JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition pertains to Rajasthan Pre-Medical Test, 2009 (for short 'the RPMT-2009'). The RPMT-2009 was conducted for admission in MBBS/BDS/BV Sc and AH courses (for short 'medical course') in 13 medical and veterinary colleges. The test was scheduled to be held on 24.5.2009 followed by further calendar for declaration of result and counselling thereon. At the time of examination, thumb impressions of the candidates were taken on OMR sheet so that it may be matched at the time of counselling in order to overcome from any possibility of cheating by impersonation. Petitioner has made allegations regarding mass cheating in RPMT 2009 by impersonation. Knowing about the same, he made certain representations to the Rajasthan University of Health Sciences- respondent No. 1 (for short 'the University') followed by representation to the Health Minister and the Chief Minister. When no enquiry was conducted by the respective respondents despite making allegations that many candidates have secured very good marks as compared to petitioner though their previous performance was very poor, petitioner filed this writ petition to seek a direction for enquiry. 2. On filing of the writ petition, this court issued show cause notice and vide order dated 11.9.2009 a direction was given to the respondent No. 4-Secretary, Medical Education, State of Rajasthan to constitute three member committee to seek a preliminary report. Vide order dated 16.9.2009, this court passed further orders to hold a detailed enquiry by team of police officers headed by Mr. P.K. Singh, Inspector General of Police, Jaipur. Aforesaid order was passed, when pursuant to the earlier order, information was submitted that FIR has been lodged against three students in Police Station Ashok Nagar, Jaipur based on a report submitted by the committee of five members constituted by the University on 20.6.2009. By another order dated 30.9.2009, further directions were given to the enquiry team headed by Mr. P.K. Singh to conduct enquiry at the earliest with clear indication that team shall examine all aspects of the matter independent to what has been done by any committee/ team constituted by the official respondents. 3. The committee, thereupon, submitted its report, which was taken on record and, at the request of respective parties including respondent No. 5-Mahatma Gandhi Medical College & Hospital, Jaipur (for short 'the medical college'), liberty was given to obtain certified copy of the report and to submit response vide order dated 26.2.2010. 3. The committee, thereupon, submitted its report, which was taken on record and, at the request of respective parties including respondent No. 5-Mahatma Gandhi Medical College & Hospital, Jaipur (for short 'the medical college'), liberty was given to obtain certified copy of the report and to submit response vide order dated 26.2.2010. Accordingly, response/ objections pursuant to the report were submitted by respective parties. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner has mainly relied upon report submitted by Mr PK Singh committee. Referring to the report, it is urged that allegations made in the writ petition have been found to be true. 16 candidates are found involved in cheating by impersonation and they are pursuing their studies in different medical colleges. 13 candidates were given admission ignoring meritorious candidates in violation of the rules by the respondent No. 5-medical college. Referring to various other issues taken up in the committee headed by Mr. P.K. Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, in his written arguments, extracted issues from the report to focus substance of his arguments. They are quoted thus - (i) That the seals of original question papers of absent students has been found broken at 4 centres of RPMT-2009 as mentioned at point No. 6.4 at page 25 of the report which tent amounted to leakage of the paper as observed by the committee and at page 27 in para 6.5 that FIR shall be lodged under Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of illegal means) Act,1992 by Registrar, RUHS in this regard. (ii) That in para 6.6 of the aforesaid report the names and roll numbers of the students who has either not done rough work or has done very less rough work has been given which has been observed to be tent amounted that the aforesaid candidates might have knowing the paper and answers earlier or has been permitted to copying during the course of examination and in para 6.6.2 it has been observed that along with the FIR being filed as per para 6.5 the FIR may also be lodged in this regard also along with the aforesaid FIR as the same may relate to leakage of paper as mentioned in para No. 6.4. (iii) That the aforesaid investigating committee after due consideration of FSL report of the candidates has found 16 candidates being admitted by cheating by impersonations as mentioned in para 6.9 of the aforesaid report and in para 6.9.1 the Committee headed by Shri P.K. Singh, IG has recommended of filing FIR against the aforesaid illegality and for cancellation of the admission of the aforesaid students under ordinance 152(3) of the Rajasthan University and further has recommended for giving admission in place of the aforesaid illegally admitted candidates and has recommended for filing FIR to investigate and punish to the persons who were beneficiaries and the persons who appeared against the aforesaid candidates by unfolding of the racket of cheating by impersonations. (iv) That