (Ka), (Gha), (Da), (Cha) and the later part of the same provisions, are sufficient enough to attract action as taken by the Board, as a result of organized mass- copying by the candidates concerned. We also agree with the submission of the Board that the action in respect of any of the acts referred to in clause 4.12 could be taken by the Board on its own. The requirement of initiating action on the basis of complaint received from Supervisor/ Invigilator is mutually exclusive power vested in the Board. We are also not impressed by the argument of the petitioners that the only option available to the Board was to refer the matter to the police. Suffice it to observe that the conclusion reached by the Board in the impugned orders is ascribable to the acts of commission and omission referred to in clause 4.12 of the Brochure and that provision also speaks about the Authority of the Board to initiate action and including to cancel the examination results if the candidates had indulged in organized mass-copying, and including impersonation."
(13) Thus impersonation is included within the fold of unfair means.
(14) In Nidhi Kaim Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others [(2016) 7 SCC 615] it is held:
"130. It is pertinent to mention that this Court by order dated 08.08.2014 has dismissed one S.L.P. (c) No. 16257 of 2014 in limine arising out of the order of the High Court dated 11.04.2014 in W.P. No. 20342 of 2013 entitled Km. Pratibha Singh & Ors. vs. State & Ors. and other connected matters. This writ petition was filed by the candidates who had appeared in the PMT examination held in the year 2013. The results of these candidates were also cancelled on the same grounds on which it was cancelled in the cases at hand. i.e., in relation to candidates of the years 2008 to 2012. The High Court by order dated 11.04.2014 dismissed the writ petitions and upheld the cancellation of the results. In fact, the impugned judgment in this case has followed in extenso the main decision rendered in Pratibha Singh's case (supra. Since it was a dismissal of SLP in limine and as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that there 11 W.P. No. 2185/2017 (Dharmendra Singh Shakya Vs. State of M.P. and others) W.P. No. 6187/2017 (Surendra Singh Mourya Vs. State of M.P. and others) W.P. No. 6202/2017 (Hemdutt Mourya Vs. State of M.P. and others) was no merger of the decision of the High Court and nor it could be considered that this Court affirmed the view taken by the High Court in Pratibha Singh' case (supra), we considered in the interest of justice to hear these matters in detail and record our reasons.
131. It was then brought to our notice by the learned counsel appearing for the State/Vyapam that pursuant to FIR registered in these cases, the investigation is still going on by the CBI as directed by this Court vide an order passed in pending special leave petition. It is stated that in several cases, charge sheets have been filed against several accused in Courts.
132. It is accordingly made clear that any observation made by this Court in this judgment would not, in any way, influence the ongoing investigation and any pending criminal case. It is also made clear that this Court has examined the issue relating to cancellation of results in the light of grounds raised by the appellants in the writ petitions and the special leave petitions. In this view of the matter, ongoing investigation and pending criminal cases will be dealt with and decided strictly in accordance with law uninfluenced by any observation made hereinabove."
(15) In Nidhi Kaim and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others [(2017) 4 SCC 1] it is held: "65. (ii). The challenge raised by the appellants, had failed before the High Court, because the High Court had arrived at the conclusion, that the appellants' admission to the MBBS course was vitiated. The order of the High Court was assailed before this Court. Both Hon'ble Judges, of the 'former Division Bench', wrote separate orders. Both affirmed the conclusion drawn by the High Court, through their separate orders dated 12.5.2016. On a reference by us, the 'former Division Bench', passed a common order on 30.8.2016, affirming, "...Both of us recorded a concurrent opinion that the examination process in issue in these appeals, conducted by Vyapam for the years 2008 to 2012 was vitiated with reference to the appellants before this Court and few others. We also agreed upon the conclusion that the appellants herein are the beneficiaries of such vitiated process..." The fact that the appellants had gained admission to the MBBS course, through a vitiated process has attained finality.
65.(iii)The controversy in the present case, does not relate to a singular academic session. Whether or not, this vitiated 12 W.P. No. 2185/2017 (Dharmendra Singh Shakya Vs. State of M.P. and others) W.P. No. 6187/2017 (Surendra Singh Mourya Vs. State of M.P. and others) W.P. No. 6202/2017 (Hemdutt Mourya Vs. State of M.P. and others) process of obtaining admission to the MBBS course, was adopted during the year 2007, and prior thereto, is not known. Because, MBBS admissions prior to 2008, were not investigated. Investigation was initiated in the first instance, with reference to admissions, for the year 2013. Thereafter, investigation was extended to those, who had gained admission to the MBBS course during the years 2008 to 2012. Investigation revealed, a well thought out, unethical plan, involving administrative support, during six consecutive academic sessions ... from 2008 to 2013. Vyapam was certain, about the system having been manipulated, at the hands of at least 634 candidates (during the years 2008 to 2012 itself). There may well have been others, but no action was taken against them, as their cases fell beyond the realm of suspicion (on the parameters approved and adopted by Vyapam).
