Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 130 (MP)

JYOTI CHHATTARI v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2009-01-27

DIPAK MISRA, R.K.GUPTA

body2009
Judgment ( 1. ) THE instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking the following main reliefs: (i) The Honble Court may be pleased to quash the order dated 23. 6. 2003 issued by the State vide Annexure P-6, operation of which has been stayed vide order annexure P-7, as void, illegal and opposed to law. The Honble Court may be pleased to (ii)issue appropriate writ or order directing the respondents to immediately grant degree of MBBS and certificate of completion of internship to the petitioner keeping in view the judgment of the honble Supreme Court in Sandeep subhash Parate Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, Annexure P-9, inasmuch as the state Level Committee has even after lapse of more than three years not held any enquiry against the petitioner despite directions of the Honble High Court to do the same within three months. ( 2. ) THE facts leading to the petition are that the petitioner was given admission in the MBBS course. The admission was said to have been obtained by the petitioner on the ground of submission of the status certificate. The petitioner continued to appear in the examination and has also passed the aforesaid examination in March-April, 2002 and has also been granted provisional registration after passing the final mbbs examination and is registered provisionally under the provisions of Section 11 (3) of the M. P. Ayurvigyan parishad Adhiniyam, 1987. ( 3. ) IT was the allegation against the petitioner that she is chhattari, a caste recognised as schedule tribe but, is in fact tamrakar which falls in the category of other backward classes and on this basis, it was found that the petitioner was given the undue benefit of the caste certificate treating her to be a schedule tribe. The complaint as such was made in the year 1998 when the petitioner got her admission in the MBBS course (first year) and was carrying out her studies in the first year. On basis of complaint, the Dean of the Medical College, indore cancelled the admission of the petitioner by order dated 21. 4. 1998. Against the order of cancellation of admission the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court which was registered as W. P. No. 2255/1998 wherein the order dated 21. 4. 1998 was ultimately set aside by which the admission of the petitioner was cancelled. 4. 1998. Against the order of cancellation of admission the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court which was registered as W. P. No. 2255/1998 wherein the order dated 21. 4. 1998 was ultimately set aside by which the admission of the petitioner was cancelled. Thereafter, another petition was filed by the petitioner which was registered as Writ Petition No. 590 of 2003 before the indore Bench and the same was decided on 7. 5. 2003 whereby a direction was issued to the State Government to complete the inquiry in respect of the genuineness of the caste certificate of the schedule tribe submitted by the petitioner. The inquiry was directed to be completed within six months. ( 4. ) IT is the grievance of the petitioner that the inquiry has not yet been completed and without completing the enquiry another order dated 23. 6. 2003 has been passed by the State Government asking the Dean, Medical College, indore to expel the petitioner. The order dated 23. 6. 2003 was challenged by the petitioner by filing a petition before the Indore Bench, which was registered as Writ Petition no. 9649 of 2003. The Indore Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 15. 2. 2005 has stayed the operation of the order dated 23. 6. 2003 whereby the Dean was directed by the State Government to expel the petitioner. The Court also directed to complete the enquiry with regard to the status certificate submitted by the petitioner. It is the grievance of the petitioner that uptil now the inquiry has not been completed. It is submitted that the petitioner has already completed her studies and the result of the petitioner has already been declared but no inquiry has been completed, therefore, she is entitled to be given the benefit of the judgment passed by the Apex court in Yogesh Ramchandra Naikwadi vs. State of maharashtra and others, 2008 (5) SCC 652 wherein the issue with regard to cancellation of status certificate, after the incumbent has already acquired the degree, on the ground that a false status certificate was submitted, arose for consideration. The Apex Court in para-9 held as under:- "as observed in Milind, if the appellants admission or degree is to be annulled, it is to nobodys benefit as his seat cannot be offered to someone else. The Apex Court in para-9 held as under:- "as observed in Milind, if the appellants admission or degree is to be annulled, it is to nobodys benefit as his seat cannot be offered to someone else. There is also no allegation that the appellant forged or faked the caste certificate. His admission to engineering course was nearly thirteen years back and he secured the degree more than four years back. We are therefore of the view that the appellant herein should be permitted to retain the benefit of the degree but subject to terms. The first is that he shall not claim or seek any further benefit by claiming to belong to a Schedule Tribe. The second is professional degree education by extending the benefit of exemption from payment of fee or award of scholarship or by extending the benefit of concession in fee (that is less than what is charged to general category students) by treating him as a Scheduled Tribe candidate, the appellant cannot retain such financial benefits. The third respondent may, on behalf of the State government, take appropriate steps to enquire and assess the amount, if any spent on the appellant either towards fee, scholarship or by way of concession in fee and make a demand on the appellant for payment thereof. If the appellant fails to pay the amount so found due within six months of the demand by the third respondent, the third respondent may take steps for recalling the degree granted to the appellant. If no amount is found to be due or if the amount determined and demanded is paid by the appellant, he may be permitted to retain the degree obtained by him. " ( 5. ) THE matter as such has also been decided by this court in W. P. No. 975/1997 (Ku. Mridula Gupta vs. State of M. P. and others) on 13. 7. 1998. Further claim of the petitioner is that she ought to have been given the benefit of the judgment passed by the apex Court under the similar circumstances in Sandeep subhash Parate Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2006) 7 SCC 501 , which is filed as Annexure P-9 to the petition. ( 6. 7. 1998. Further claim of the petitioner is that she ought to have been given the benefit of the judgment passed by the apex Court under the similar circumstances in Sandeep subhash Parate Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, (2006) 7 SCC 501 , which is filed as Annexure P-9 to the petition. ( 6. ) IN view of the aforesaid, we are inclined to direct the respondents to confer the benefit of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Yogesh Ramchandra (supra) and thereafter to confer the degree of the MBBS course to the petitioner and also the certificate of completion of internship. The necessary exercise in this regard shall be completed within a period of two months from the date the petitioner furnishes the certified copy of this order to the respondents. It is, however, directed that the petitioner shall not claim any benefit of her status certificate on which basis the admission was given to her. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.