in para 6.10 of the aforesaid report it has been observed by the committee that OMR sheets of 6 candidates has been changed and in para 6.10.1 has recommended for filing FIR under Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of illegal means) Act, 1992. (v) That in para 7.2 of the aforesaid report the committee has pointed out the collusion of Shri P.K. Saraswat, Convener UG Admission Board with the private college Mahatma Gandhi Medical College. (vi) That in Chapter 8 the illegality being done by Mahatma Gandhi Medical College in giving admissions has been pointed out and in para E comparison of marks of the candidates who has been given admission who were either failed in RPMT or were having much lower merit has been given admission whereas the petitioners and other candidates who were having very high marks have been left out as mentioned in Chapter 8 of the report. (vii) That in Chapter 9 the aforesaid committee had pointed out the illegalities being done by the Hon'ble Justice Israni Committee by which after the result of RPMT the second result of the remaining candidate by removing negative marking has been declared and admissions has been given on the basis of such result being declared after removing negative marking and at page 64 and 68 of the aforesaid report the aforesaid committee has observed that the Mahatma Gandhi Medical College has given 13 illegal admissions in the year 2009 and earlier 21 admissions of the year 2008 has been given by the aforesaid college in MBBS and even when Board of management of the University of RUHS on 20/8/2009 has ordered for cancellation of such admissions has not passed any orders due to manipulations of Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and even though the enrolment of aforesaid students has not been done by the University they had been allowed to appear in the examination in an illegal and fraudulent manner and the aforesaid committee in para 9.4 has pointed out the aforesaid illegality done by the Israni Committee and further by the Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and therefore has recommended in para 9.5 for filing FIR under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against such persons and cancelling the illegal admissions and giving admission from the waiting list of the candidates. (viii) That therefore it is abundantly clear by the report dated 10/2/2010 that so far as 2008 admissions were concerned the Mahatma Gandhi Medical College has given admissions to 21 candidates whose admissions has been ordered to be cancelled by the Board of Management of RUHS vide Board of Management meeting dated 20/8/2009 and admissions were required to have been given from the remaining RPMT passed candidates on the basis of their merit in place of the aforesaid 21 persons and further in RPMT 2009 the Committee observed that 16 admissions were given by cheating by impersonations, 10 by permitting cheating to the persons who has not done or has done very less rough work, 13 admissions to the failed RPMT candidates by Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and therefore FIR has to be lodged for the aforesaid corruption being done in the admissions and to enquire and punish the kingpins of racket of holding admissions through cheating by impersonations and further permitting admissions illegally by changing criteria etc. in order to permitting illegal admissions by private medical college like Mahatma Gandhi Medical College and to give admission to the petitioners and other candidates who are coming in merit for admission in the MBBS course in place of illegally admitted candidates. (ix) That case No. 2,3,4,11 and 12 of the present written submissions related to 2008 admissions and rest are related to 2009 admissions and it has been revealed out finally on 10/2/2010 that 21 admissions were ordered to be cancelled as per decision of Board of Management in August 2009 and those persons were not even been enrolled by the University and therefore in place of the aforesaid persons the petitioners of the writ petition Item No. 2,3,4 and 11 of the present written submission deserves to have been given admissions in place of the aforesaid illegal admissions. The candidates whose admission has been cancelled vide order dated 10/2/2010 has also filed S.B. C.W. No. 2946/2010 Anju Choudhary & Ors. v. R.U.H.S. & ors. on 24/2/2010 and the same deserves to be dismissed and the petitioners of writ petitions mentioned at Item, No. 2,3,4 and 11 deserves to have been admitted against the seats vacated by the aforesaid 21 candidates. (x)That so far as case No. 1, 5,6 and 7 related to those candidates who has not been given admission in MBBS in the year 2009 although they were meritorious but persons lower in merit or admissions on the basis of cheating by impersonations, fraud has been given therefore has prayed for giving admission to them by removing the aforesaid illegal admissions. xi)That the petitioners of case No. 8, 9 and 10 or the candidates who has been given admission in MBBS at Jhalawar Medical College although the seats were available in various Govt. and private medical college in Jaipur itself against the vacant seats of CPMT quota and also against RPMT-2009 quota and has also prayed for considering their candidature against the seats being vacated by cancellation of the candidature of the candidates who were given admission by cheating by impersonations, fraud, illegal admissions to the persons lower in merit as referred herein above and therefore prayed for being adjusted against the aforesaid seats on priority basis as per their merit." 