W.P.(C) 5425/2023

Page 1 of 11

$~47

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

W.P.(C) 5425/2023

VINOD KUMAR YADAV

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Rajat Wadhwa, Ms. Shreti

Bhatia and Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocates

versus

CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY

EDUCATION AND ANR

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Atul Kumar and Ms. Aditi

Gutpa, Advocates for R-1

Mr. Sanjay Khanna, Standing Counsel with

Ms. Pragya Bhushan, Mr. Karandeep Singh

and Mr. Tarandeep Singh, Advocates for R-

2

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

%

01.02.2024

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

Digitally Signed By:AJIT

KUMAR

Signing Date:02.02.2024

15:41:48

Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 5425/2023

Page 2 of 11

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

chargesheet 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

Digitally Signed By:AJIT

KUMAR

Signing Date:02.02.2024

15:41:48

Signature Not Verified

W.P.(C) 5425/2023

Page 3 of 11

chargesheet though it makes a reference to one “Vinod @ Honey”.

7.

Mr. Wadhwa points out that the said “Vinod @ Honey” is

identified in the chargesheet, 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

chargesheet 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