MANOJ SISODIA Vs. MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Manoj Sisodia, a student of Ayurveda 5th year studying in Gaur Brahman Ayurvedic College, Rohtak, seeks setting aside of order dated 18/04/1992 vide which respondent-Maharash Dayanand University, Rohtak, declared him ineligible for admission to B.A.M.S. Ist year course for the session 1987-88 as also for B.A.M.S. 2nd, 3rd, 4th and final year classes cancelling letter dated 16/07/1990 vide which his candidature was registered with the University. Whereas, the plea of petitioner is based upon equitable and compassionate grounds as he has completed almost entire course, the respondent-University vehemently objects to the relief asked for by him on an equally forceful ground that petitioner cannot be permitted premium on fraud. Which of the two stands deserves to be upheld, in my view, shall depend on the facts of the case, in particular, relating to the way and manner in which petitioner secured admission.

(2.) Petitioner states his case by pleading that he took admission in B.A.M.S. degree course in Gaur Brahman Ayurvedic College, Rohtak in the year 1987. He was enrolled in the University vide registration No. 87-GAC-25. He was given admission after competing and qualifying of the examination which was held by the University. BAMS degree is five years' course and petitioner had attended his classes regularly and appeared in the examination of first year in the year 1988. He passed the same in first attempt by securing good marks. Admission to the next higher class is given to a candidate automatically on completion of annual examination and the student is only asked to deposit fee of the college. In the manner aforesaid petitioner got admission in second year and once again regularly attended the classes and appeared in the examination which commenced from April, 1989. Due to his ill health, he could not clear all the papers and was placed in compartment in Physiology. As per Regulation 12 he was promoted in 3rd year class of the Course and he was allotted Sr. No. 59. He once again attended his classes and appeared in supplementary examination of second year which commenced in the month of September, 1989. His result was, however, withheld by the University on the ground that as per report of the Secretary, Intermediate Education Parishad, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad his original marks sheet of Intermediate examination had been found fake and accordingly a First Information Report was lodged against him with the police through the Legal Cell of the University. Petitioner made representation but he was told that as the result had been withheld for the aforesaid mentioned ground, nothing could be done in the matter. Further, the result of petitioner of the first year which he had already passed, was cancelled in the month of October, 1989 and his registration was also cancelled. Once again he addressed representation to the Assistant Registrar (Registration Branch) on 6/10/1989 praying for declaration of his result of B.A.M.S. IInd year. It was, inter alia, pleaded by him that re-verification of the matter should be done from the Secretary, Intermediate Education Parishad, Allahabad (U.P.). This request of petitioner, perhaps was accepted and it is pleaded that on re-verification from the Secretary of the said Parishad the intermediate certificate furnished by him to the respondent University was found to be correct and accordingly he was eligible for admission to B.A.M.S. course for the session 1987-88 and his registration card was also restored. On 16/07/1990 when on reverification correct information was available with the respondents, the Examination Branch of the University declared the result of petitioner, although after about six months when the same was due. He was declared pass in B.A.M.S. IInd year which was conducted in September, 1989. When in spite of all this petitioner was not allowed to take his 3rd year examination, he filed the present writ in this Court. Vide order dated 18/12/1990 he was permitted to sit in 3rd year examination B.A.M.S. (Supplementary). His writ was admitted and a direction was further issued to the respondents to declare his result. Further, as per orders passed by this Court in Civil Misc. No. 3880-A of 1991, petitioner was allowed to appear in 4th year B.A.M.S. examination held on 10/06/1991. Further directions were issued on 19/08/1991 to the respondents to declare his result of B.A.M.S. 4th year subject to the decision of writ petition and allow him to sit in 5th year examination. However, on 28/03/1992 show cause notice was issued to petitioner wherein it was mentioned that further investigations had revealed that his DMC of Intermediate examination was fake and bogus. He was asked to explain his position to the Principal of the College with regard to the submission of fake DMC. Reply to the showcause notice was submitted in which, inter alia, it was pleaded that till such time letter dated 12/06/1990 said to have been issued by the U.P. Board is given to him, he was not in a position to give reply. Thus, request was made to supply copy of letter aforesaid. It is pleaded that without visualising the situation and seeing the career of the student, respondent-Board issued direction to the College to cancel his admission of B.A.M.S. Ist, IInd, IIIrd, IVth and final year classes vide order dated 18/04/1992. With a view to challenge the orders aforesaid, writ was amended.

(3.) On the facts as have been mentioned above, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Manipur vehemently contends that petitioner took admission in B.A.M.S. for the year 1987-88 in the College. He had submitted original marks-sheet of his Intermediate examination in the college itself. He had also paid donation to the tune of Rs. 20,000.00 to the Managing Committee of the College and he had never mentioned in the application form that he had secured 259 marks. All that he had mentioned was that he had secured 2nd division and it was for the University to verify this fact before allowing him to appear in the first year B.A.M.S. examination and further appearing in the second year examination. When he had been so permitted to take first and second years' examination and when later examinations were taken by him a account of interim orders passed by this Court, it was not open to the respondents to cancel his candidature. It is further argued by learned counsel that if the orders challenged in the present writ are not set aside, the whole career of petitioner would be ruined as five years study that he has already put in besides spending a lot of money in getting education would go totally waste.