Vinod Kumar Yadav vs Central Board of Secondary Education

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Del) 322

C. HARI SHANKAR
Vinod Kumar Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Central Board of Secondary Education – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Rajat Wadhwa, Ms. Shreti Bhatia and Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Atul Kumar and Ms. Aditi Gutpa, Advocates, for the Respondent-1.
Mr. Sanjay Khanna, Standing Counsel with Ms. Pragya Bhushan, Mr. Karandeep Singh and Mr. Tarandeep Singh, Advocates, for the Respondent-2.

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 petitio