65(iv).This Court, while dealing with admissions during the years 2008 to 2012, followed the earlier judgment, wherein admissions to the MBBS course during the year 2013, were annulled. The High Court in all the matters, consistently upheld, the cancellation orders passed by Vyapam. This Court also reiterated, the validity of the orders passed by the High Court, and thereby, upheld the Vyapam orders. In the above view of the matter, the factual and the legal position, with reference to the admission of the appellants, to the MBBS course being vitiated, has attained finality. The fact that the appellants, had gained admission to the MBBS course, by established fraud, does not (as it indeed, cannot) require any further consideration.
65(v). In view of the sequence of facts narrated above, it is not possible for us to accept, that the deception and deceit, adopted by the appellants, was a simple affair, which can be overlooked. In fact, admission of the appellants to the MBBS course, was the outcome of a well orchestrated strategy of deceit and deception. And therefore, it is not possible to accept, that the involvement of the appellants was not serious. In fact, it was indeed the most grave and extreme, as discussed above.
67. We may first examine, whether the appellants can seek relief, from this Court, under Article 142 of the Constitution, as the provision is generally perceived. In the Union Carbide case (supra), while dealing with the scope of Article 142 of the Constitution, this Court felt, that the jurisdiction of this Court under the above provision, extended inter alia to deal "... with any extraordinary situation in the larger interest of administration of justice and from preventing manifest injustice being done ...". The two important parameters for 13 W.P. No. 2185/2017 (Dharmendra Singh Shakya Vs. State of M.P. and others) W.P. No. 6187/2017 (Surendra Singh Mourya Vs. State of M.P. and others) W.P. No. 6202/2017 (Hemdutt Mourya Vs. State of M.P. and others) consideration are, "larger interest of administration of justice", and "preventing manifest injustice". The facts and circumstances of the present case, as have been debated and discussed at great length, do not reveal the existence, of either of the aforesaid factors. With Vyapam having cancelled the appellants' admission to the MBBS course, and with the above orders having been upheld by the High Court, as well as, by this Court, can it be said that the cancellation orders were unjust? No, not at all. If the admission of the appellants to the MBBS course, was improper, the cancellation orders, were obviously proper. If we restore the academic benefits of the appellants, arising out of their admission - cancelled by Vyapam, the cancellation orders would be set at naught. That, would undo, the Vyapam orders, upheld by the High Court and this Court. And this, we are satisfied, would not serve the "larger interest of administration of justice". On the contrary, such an initiative would cause "manifest injustice". It is therefore not possible for us to accept, that it is possible in the facts of the present case, to invoke Article 142 of the Constitution - in the larger interest of the administration of justice. It is also not possible for us to accept, that any manifest injustice would be done to the appellants, if their admissions are cancelled. In our considered view, to do justice in the matter, the order passed by Vypam must be upheld, without any further modification or alteration. Needless to mention, that the instant consideration, does not take into account, the different submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants. We will now endeavour to deal with the remaining submissions, which according to learned counsel, would persuade this Court, to override the straitjacket examination of the matter, dealt with in the manner, recorded hereinabove.
73. We wish to attempt, to examine the matter from another perspective. Even a child, in the very first year of entering primary school, is aware of the consequences of copying, during an examination. Teachers supervise examinations, to make sure, that students do not copy. Children caught copying, are dealt with severely. Every child observes this process, year after year. Can the appellants, who had completed school education, and are on the verge of entering a professional course, be treated as novices - unaware of the consequence of copying? In our considered view, certainly not. It is therefore not possible for us, to extend any benefit to the appellants, either on account of their juvenility, or on account of their alleged lack of understanding of the consequences of their actions. In our considered view, the appellants had consciously sought the assistance of a syndicate, engaged in manipulating admissions to medical 14 W.P. No. 2185/2017 (Dharmendra Singh Shakya Vs. State of M.P. and others) W.P. No. 6187/2017 (Surendra Singh Mourya Vs. State of M.P. and others) W.P. No. 6202/2017 (Hemdutt Mourya Vs. State of M.P. and others) institutions. They were beneficiaries of acts of deceit and deception. In the above view of the matter, the case of the appellants does not commend to us, as a matter deserving of any sympathetic consideration. In our considered view, the admission of the appellants to the MBBS course, cannot be legalized (or legitimized), in the name of justice."
(16) In view of principle of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nidhi Kaim (supra) that the fraud vitiates all action and that a fraudulent mode adopted to get an admission empowers the Authority concerned to cancel the admission, there remains no pale of doubt in the case at hand where the petitioners obtained admission by forming syndicate and criminal conspiracy in the M.B.B.S., the cancellation of their admission for these reasons cannot be interfered with.
(17) Consequently, petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.
(Sanjay Yadav) (S.K. Awasthi)
Judge Judge
(16/11/2017) (16/11/2017)
Shubh*
Digitally signed by SHUBHANKAR MISHRA
SHUBHANKAR MISHRA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF M.P. BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF M.P. BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474011, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=e1f45241b0d8e47d03567942a7e835e2631b7c3ff747e97afd6840fdaafb8d3a, cn=SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Date: 2017.11.16 17:50:03 +05'30'