Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BENCH
Sanjay Yadav, S.K. Awasthi, JJ.
Hemdutt Mourya – Appellant
Versus
State of M.P. and Others – Respondents
W.P. Nos. 2185, 6187, 6202 of 2017
Decided On : 16-11-2017
Impersonation in obtaining admission to the M.B.B.S. Course is considered an unfair means and can lead to cancellation of admission. The court referred to Section 3/4 of the Madhya Pradesh Examination Act, which deals with offenses related to impersonation in examinations. The court also referred to Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120-B IPC, which deal with offenses related to cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy. The court relied on previous judgments, including Pratibha Singh Ku. (Minor) vs. State of M.P. and Others and Nidhi Kaim vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, to establish the legal framework for cancelling admissions obtained through fraudulent means.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were rusticated from the M.B.B.S. Course for using unfair means and impersonation to gain admission. They challenged the order of rustication and contended that their admission cannot be cancelled without being held guilty by a court of law. The authorities passed the impugned order cancelling their admission based on show cause notices issued to them. The petitioners denied the allegations and questioned the proposed action. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed a status report stating that the petitioners did not appear in the examination and arranged for someone else to take the exam on their behalf. The court considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It referred to previous judgments that held impersonation as an unfair means and concluded that the fraud vitiates all action. The court upheld the cancellation of the petitioners' admission, stating that they obtained admission through a well-orchestrated strategy of deceit and deception. The petition was dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the facts and arguments presented by the petitioners and the authorities. It referred to previous judgments that established the principle that fraud vitiates all action and that admission obtained through fraudulent means can be cancelled. The court concluded that the petitioners obtained admission through impersonation and upheld the cancellation of their admission.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that admission obtained through impersonation is an unfair means and can be cancelled. The principle of fraud vitiating all action applies in cases of fraudulent admissions. The court referred to previous judgments that established this principle.
Result: The court dismissed the petition and upheld the cancellation of the petitioners' admission.
1. 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. 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.
2. 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 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 RC 217201580109.
3. 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.
4. 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."
5. 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 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.
6. 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
Øekad 31@,lŒ,lŒ@;wŒthŒ@2017
Xokfy;j fnukad 22-03-2017
la'kksf/kr dk;kZy; vkns'k
Nk= /kesZUæ dqekj 'kkD; iq= Jh gjh flag 'kkD; ih,eVh Áos'k o"kZ 2010 ih,eVh jksy uaŒ 523014 oxZ&,llh irk xzke lqekoyh rglhy tkSjk ftyk eqjSuk ds fo:} uxj iqfyl v/kh{kd 'kgj iwoZ Xokfy;j }kjk i= Øekad uiqv@'kgj@iwoZ@LVsuks@ih,eVh@509@15 fnukad 18-04-2015 ds vuqlkj vijk/k Øekad 358@14 /kkjk;s 419] 420] 467] 468] 471] 201] 120ch HkkŒnŒfoŒ 3@4 ijh{kk vf/kfu;e ds rgr iathc} Ádj.k ,oa dk;kZy; iqfyl v/kh{kd dsUæh; vUos"k.k C;wjks dsEi Xokfy;j ds }kjk i= Øekad 547 fnukad 09-04-2016 }kjk Ádj.k la[;k vkjlh&217201&,l,l& 0109 esa Ádj.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/; Áns'k O;olkf;d ijh{kk e.My Hkksiky ds ih,eVh Áos'k 2010 ds fu;e 3-2 ds lanHkZ esa egkfo|ky; ds ,echch,l ikB~;Øe ls rRdky ÁHkko ls fu"dkflr fd;k tkrk gSA
vf/k"Bkrk
x
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
