AMRESH KUMAR Vs. PRINCIPAL BHAGALPUR MEDICAL COLLEGE BHAGALPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ quashing the order of the Principal, Bhagalpur Medical College (Respondent No. 1) contained in Memo No. 1167 dated 7-5-1979, as contained in Annexure-12 to the writ petition. By that order contained in the memo the petitioner's admission to the Medical College in the year 1975 has been cancelled and rescinded. There are other incidental and consequential prayers made which we need not dilate upon because the main question to be decided is the legality and validity of the impugned order as contained in Annexure-12.

(2.) The relevant facts for the disposal of this application are short and simple. They may be narrated thus. After having been selected at the test for admission into the MBBS degree course, the petition was interviewed by the selection Board on 24-11-1975 and selected for admission. The letter dated 23rd Sept. 1975 issued to the petitioner regarding his provisional selection for interview for admission in the 1st year M.B.B.S./Dental Course 1975 of State Medical/Dental College of Bihar, on the basis of the results of the Pre-medical and Pre-dental Test, 1975, has been marked Annexure-1' to the writ application. Paragraph 8 (a) of that letter regarding provisional selection for interview for admission reads thus :

(3.) The petitioner must succeed on a very short and simple ground. In the year 1975, when he was admitted to the 1st year M.B.B.S. course, there was already from before the competent authorities the caste certificate granted by the Block Development Officer, Sadar, Patna, and with their open eyes and ignoring the provisions in paragraph 3(a) of Annexure-1 that the caste certificate should be granted by the District Magistrate or by the Civil S.D.O. or by the District Welfare Officer of the area concerned they admitted the petitioner to the course. Even subsequently when the petitioner was called upon to furnish a certificate from the District Welfare Officer he did so furnish a certificate of the District Welfare Officer, Patna. It is not alleged that any of these certificates was forged. The only contention of the respondents is that those certificates had been obtained by the petitioner on a misrepresentation of facts before those authorities. The report of the District Welfare Officer, Bhagalpur, against the petitioner is based on an enquiry having been initiated at the instance of respondent No. 1 admittedly on the basis of a complaint made by some busy body or the other challenging the caste of the petitioner. And, this enquiry was admittedly made behind the back of the petitioner in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner's case is fully covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Shri Krishan v. Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra (AIR 1976 SC 376). In the case of Shri Krishan (supra) the candidate in question was allowed to take the examination in Part-II law Examination and then it was discovered that some suppression of facts has been made by the petitioner at the time of the issuance of his admit card which amounted to fraud. It was held by the Supreme Court that once the candidate is allowed to take the examination rightly or wrongly then the Statute which empowers the University to withdraw the candidature of the applicant had worked itself out and the candidate could not be refused admission subsequently for any infirmity which should have been looked into before giving the candidate permission to appear. It has further been held in that case that if the University authorities acquiesced in the infirmities which the admission form contained and allowed the candidate to appear in the examination, then by force of the University Statute the University had no power to withdraw the candidature of the candidate. Moreover, it was also held that where a person on whom fraud is committed is in a position to discover the truth by due diligence which is not done then fraud is not proved. Because it would neither be a case of suggestio falsi, or suppressio veri. In the instant case the competent authorities had before them a genuine caste certificate granted by the Block Development Officer, Sadar, Patna, to the petitioner and they were fully aware of the condition laid down in paragraph 8 (a) of the letter of selection dated 23rd Sept. 1975 (Annexure-1) that the Block Development Officer was not a competent authority to grant a caste certificate for the purpose of admission. And, yet they did not insist upon the petitioner producing any caste certificate from either the District Magistrate or the Sub-divisional Officer or the District Welfare Officer and admitted the petitioner to the 1st year M.B.B.S. course. Even after the petitioner was admitted when he was called upon to produce a caste certificate from the District Welfare Officer, he did so produce a genuine caste certificate from the District Welfare Officer, Patna. It was thereafter that it was insisted upon the petitioner producing a caste certificate from the District Magistrate in the year 1977, by the time he had already passed his Part-I M.B.B.S. course. If it would have been a case of forgery in obtaining any of those two certificates produced by the petitioner the matter may have been different. But it is not the case of the respondents that those certificates were not genuine. Their only case is that they had been obtained by the petitioner on mis-representation of facts. Having admitted the petitioner to the 1st year M.B.B.S. course in the year 1975, and having permitted him to prosecute his studies up to the final year in the year 1979, the respondents could not be permitted in law to cancel the admission of the petitioner (made in the year 1975) in the year 1979, by the impugned order Annexure-12. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the petitioner. It is manifest from the facts stated above, that the respondents acquiesced in the infirmities which the selection letter (paragraph 8 (a)) contained and allowed the petitioner his admission. No fraud can be said to have been committed by the petitioner in the circumstances.