NOOPUR BAJPAI Vs. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that the operation of the impugned letter dated 12.04.2013 be stayed. Counsel for the University has sought time to file reply to the CM and has vehemently opposed grant of stay of letter dated 12.04.2013. By the present writ petition the petitioner seeks quashing of communication/letter dated 12.04.2013 bearing No.FMDS/247- PG/Complaint/2013/4135 issued by respondent No.5. Direction is also sought to the respondent No.3 to take a decision on the basis of letter dated 12.04.2013 and allow the petitioner to pursue her PG course from the respondent No.2 college without any hindrance. By the order of 12.04.2013 the petitioner has been rusticated for a period of 3 years with effect from the year 2013 in terms of Clause 4(b) read with Clause 5 of Ordinance XV-B of the Ordinances of the University, or until the outcome of the ongoing court case No.RC 219/2011 (E) and 219/2011 (E) 0007 in the matter of CBI v. Mahipal Singh & Ors.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioner cannot be made to suffer indefinitely as the final adjudication of the criminal case filed by the CBI is likely to take many years. It is further submitted that the original OMR sheet of the petitioner has not been produced and the signatures on the sheets so produced in Court today are doubtful. Counsel also contends that as a matter of precaution the students should be made to sign on the back of the OMR sheet as well which the respondents have failed to do. In these circumstances, the petitioner prays for ad-interim stay of the order of rustication.

(3.) COUNSEL further submits that after the examination as per the procedure the OMR sheet of every candidate is scanned. The OMR sheet of the petitioner was also scanned, and for the sake of convenience it should be referred to as ,,the first OMR sheet. Thereafter, by adopting unfair means the same OMR sheet was filled up and further questions were answered and petitioner was declared successful. It is submitted that for the sake of identification the manipulated OMR sheet is referred to as ,,the second OMR sheet. A comparison of both the OMR sheets would show that the signatures are identically placed and the questions which have been answered in the first OMR sheet and the manner in which i.e. the slant in the lines is identical which would show that the same OMR sheet has been manipulated. Counsel submits that no interim relief should be granted to the petitioner and only after the counter affidavit is filed should the stay application filed by the petitioner be considered by this Court.