SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(MP) 1534

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
A.M. Khanwilkar, Alok Aradhe, JJ.
Arun Sharma - Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
W.P. Nos. 3983, 6232-2013 and 1931, 2001, 2003, 2014, 2027, 5451, 6015, 8088, 8120, 8399, 8411, 8469, 8534, 8535, 8540, 8757, 10360, 10371, 10602, 10698, 10700, 11571, 11742, 11946, 11955, 12137, 12623, 12767, 13283, 13380, 13587, 14026, 14119, 14196, 16281 and 16476-2014
Decided On : 01-12-2014

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Rajendra Tiwari, Learned Senior Advocate, Parag Shrivastava, Amit Khatri, Raj Kumar Tripathi, M.P. Shukla, A.K. Shukla, R.M.K. Vyas, Nishant Datt, Vijay Kumar Pandey and Sanjay Sharma, Learned Counsels.
For the Respondents:Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Government Advocate and P.K. Kaurav, learned counsel.

The impugned orders were passed in violation of principles of natural justice as the documents and reports on which the adverse actions were based were not supplied to the petitioners.

Headnote:

Natural Justice - Admissions to MBBS Course - Pre-Medical Test Examination - Violation of Principles of Natural Justice - Professional Examination Board - Quashing of Orders - Independent Inquiry - Liberty Granted - [Natural Justice] - [Admissions to MBBS Course] - [Thahira Haris vs. Govt. of Karnataka, (2009) 11 SCC 438; Joseph Vilangandan Vs. The Executive Engineer (P.W.D.) Ernakulam and others, : AIR 1978 SC 930; Raymond Wollen Mills Limited and Another Vs. Director General (Investigation and Registration) and Another, : (2008) 12 SCC 73; Indu Bhushan Dwivedi vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, (2010) 11 SCC 278] - The court found that the impugned orders were passed in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice as the documents and reports on which the adverse actions were based were not supplied to the petitioners. The court quashed the orders and granted liberty for an independent inquiry.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners were admitted to the Medical College, Jabalpur after passing the Pre-Medical Test Examination. Their admissions were later cancelled due to discrepancies in their photographs. The petitioners alleged violation of principles of natural justice as they were not provided with the documents and reports on which the adverse actions were based.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the impugned orders were passed in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice as the documents and reports on which the adverse actions were based were not supplied to the petitioners. The court quashed the orders and granted liberty for an independent inquiry.

Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice, cancellation of admissions to MBBS course, non-supply of documents and reports to the petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: The impugned orders were passed in violation of principles of natural justice as the documents and reports on which the adverse actions were based were not supplied to the petitioners.

Final Decision: The impugned orders were quashed and set aside, and liberty was granted for an independent inquiry.

JUDGMENT :

W.P. Nos. 3983/2013, 6232/2013, 1931/2014, 2001/2014, 2003/2014, 2014/2014, 2027/2014, 5451/2014, 6015/2014, 10698/2014, 13587/2014, 16281/2014 & 16476/2014

1. These writ petitions involve identical issues and arise out of the common order dated 10.12.2013 passed by the Dean, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Medical College, Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Medical College, Jabalpur').

2. The background facts leading to filing of the writ petitions briefly stated are that the petitioners had appeared in the Pre-Medical Test Examination conducted by the Professional Examination Board in the year 2008 and 2009 and were declared successful. Thereafter, the petitioners were admitted in the Medical College, Jabalpur. The petitioners were served with show-cause notices by which the petitioners were directed to submit their photographs annexed by them alongwith the on-line application forms submitted for appearing in the PMT Examination. The petitioners, on receipt of the aforesaid notices, informed the Dean of the Medical College, Jabalpur that they are not in possession of photographs as demanded vide show-cause notices. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 10.12.2013, the admissions of the petitioners to MBBS Course were cancelled on the ground that their photographs annexed with mark sheets issued by Professional Examination Board are not matching with the photographs affixed on the documents submitted at the time of taking admission in MBBS Course. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioners have approached this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners while inviting the attention of this Court to the show-cause notices, pointed out that the petitioners were asked to submit their photographs annexed with the application form submitted by them at the time of appearing in PMT Examination. However, on their inability to supply the photographs, the impugned order has been passed. It was further submitted that the documents referred to in the impugned order, inter alia, documents received by the college from Professional Examination Board such as the application forms submitted by the petitioners at the time of appearing in the PMT Examination, were not supplied to the petitioners. Therefore, the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice.

4. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate has supported the impugned order. However, learned Government Advocate was unable to refute the contentions made on behalf of the petitioners that the documents in question which were made the foundation of the impugned order, were not made available to the petitioners.

5. We have considered the respective submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. It is well settled in law that notice must mention the grounds on which action is proposed to be taken. [See Thahira Haris vs. Govt. of Karnataka, (2009) 11 SCC 438]. The Supreme Court in the case of Joseph Vilangandan Vs. The Executive Engineer (P.W.D.) Ernakulam and others, : AIR 1978 SC 930 has held that if notices mention one ground but the action has taken on some other ground, the same would amount to violation of principles of natural justice. In the case of Raymond Wollen Mills Limited and Another Vs. Director General (Investigation and Registration) and Another, : (2008) 12 SCC 73, it has been held that if the material on which an adverse action is taken against a person, is not mentioned in the notice, the same would tantamount to violation of principles of natural justice. It is equally well settled in law that adverse material on which reliance is placed by an Authority has to be supplied, the same would tantamount to violation of principles of natural justice. [See: Indu Bhushan Dwivedi vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, (2010) 11 SCC 278].

6. In these cases, by the show-cause notices, the petitioners were directed to submit their photographs annexed by them along with the on-line application forms for appearing in the PMT
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top