Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1356 (MP)

Rahul Singh v. Jiwaji University, Gwalior

2009-12-08

INDRANI DATTA, SUBHASH SAMVATSAR

body2009
Judgment ( 1. ) Petitioners are the students of respondent No. 3 Institution namely Maharshi Ved Vyas Mahavidyalaya, Gwalior. They sought admission to the said Institution in a course BCA First Semester. They submitted their examination forms in the month of February, 2007. However, their forms were rejected by the University on the ground that names of these petitioners do not appear in the list submitted by the respondent Institution before the cut off date and these names were subsequently added after the cut off date by respondent No. 3 Institution. Hence, they filed the present writ petition. ( 2. ) On issuance of notices, respondents Jiwaji University as also the respondent Institution have filed their separate returns. ( 3. ) The University in its return has submitted that the list of the students which was forwarded by the respondent Institution at the time of admission does not include the names of the petitioner and the petitioners were subsequently admitted after the cut off date. Hence, the petitioners are not eligible to appear in the examination. ( 4. ) Respondents - Institution in its return has submitted that they have admitted the petitioners much before the cut off date and informed the University in time. Hence, the University cannot reject the forms of the petitioners. ( 5. ) The question in the instant case is whether the petitioners were admitted by the respondents Institution at the beginning of the academic session or their names were subsequently substituted. ( 6. ) It is an undisputed position that the examination forms of these petitioners were forwarded by the respondent Institution to the respondent University and a Committee was constituted on 18.2.2008 by the University for scrutinising the names of the students and at the time of scrutiny, it was found by the Committee that the names of the petitioners were not in the original list forwarded by the respondent Institution to the respondent University. Respondent Institution in support of its contention has filed an affidavit of one Dharmendra Vyas who is the Chairman of the governing body of the respondent Insitution wherein he has stated that names of 23 students were forwarded to the University vide covering letter dated 19.8.2007. On the back of this letter, there is a postal endorsement of UPC. Respondent Institution in support of its contention has filed an affidavit of one Dharmendra Vyas who is the Chairman of the governing body of the respondent Insitution wherein he has stated that names of 23 students were forwarded to the University vide covering letter dated 19.8.2007. On the back of this letter, there is a postal endorsement of UPC. From perusal of the said letter, it appears that two lists of students were forwarded by the Institution to the University. ( 7. ) Along with the list of documents No. 20240/09 dated 3.12.2009, the respondent University has filed certain documents. Document Annexure "A" is a letter dated 4/8/2007 written by the respondent Institution to the respondent University which shows that two lists of the students were forwarded by the Institution to the University. Said letter is accompanied with lists of students numbering 390. However, names of the present petitioners are not included in the said list. Annexure "B" filed along with the said list of documents by the respondent University shows that the list is sent to the University on 19.8.2007. This letter was served upon the University by UPC. It is alleged that the names of the petitioners were sent along with it. ( 8. ) This Court directed the respondent University to produce the original list which was received by the University at the time of initial admission as according to the petitioner this is not the said list. Another list was filed by one Dharmendra Vyas on behalf of the respondent Institution along with his affidavit dated 30.11.2009. The list shows that the names of present petitioners are mentioned at serial numbers 391 to 413. ( 9. ) It is pertinent to point out that in the first list which was filed by the University as Annexure "A", names of only 390 students are mentioned and the list filed along with the affidavit of Dharmendar Vyas dated 30.11.2009 is in continuation of the first list and numbers 391 onwards are mentioned in the said list. From perusal of the said list, it appears that these 23 students were admitted by the Institution on 27/7/2007 as has been mentioned in vertical column of "Date of Admission". First list (Annexure "A") produced by the University consisted of 390 students which shows that the students who got admission upto 27.7.2009 were included in the first list. From perusal of the said list, it appears that these 23 students were admitted by the Institution on 27/7/2007 as has been mentioned in vertical column of "Date of Admission". First list (Annexure "A") produced by the University consisted of 390 students which shows that the students who got admission upto 27.7.2009 were included in the first list. Receipt numbers are also mentioned in the said list. ( 10. ) List which is filed by the University along with the letter Annexure "B" shows the number of the receipt by which petitioner Rahul Singh son of Amar Singh is admitted is 524/5. From perusal of the original list, it appears that one Madan son of Prakash Chand has deposited fees vide Receipt No. 524. Similarly, the list Annexure "B" shows that petitioner Arun Kumar Parihar son of Malkhan had deposited fees vide Receipt No. 525/5. Original list shows that one Vinay son of Gitesh had deposited the fees vide Receipt No. 525. Similarly, receipt numbers of other 23 students appear in the original list but names of the students are different. The original list shows that these students were also admitted to the same course. The only difference in the numbers of the receipt is "/5" while in the original list, there is no "/". Apart from that, list submitted along with document Annexure "B" by the University shows that these 23, petitioners were admitted on 8th/9th of August 2007, while as per the list submitted alongwith the affidavit of said Dharmendar Vyas dated 30/11/2009, the petitioners were admitted on 27.7.2009. Had the petitioners been admitted on 27/7/2007, why their fees were received for the first time on 8th/9th of August, 2007 creates doubt about the genuineness of the receipts. Duplicate numbers of the receipts also clearly establish that these petitioners were not admitted by the respondent institution at initial stage and their names were subsequently introduced in the list which was forwarded to the University on 19/2/2008. ( 11. ) Thus, it is apparent that respondent No. 3 Institution has played fraud not only with the petitioners students but also with the respondent University. Any educational Institution which is playing fraud with the career of students cannot be permitted to go scot-free. In such circumstances, we direct the State Government to prosecute the Directors of respondent No. 3 Institution. ( 12. Any educational Institution which is playing fraud with the career of students cannot be permitted to go scot-free. In such circumstances, we direct the State Government to prosecute the Directors of respondent No. 3 Institution. ( 12. ) So far as petitioners are concerned, they have appeared in the first semester examination in pursuance of interim order dated 22.2.2008 passed by this Court. These petitioners are the victim of fraud and they are suffering due to the fraud played by respondent No. 3 Institution. Hence, we direct the respondent University to declare their results, if they have passed in the same examination. They may be permitted to take admission in some other Institution conducting the said course in the next semester. Respondent No. 3 Institution is also directed to pay compensation to these petitioners to the tune of Rs. 50,000.00 (Rs. fifty thousand) each. The State Government shall further see that such Institution are not permitted to impart education to the students in future. Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid.