ANAND SUDHAKAR KHIDWADKAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI C. M. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sekhar Bhargava, learned Govt. Advocate for the State. The petitioner is a student of ITI, Ujjain. He was admitted to the ITI course on the strength of being a relative of a Freedom Fighter late Hari Krishna Rao Joglekar. The petitioner's surname is Khidwadkar, and not Joglekar. The certificate of the freedom fighter signed by Shri Joglekar, which has been filed along with the application, clearly says that Khidwadkar is "related" to Joglekar, but in a different ribbon, later on, it appears that ^^o esjk iks= gs** (va mera poutra hai) had been added in the certificate to make the petitioner eligible for admission as a dependent of the Freedom Fighter. This is clear interpolation and there is nothing on re record to show that the petitioner was the grand son of Shri Joglekar.

(2.) SHRI Mehta argues that in view of the earlier decisions of this Court once a person is admitted and spent few, years in studies he should not be deprived of the benefit of what he has achieved. He has also passed the examinations for all these years. It is true that this Court has taken a view in two cases that once an admission is given then it should not be cancelled. But while giving the judgments in both these cases the Court did not say that even in a case where fraud has been practised the Court should ignore that and give an equitable relief to a person whose sole basis of relief is a fraudulent certificate. Therefore, we do not find it a fit case wherein the relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, which is basically an equitable relief, may be granted to the petitioner.

(3.) WE have been told that some criminal action has been initiated against the petitioner, but we would like the Authorities to make a thorough investigation into the affair because ex facie seeing the certificate some others who are responsible for admission appear to be involved. Without their connivance on the basis of a certificate, which is before us, an admission could never be granted. This fact, which is apparent in the certificate, could have easily been noticed at the time of admission. Therefore, we dismiss this petition with no order as to costs with a direction that the Authorities concerned shall make a thorough probe in the matter and find out not only about this case but other cases also wherein by this sort of fraudulent certificates admissions might have been given to the students, thus, depriving the deserving meritorious students from admission. C. C. today.