5. In reference to the aforesaid, the prayer of learned counsel for petitioner is to allow the writ petition with grant of prayer made therein. In reference to the aforesaid, the prayer of learned counsel for petitioner is to allow the writ petition with grant of prayer made therein. The matter may be referred to the Central Bureau of Investigation so that guilty may be punished and, at the same time, meritorious candidates may seek admission. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Nirmal Singh Kehlo v. State of Punjab" ( AIR 2009 SC 984 ) . It is submitted that an enquiry report pursuant to the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court or the High Court can result in filing of FIR treating it to be a public dispute instead of a private dispute. 7. According to learned counsel for petitioner, admission to the medical course can be given based on merit in the entrance test only. To substantiate his argument, reference of judgment in the cases of "PA Inamdar v. State of Maharashtra", AIR 2005 (3) SC 3226 , "Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka & ors", JT 2003 (7) SC-1 and "TMA Pai Foundation & ors v. State of Karnatake & ors", JT 2002 (9) SC 1 has been given. Relying on those judgments, it is stated that those who have not appeared in the entrance examination cannot be continued in MBBS course so as the less meritorious candidates. Prayer is, accordingly, to cancel such admissions as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Harish Verma & ors v. Ajay Srivastava & State of Rajasthan & ors", AIR 2003 SC 3371 so also in the case of "Manish Ujjawal v. MDS University", 2005 (8) RDD 217 (SC). 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court also held that a candidate appeared or admitted illegally cannot question it on non-compliance of provisions of natural justice. Reference of the judgment in the case of "Mohammad Sartaj v. State of UP", 2006 (2) SLR 1999 (SC), and "State of MP v. Shyama Pardhi", AIR 1996 (SC) 2219 has been given apart from other judgments wherein it has been held hat misplaced sympathies may not be shown. Reference of judgment in the case of "M/s Vishal Properties Pvt Ltd v. State of UP & ors", AIR 2008 SC 183 has also been given. 9. Reference of judgment in the case of "M/s Vishal Properties Pvt Ltd v. State of UP & ors", AIR 2008 SC 183 has also been given. 9. Learned counsel has further given reference of other judgment in the case of "Regional Manager, Central Bank of India v. Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir", (2008) 13 SCC 170 , "Madhuri Patil v. Commissioner, Tribal Development" (1994) 6 SCC 241 , "BHEL v. Suresh Ramkrishna Burde" (2007) 5 SCC 336 , "Bank of India v. Avinash D Mandivikar", (2005) 7 SCC 690 , "R. Vishvanathan Pillai v. State of Kerala" (2004) 2 SCC 105 , "Rampreeti Yadav v. UP Board" (2003) 8 SCC 311 , "Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi" (2003) 8 SCC 319 and "Bhaurao Dagdu Parikar v. State of Maharashtra" (2005) 7 SCC 605 to show that even equity does not lie in favour of those who have taken admission by illegal or fraudulent means. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the University submitted that Mr. P.K. Singh committee report concludes by holding that 16 students are involved in cheating by impersonation and admissions to the less meritorious candidates have been given by respondent No. 5-medical college. 11. So far as issue of cheating by impersonation is concerned, it is admitted that necessary action would be taken as directed by the court. This is for the reason that committee report is pursuant to the directions of this court. Prior to order of the court, respondents themselves took action in the matter and, accordingly, to find out the truth, a committee was constituted by the order dated 20.6.2009. The committee was to specifically enquire into the matter for six students named by the petitioner, involved in cheating by impersonation. The committee was prima facie of the opinion that Bhawani Shankar Saini, Mahendra Kumar Saini and Bharat Bhushan Meena are involved in cheating by impersonation. University further received a letter from the Dy Secretary, Medical Education to make a detailed enquiry into the allegations. 12. A report, thereupon, came on 25.8.2009, wherein, out of six students called, thumb impressions of five students were taken before an expert and one Nirmal Kumar Khaider did not report before the committee. The matter was sent for report form the Director, Finger Print Bureau, who then gave report on 7.9.2009. 12. A report, thereupon, came on 25.8.2009, wherein, out of six students called, thumb impressions of five students were taken before an expert and one Nirmal Kumar Khaider did not report before the committee. The matter was sent for report form the Director, Finger Print Bureau, who then gave report on 7.9.2009. The University considered the matter at the highest level and decided to cancel the admission of students who were found involved in cheating by impersonation and to lodge FIR against them. 13. Against one student who did not appear in RPMT-2009, it was decided to give him a notice before cancellation of his admission. 14. It is decided to take thumb impressions of all the students who are going to appear for the second counselling and further to call thumb impressions of all the students admitted in the first counselling. The University finally took a decision to purchase a bio-metric machine so that thumb impressions of students can be matched at the time of counselling itself though in future. 