GOPAL SHARMA Vs. VICE CHANCELLOR RDVV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER in this writ petition is assailing the communication P-4 of Rani Durgawati University, dated 7-12-2002 by which petitioner has been required to surrender the mark-sheet of LL. B. final year as the University has found after enquiry that mark-sheet issued is false/forged/incorrect. In case petitioner fails to surrender it, FIR has to be registered with police station.

(2.) PETITIONER is an Advocate. It is averred that he passed LL. B. final year examination in the year 2000 from Rani Durgawati University, Jabalpur. Petitioner had appeared in the final "examination in the academic session 1999-2000. He could not succeed in the main examination due to award of inadequate marks. Petitioner applied for revaluation of the answer-sheets. After revaluation petitioner was declared as having passed in the final year LL. B. examination. Mark-sheet (P-11) was issued by the University of LL. B. final year. Petitioner applied for being enrolled as an Advocate with the State Bar Council and was enrolled as an Advocate in the year 2000. Identity card, enrolment certificate were issued by the State Bar Council, respondent No. 4. Petitioner was enrolled with enrolment No. 5289/2000/advocate. Petitioner has changed his surname from Markandeya to Sharma which was notified in the gazette (P-3 ). Petitioner is practising as an Advocate and discharging his duty. All of a sudden RDVV, respondent No. 3 through Deputy Registrar has asked the petitioner by letter (P-4) dated 7-12-2002 to surrender the mark-sheet, failing which FIR is to be registered. The act of the University is arbitrary. No show-cause notice has been given. Opportunity of hearing has not been afforded. There is no reason to surrender the mark-sheet before cancelling the result. Petitioner was not noticed. Actual truth has not come to the surface. Mark-sheet was issued by the University after revaluation. The fact is not in dispute that University had issued the mark-sheet. University itself was involved in issuing mark-sheet, then it is not open to the University to ask the petitioner to surrender the mark-sheet. Petitioner can not be penalized for an act committed by the University. Any person or examinee can not have any involvement with University internal affair of issuing mark-sheet. University has to take appropriate action if any against their own staff not against an examinee. Petitioner has not been informed of an investigation done in issuance of mark-sheet. For an act of irregularity committed by the University staff, petitioner can not be saddled with the responsibility.

(3.) A return has been filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, University and its officials. It is contended in the return that petitioner had failed in the main examination in first paper of Code of Civil Procedure, Arbitration and Limitation. He secured 32 of 100 and in paper IIIrd, Drafting Pleading Conveyancing and Professional Ethics. Petitioner had secured 28 out of 100. Petitioner applied for revaluation. The result of revaluation was notified in the case of petitioner. No change was reported. Result (R-1) of the revaluation was declared on 3-11-2002. Despite no change in the marks and having been declared fail petitioner managed issuance of a false/forged mark-sheet from the University showing him as having passed in LL. B. final examination. In forged mark-sheet of petitioner in paper Ist marks shown were 38 instead of 32. Similarly false entries were made in the marks in paper IIIrd as 43 whereas the actual marks obtained were 28. Respondent University conducted an enquiry in the matter and after detailed enquiry found that mark-sheet obtained by the petitioner is false, therefore, same was cancelled vide notification No. Examination/2002/148, dated 1-10- 2002. After cancellation of mark-sheet petitioner was directed vide letter (P-4) dated 7-12-2002 to immediately surrender/deposit the forged mark-sheet which was in his possession. Petitioner instead of complying the request of return of the fake mark-sheet has filed the present writ petition. The conduct of petitioner clearly shows that he not only managed to get a false mark-sheet but also sought various documents in illegal manner on the basis of false mark-sheet obtained by him. The conduct of the petitioner is extremely unfair and tainted and petitioner is not entitled for any relief. Petitioner is guilty of deliberate mis-representation and had obtained forged mark-sheet and misused it. Same amounts to "criminal offence" "punishable" under the "indian Penal Code".