Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 515 (MP)

SADHNA UPADHYAYA v. STATE OF M. P.

2003-04-07

BHAWANI SINGH, SUGANDHI LAL JAIN

body2003
JUDGMENT S.L. Jain, J. Being aggrieved by the common order dated 8-3-2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petitions No. 934/2001 and 2196/2001, appellant has filed this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. A brief resume of the facts required to be stated for disposal of the appeal is as follows: Appellant was the Principal of Durga Higher Secondary School, Kolghar (Rewa) (hereinafter referred to as the "School"). The respondent No. 6 filed Writ Petition No. 2196/2001 and the respondents No. 3, 4, and 5 filed Writ Petition No. 934/2001 praying for release of their results which were withheld by the Board of Secondary Education, M.P. Bhopal. In both the above referred writ petitions the respondent No. 2 Board submitted a reply contending inter alia that it had issued certain instructions to the Principals of the schools throughout the State for the purpose of satisfying the conditions precedent for grant of recognition. The Board has also issued letter/circular in relation to the conditions by which certain formalities including the admission of the students were to be completed by particular date. The Board also put forth that 445 students of the School filled up their examination forms and their list was sent to the Board for scrutiny. On verification of the contents of the forms, the Board found that 115 students were not in the original admission list furnished by the school. On further scrutiny of the examination forms the Board found that 91 students were ineligible to appear in the Higher Secondary Examination. The Board further submitted that the respondents No. 3 to 6 fell into the category of ineligible candidates. In the list sent by the school the name of Smt. Shri Devi was mentioned but admission number, date of admission or enrolment number was not given in the list. It was pleaded that fraud has been practiced as a result of which a letter was sent by the Board to the appellant whereby the school was required to submit necessary information and documents. On inquiry it was found that the students who were earlier found ineligible and regarding whom further relevant information was sought for by the Board were not eligible to appear in the aforesaid examination. As a consequence of the aforesaid scrutiny the results of ineligible candidates were cancelled and communication to that effect was sent to the school. On inquiry it was found that the students who were earlier found ineligible and regarding whom further relevant information was sought for by the Board were not eligible to appear in the aforesaid examination. As a consequence of the aforesaid scrutiny the results of ineligible candidates were cancelled and communication to that effect was sent to the school. In view of the Board's return, the appellant was arrayed as respondent and notice was served on her. Appellant filed her return in both the writ petitions. In W.P. No. 2169 of 2001 her submission was that due to clerical mistake serial numbers of some of the candidates were missing. In compliance of the Board directions all the original records of the school were also sent to the Board for its perusal. The Board has chosen to harass the students on one pretext or the other. In Writ Petition No 934/2001, it was submitted by the appellant that the respondent No. 3, Sandeep Singh was a student of Biology branch and was placed at serial No. 177 in the list prepared by the school on 11-8-1999. Respondent No. 4 was a student of Mathematics branch and her name was shown at serial No. 2 of the list dated 28-8-1999. She also submitted that a cheque of Rs. 1050.00 was sent to Bhopal office of the Board instead of its Rewa office due to clerical error. The appellant submitted that withholding of result of respondent No. 4 on the ground that her name did not find place in the list supplied by the school is incorrect. The Bhopal office of the Board has lost the list because of which the innocent students are suffering. The Board has chosen not to release result of the respondents No. 3 to 5 even though complete documentation was made available to it. Regarding respondent No. 5, Ashish Singh, the appellant submitted that his name was at serial No. 5 in the list dated 28-8-1999 of Art group. His result also cannot be withheld by the respondent/Board as the Board itself lost the list which was duly received in its office along with the Banker's cheque towards the examination fees submitted by the school. A copy of the list dated 28-8-1999 was submitted by the appellant along with her return. The learned single Judge on 28-3-2001 directed personal appearance of the appellant in the Court. A copy of the list dated 28-8-1999 was submitted by the appellant along with her return. The learned single Judge on 28-3-2001 directed personal appearance of the appellant in the Court. On 9-11-2001 the learned Single Judge taking note of the factual scenario directed that Criminal Investigation Department (hereinafter referred to as "CID") shall enquire with regard to the factual controversy and submit a report within a period of four weeks. In a similar matter in Writ Petition No. 3171/2001, decided on 18-1-2001, which related to the same school, on consideration of the charges, the Court directed personal appearance of DIG, CID. Accordingly, Mr. S.K. Singh, DIG, CID appeared in the Court and submitted that in investigation he has come to the prima facie conclusion that fraud has been committed by the Principal of the school. Mr. S.K. Singh also informed the Court that CID is desirous of launching prosecution against the school authorities because the factual scenario depicted a dismal picture. The learned single Judge found that the factual matrix of the Writ Petitions No. 2196/2001 and 934/2001 is similar to that of Writ Petition No. 3171/2001 and found that no relief can be granted to respondents No. 3 to 6. It was further directed that the CID shall scrutinize the whole thing in its entirety and if advised, launch criminal prosecution against the appellant. It is against this order of investigation and if necessary, institution of criminal prosecution, that the appellant has filed this Letters Patent Appeal. We have heard Shri Aditya Adhikari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri P.D. Gupta, learned Dy. Advocate General for the State. Shri Adhikari contended that paragraph 9 of the impugned order is illegal, erroneous and unreasonable and may be quashed. Per contra, Shri Gupta, submitted that when the investigation conducted in compliance of the directions issued in the Writ Petition No. 3171/2001, depicted a dismal picture and Investigating Agency has come to the prima facie conclusion that fraud has been committed by the appellant, in the factual scenario of this case also investigation by the CID will be very useful and the learned single Judge rightly directed investigation by the CUD and if necessary, launching a prosecution. Before the learned single Judge a factual dispute was involved. Before the learned single Judge a factual dispute was involved. There were discrepancies in the list furnished by the school while the names of 150 students were not shown in the original admission list furnished by the school and whereas the school claimed that a second list was sent to the Board and the Board claimed that no such list was ever sent, it was appropriate for the learned single Judge to direct an investigation to be conducted by the CID. The investigation by the CID should not disturb the appellant. If really no fraud was played by the school authorities, the appellant is at liberty to satisfy the CID regarding the same and if even then the CID launches a prosecution against her, she will be at liberty to take recourse to the available remedies. If the frauds are played by the private schools and candidates who are not eligible to appear in the examinations, manage to appear in the examinations on the basis of fraud played by teaching institutions, then definitely it will create a dent in the education system of the State. Therefore, such matters need to be dealt sternly. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that no fraud has been played by the appellant. Though there may be some clerical mistakes which themselves would not constitute a fraud. In case, the prosecution against the appellant is launched and continued, will be subjected to great harassment and humiliation and as such there is no justification in ordering prosecution of the appellant, therefore, to this extent, the impugned order suffers from unreasonableness and is unsustainable. The contention, however, holds no water. If it is really a case of clerical mistakes and some irregularities here and there, the appellant is at liberty to explain the things to the Investigating Agency. The prosecution will take place only when it is found by the CID that some fraud has been committed. In case, on investigation, it is found that no fraud has been committed, there will be no prosecution and no possibility of facing harassment and humiliation by the appellant. The learned single Judge in fact, directed for the prosecution only when on investigation, it is found that fraud has been played in the matter. No other point was raised before us by the parties. The learned single Judge in fact, directed for the prosecution only when on investigation, it is found that fraud has been played in the matter. No other point was raised before us by the parties. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned single Judge. The appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed at the admission stage. Final Result : Dismissed