IMPORTANT POINT
The need for an independent inquiry before debarment based on unfair means and the consideration of delay in approaching the court.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. The petitioner, as a student of the B.Sc. (OT) course conducted by Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute (SGPGI), Lucknow appeared for the All India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental Test (AIPMT/PDT-NEET) Examination held on 3 May 2015.

2. On 16 July 2015, the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), which was conducting the (AIPMT-NEET) examination at that point of time, wrote to the petitioner, stating that, as he was found by the Haryana Police to be indulging in unfair means to gain an unfair advantage over other candidates during the conduct of the AIMPT/PDT on 3 May 2015, he was awarded the punishment of permanent debarment from appearing in the AIMPT/PDT under Rule 14.2(2) read with Rule 14.2(1) of the Information Bulletin of the CBSE applicable to the AIPMT/PDT held in 2015.

3. The counter-affidavit filed by the CBSE in the present case reveals that this decision was taken consequent on a communication dated 29 June 2015 received from the Superintendent of Police, Rohtak, Haryana, informing the CBSE that 23 candidates, who had appeared in the AIMPT/PDT-2015 had been identified as beneficiaries of unfair means employed in the said examination. The name of the petitioner, along with his father's name and address, figures at Serial No.11 of the said list of 23 candidates.

4. The short issue before this Court is whether the order of debarment can sustain in law.

5. Before addressing the issue, two developments in the aforenoted criminal proceedings require to be noted.

6. The first is that the investigations conducted by the Haryana Police culminated in the filing, by the Haryana Police, of the charge sheet dated 8 October 2015 before the learned Trial Court at Rohtak. As Mr. Rajat Wadhwa correctly points out, the name of the petitioner does not figure in the list of accused named in the charge sheet though it makes a reference to one "Vinod @ Honey".

7. Mr. Wadhwa points out that the said "Vinod @ Honey" is identified in the charge sheet, as the son of Sumundr, who is a resident of Rohtak. It is, therefore, prima facie apparent that Vinod @ Honey is not the petitioner.

8. The name of the petitioner, therefore, does not figure in the charge sheet which ultimately came to be filed by the Haryana Police Authorities before the concerned Trial Court. Mr. Wadhwa submits, on instructions, that in fact his client's name does not figure in any charge-sheet which has been filed, consequent on the investigations to which the letter dated 29 June 2015 supra refers, in connection with the use of unfair means in the AIMPT/PDT-2015.

9. The second development with respect to the said investigation was brought to my attention by Mr. Atul Kumar, learned counsel for the CBSE. The matter relating to the use of unfair means in the AIPMT/PDT-2015 travelled to the Supreme Court, which passed a detailed judgment in that regard on 15 June 2015. The Supreme Court, in the said judgment, referred to various status reports submitted to it by the Investigating Agency. These include a status report dated 2 June 2015, which reads thus:

"7. That accused Vijay Yadav further disclosed that on 02/3.5.2015, he went to Shakti Resort at Behror, Rajasthan by private bus (which was arranged by main accused Roop Singh Dangi). He also admitted that he met the said Veer Bahadur at Shakti Resort, Behror, Rajasthan where Roop Singh Dangi was already present who provided them new mobile phones and SIM cards. He further disclosed that Roop Singh Dangi had leaked the AIPMT question papers and supplied the answer keys with the help of master solvers. He further stated that the solved answer keys were supplied to the candidates namely Vinod, Sneh, Nanah and Sujit during the examination hours through mobile phone from Behror, Rajasthan. He was produced before the Id. Area Magistrate, Rohtak on 02.6.2015, which granted three days police remand. Further interrogation is going on.

It is further submitted that, in reference to the DO letters written by the answering respondent