VINOD KUMAR SWAMI Vs. MAHARISHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the petitioners who admittedly belong to the State of Rajasthan sought admission in Tika Ram College of Education, Senepat for diploma in Bachelor of Education Course in July, 1987. This is a one year course and the petitioners took the final examination in May, 1988. Their only grievance in the present writ petition is that the result has not been declared by the Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak (for short 'University') to which the aforesaid college in Sonepat stands affiliated. In the written statement filed on behalf of the university, it has been averred that the petitioners who belong to the State of Rajasthan filed fake/forged domicile certificates at the time of their admission showing that their domicile was in the State of Haryana and they were in fact given admission out of the quota reserved for the students having Haryana domicile. On subsequent verification, it was discovered that domicile certificates purporting to have been issued by different Sub-Divisional Officers(C) in the State of Haryana had in fact not been issued by them and the petitioner having forged these filed them along with their admission application forms with a view to seek admission to the aforesaid course. The university reported the matter to the police and on the basis of a complaint filed in writing, a First Information Report No. 180 was registered at police Station Sonepat (City) under sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and the matter was still under investigation when the present petition was filed in the month of October, 1990. These averments made by the university in its written statement have not been controverted by the petitioners. The petitioners, on the other hand, admit that while seeking admission in the college they had filed domicile certificates although, according to them, it was not necessary to do so. These certificates do show that the domicile of the petitioners was in the State of Haryana but the addresses which the petitioners have mentioned in the writ petition clearly indicate that they belong to the State of Rajasthan and that the domicile certificates submitted by them along with their application forms were not correct. Again, the firm stand of the university is that the petitioners were admitted against the quota meant for the students having domicile in Haryana and without a domicile certificate, their admission forms would not have been entertained by the college.

(2.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am satisfied that the petitioners do not deserve any indulgence from the Court. They sought admission from the quota reserved for students having Haryana domicile and since they all belong to the State of Rajasthan as is clear from their addresses mentioned in the heading of the writ petition, they forged the domicile certificates as stated by University and produced them along with their application/admission forms. It was on this basis that they got admission and later when it was found that these certificates were fake, the university, in my opinion, was justified not only in withholding their results but also in cancelling their admission/candidature, if necessary. The conduct of the petitioners cannot but be deprecated and their writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Any lenient view as was canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioners would give encouragement to the students in general and the petitioners in particular to indulge in such nefarious activities. After all, the students are the future hope of the country and should not be encouraged in seeking admission to Educational Institutions on the basis of fake/forged documents. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with cots.