Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

That in a Writ Petition No.64/2015 filed by the petitioner for direction to issue internship completion certificate and for issuance of NOC, by way of an interim measure the respondents were directed to issue internship completion certificate, subject to final outcome of the case by order dated 15.12.2015. The said writ petition was dismissed on 30.08.2017 as infructuous. It is contended that the petitioner was issued the internship completion certificate and the petitioner was granted permanent registration by Madhya Pradesh Medical Council. That on completion of Graduation a bond was sought from the petitioner on 3/8/2016 of undertaking to serve in rural area for 12 months. The petitioner thereafter filed Writ Petition No.6237/2016 for grant of NOC to pursue higher studies. And during pendency thereof, the admission of the petitioner to MBBS Course has been cancelled. the cancellation is being challenged on the ground that the authorities having permitted the petitioner to complete her course while the investigation was pending cannot on the self same set of facts cancel the registration to the MBBS course. It is urged that unless there is positive and material cogent evidence on record, the action cannot be taken merely on assumption that the petitioner's photograph does not match and there is mist-match of signature on OMR sheet. It is urged that no independent enquiry was held to bring home the allegation of use of unfair means. It is further contended that even the reasons which find mention in the cancellation order i.e. on the principle of decision in Nidhi Kaim does not sound material and reasonable in the teeth of the facts of said case which emanated from the allegation regarding mass copying by pairing. It is urged that in the case of the petitioner the allegations are that there is mismatch of photograph in the OMR sheet and the admission form of the petitioner. However whether there is any such mismatch is yet to be concluded by the Central Bureau of Investigation and therefore the conclusion arrived at by the authorities of the G.R. Medical College are without any foundation. It is urged that mere registration of an FIR is not a conclusion of trial establishing a guilt. And the cancellation based on such FIR is void ab initio. It is urged that there being no evidence on record to establish that the petitioner sought admission by unfair means, the order deserves to be quashed. (14) Similar submissions are tendered in WP.2839/17, WP.2841/17 and WP.2842/17. In writ petition 4069/17, learned counsel for the petitioner has adopted the arguments tendered in WP.2849/17.

(19) The Central Bureau of Investigation, in its return, submitted that the petitioner Laxmi Dhakad (WP.2839/2017) has been included as accused in the case on the basis of the report of the committee of professors of GRMC, Gwalior, which found discrepancy in her photographs available on her admission form and her OMR Sheet (all details of the candidate PMT 2008 prepared by VYAPAM). It is urged that Special Investigation Team, Gwalior has not filed the charge-sheet against her. However, while transferring the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation, SIT Gwalior submitted a list of 271 accused persons, out of which 81 were named with FIR and role of 190 surfaced during investigation conducted by the SIT, Gwalior, showing 82 persons as absconders, in which the accused petitioner Laxmi Dhakad figured as absconder. Hence, CBI registered the case as RI2172015S0109 against 271 accused persons, including Laxmi Dhakad. It is urged that the accused has been examined by the CBI during the investigation and her document, i.e. Admission Form submitted in GRMC, Gwalior, Test Admit Card and all details of candidate, were forwarded to the photo experts for analysis/opinion. It is contended that though in the light of the opinion of the SEQD, Bhopal, received vide No./CID/QD/CX-731/13/253/14 dt. 07.06.2014, indicating that accused petitioner Laxmi Dhakad herself appeared in the PMT 2008 examination and no solver appeared against her in the said examination, however, the photograph, which was sent for analysis, was not of the quality which could serve the basis for matching. It is, however, contended that with available circumstances the accused petitioner cannot be exonerated of the charges levelled against her. Similar stand is taken in respect of petitioner Arvind Dhakad; WP.2839/2017; Writ Petition No.2840/2017 Laxmi Dhakad; Satya Prakash Patel: WP.2841/2017; Sarsij Singh Parihar: WP.2842/2017 and Writ Petition No.6237/2016 Arvind Dhakad and others. (20) It is further contended that after investigation charge-sheet was filed by the local police in Crime No.89/2015 against Arvind Kumar, Shehban Naeem, Shishupal Singh Yadav, Devendra Kumar Gupta, Mohd. Naeem, Raju Ahirwar and Rupesh Kushwaha under Sections 120-B read with Section 109, 417, 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC and Section 3(d)(1) / 4 of Madhya Pradesh Recognized Examination Act, 1937. It is contended that the petitioner Arvind Kumar Gupta was arrested on 12.03.2015. During custodial interrogation, he admitted of not appearing in PMT 2009 Examination, had arranged solver through one Rupesh Kushwaha and had paid Rs.3.25 lacs. It is contended that the expert report as to the handwriting in OMR sheet also revealed that it was not of the petitioner Arvind Gupta. It is contended that the solver is still absconding.

(21) In respect of Shiv Pratap Singh Pawaiyya, it is urged on behalf of the CBI that he is one of the accused in Crime No.224/2014 for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B, 201 of IPC and Section 3 / 4 of Madhya Pradesh Recognized Examination Act, 1937 along with 9 other co-accused for securing selection in PMT 2009 by illegal means through middlemen Hargyan Vimal, Shishupal Yadav and Vijay @ Imran, who arranged the solver to appear in his place in the examination. It is urged that expert opinion was received from SEQD, Bhopal Vide No.CID/QD/CX-474-A/14 dated 28.05.2015 which has opined that the specimen signatures/Handwriting of the accused i.e. Shiv Pratap Singh Pawaiyya does not match with those on the Questioned Documents i.e. OMR sheets. (22) In respect of Vikram Singh Raman, it is stated on behalf of the CBI that he is also an accused in Crime No.224/2014 for the offences under Sections 120B, 201, 417, 419, 420, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC and Section 3(d)(1) (2)/ 4 of Madhya Pradesh Recognized Examination Act, 1937 for securing admission in PMT 2010 fraudulently and by illegal means through solver arranged by the middlemen Hargyan Vimal. It is urged that the opinion given by the Finger Print Expert, Finger Print Bureau, Police Headquarters, Bhopal Vide No.51A/2015 dated 01.04.2015 shows mismatch of thumb impression of this petitioner in the OMR sheet.

b. Out of these documents 08 (eight) were allotment slip cum allotment letter issued by the DME.
c. 08 (eight) were medical fitness certificates.
d. Two (02) forms did not contain photographs on them.
e. Serial no.46 and 83, OMR details did not match with the details of admission forms.
# In serial no.46, OMR sheet has name of Mr. Anil Surma Prajapati, roll no.244884, whereas in the admission form name is Meharvan Singh and the roll no.244848. The name and roll no. both are different. The photo and signature, both are not matching.