Judgment :- (Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, forbearing the respondents from in any way interfering or preventing the petitioner from undergoing the course of B.E. Electrical and Electronics Engineering for the academic year 2002-2006 in the 2nd respondent College.) The short point involved in this writ petition is, whether the 1st respondent is to be directed to issue degree certificate to the petitioner, having completed the course of Electrical and Electronics Engineering. 2. The facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are that the petitioner has joined the College of the 2nd respondent for pursuing her Engineering degree. According to the petitioner, she belongs to the State of Andhra Pradesh and she has studied the qualifying examination from Narayana Junior College in Andhra and she belongs to Forward Community. 3. When the 2nd respondent conducted counselling in the State of Andhra Pradesh, the petitioner offered herself as a candidate to study in the 2nd respondent Engineering College in Tamil Nadu and offered to be admitted under the N.R.I. quota. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent accepted to take her under the N.R.I. quota and got her admitted into the first year Engineering course and collected necessary fees. While she is studying in first year, the 1st respondent sent a communication on 21.07.2004, wherein it is stated that her admission in the college is on the basis of the bogus Community certificate. Therefore, she was directed to appear before the Enquiry Committee at 3.00 PM on 27.07.2004 at the Academic Council Hall, Anna University. According to the petitioner, she has no knowledge about the bogus certificate and she is denying the allegation. 4. She has approached this Court and obtained an order of interim direction on 13.09.2004 and in pursuance of the said interim direction, she has completed her course in Engineering and according to the petitioner, her result was declared successful. Therefore, now she is demanding for the Degree Certificate. 5. 4. She has approached this Court and obtained an order of interim direction on 13.09.2004 and in pursuance of the said interim direction, she has completed her course in Engineering and according to the petitioner, her result was declared successful. Therefore, now she is demanding for the Degree Certificate. 5. On behalf of the 1st respondent, it is submitted that the petitioner has produced a forged Community certificate issued by Tahsildar, Egmore at Chennai, as if, she belongs to a Scheduled Caste Community residing in Tamil Nadu and the reason for producing the same is that she did not secure the minimum eligible marks of 60% for admission under the management quota meant for Forward Community and in order to get an admission under management quota, the false and fake Community certificate is obtained from the Tahsildar, Egmore, as if she is a reserved candidate who is eligible for admission and on the basis of the same, the petitioner got admission into the college and she is now contending that her admission is under N.R.I. quota. 6. While highlighting the same, the learned counsel for the University has stated that for admission under N.R.I. quota, the student must hail from a foreign country or must have a relative in a foreign country, who must sponsor the studies of the student and who must deposit the tuition fees and all other college fees in the foreign exchange and these formalities have not been fulfilled in the instant case. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim her admission under N.R.I. Quota. 7. It is stated that since the petitioner got admission under the management quota, for which 60% of the qualifying marks is necessary, and to avoid the same, a forged certificate is produced and the University intend to conduct an enquity into the matter and a notice has been issued, directing the petitioner to appear before the Enquiry Committee. But, the petitioner has filed the writ petition and an interim order has been obtained and in view of the interim direction, the University was forced to permit the petitioner to complete the course. 8. On behalf of the University, it is forcefully contended that a person, who is not eligible for entry into the college for study, was permitted to complete the course and having completed the course, if the Court still permits such student to proceed further, there shall be total injustice. 8. On behalf of the University, it is forcefully contended that a person, who is not eligible for entry into the college for study, was permitted to complete the course and having completed the course, if the Court still permits such student to proceed further, there shall be total injustice. This Court finds considerable merit in this argument. 9. In reply, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner is not concerned with regard to the production of any forgery certificate and it is the 2nd respondent College, which has introduced the community certificate from the Tahsildar, Egmore for their own benefit and the petitioner is under a bona fide impression that her admission is only under N.R.Inquota and therefore, the petitioner cannot be punished. 10. After hearing elaborate arguments of both sides, the Court is of the opinion that all these facts must be established only in the enquiry. When the University intends to conduct an enquiry, there is no reason for the petitioner to avoid enquiry and rush to the Court to get the interim direction to complete the course. The petitioner has invited the legal proceedings on her own. She has to face the consequences; the University has every right to conduct enquiry with regard to the genuineness of the Community certificate and to verify who is responsible for producing the forged documents. In this case, it is admitted that petitioner do not belong to reserved caste, but a document is produced for her admission in the College. Who was done it and why it was done must be established and suitable action must be initiated. 11. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to be payable to the University by the petitioner and the 1st respondent is directed to commence and complete the enquiry within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to putforth her claim and the 2nd respondent also must be heard. The first respondent is further directed to verify the truth or otherwise of the allegation that College is responsible for all misdeeds. In case, if it is established in the enquiry that the petitioner is innocent and the second respondent is responsible for all misdeeds, her degree certificate is to be issued. The first respondent is further directed to verify the truth or otherwise of the allegation that College is responsible for all misdeeds. In case, if it is established in the enquiry that the petitioner is innocent and the second respondent is responsible for all misdeeds, her degree certificate is to be issued. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.