15. So far as admission to 13 students by respondent No. 5-college is concerned, it is submitted by learned counsel for the University that a decision has already been taken to initiate action against irregular admissions. A show cause notice to this effect has already been issued on 18.3.2010 to the college to show as to why forms of enrolment of such students may not be rejected. 16. The University simultaneously sent a letter to the Secretary, Medical Education on 13.3.2010 to seek necessary instructions for initiation of action against respondent No. 5-college. The University, in substance, has initiated action against defaulting students involved in cheating and admission of 13 students after ignoring merit of others, resulting in denial of admission of meritorious candidates. They have raised objection for action against Justice IS Israni committee report. It is stated that Justice IS Israni committee has been constituted pursuant to directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court. The said committee has given jurisdiction to look after various aspects pertaining to admission through (Private Colleges Pre Medical Test ( for short 'PCPMT') which is held by the Federation of private colleges. 17. It is further submitted that candidates involved in cheating by impersonation and the students given admission irrespective of their low merit, ignoring meritorious candidates deserve no sympathy even if they have been allowed to continue their studies. 17. It is further submitted that candidates involved in cheating by impersonation and the students given admission irrespective of their low merit, ignoring meritorious candidates deserve no sympathy even if they have been allowed to continue their studies. To support contentions reliance has been made on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Mahatma Gandhi University & anr v. GIS Jose & ors", (2008) 17 SCC 611 , "Guru Nanak Dev University v. Parminder Kr Bansal & anr" AIR 1993 SC 2412 , "CBSE & anr v. P Sunil Kumar & ors" (1998) 5 SCC 377 , "Ram Preeti Yadav v. UP Board of High School And Intermediate Education & ors" (2003) 8 SCC 311 and "National Board of Examinations v. G Anand Ramamurthy & ors" (2006) 5 SCC 515 . The University has thus supported the writ petition to the extent of the allegations of involvement of few candidates in cheating by impersonation and admission of 13 students despite their low merit and prayed for appropriate directions by this court for action. 18. It is lastly submitted that for future a detailed circular has been issued to culminate chances of cheating by impersonation or such similarly related problems. The Government has also issued circular dated 3.4.2010 and, at the same time, University has given further suggestion vide letter dated 17.5.2010 for necessary amendments for future Pre Medical Test for admission in MBBS/BDS course. 19. Learned Additional Advocate General Mr. N.A. Naqvi, appearing for the State of Rajasthan, has supported arguments made by learned counsel for University. It is urged that on receipt of report of the committee, constituted by the University on 25.8.2009 as also the report of the Director, Finger Print Bureau dated 7.9.2009, a meeting was held in the Chamber of the Health Minister wherein serious view was taken in the matter of cheating by impersonation. The decision taken in the meeting was summarised by the learned Additional Advocate General which is available in the reply submitted by respondents No. 3 and 4 (in reply to para 15 of the writ petition) : "1. It was decided that the students who have managed to cheat by impersonation, their admission may be cancelled. 2. It was also decided that FIR be lodged in this matter. 3. It was decided that the students who have managed to cheat by impersonation, their admission may be cancelled. 2. It was also decided that FIR be lodged in this matter. 3. Regarding one student who did not appear, it was decided that he may be given a written notice and if he did not appear his admission may be cancelled. 4. It was decided that the second counselling for the year 2009 which is going to be held now, thumb impressions of the students will be taken and the comparisons be made by the State Crime Bureau. 5. It was decided that thumb impressions of the students who have appeared in the first counselling may be taken now and comparison of the same with the thumb/finger examination taken at the time of examination may be conducted through State Record Crime Bureau. 6. In regard to the future examination it was also decided that the thumb impression of students would be taken at the time of examination and also at the time of counselling and biometric machines may be purchased for making comparison then and there. 7. It was also decided at the examination centre video-graph may also be conducted at all the centres at the time of written examinations. The photocopy of the minutes of the meeting dated 8.9.2009 are filed herewith and marked as Annexure-R-4." 20. So far as admission to 13 less meritorious candidates by medical college as well as other admission in BDS course is concerned, it is urged that necessary instructions have been issued for cancellation of their admission. Even letter has been sent to the Indian Dental Council to examine the matter thus so far as enquiry report by Mr PK Singh committee giving finding of illegal admission to 13 students in MBBS course in respondent No. 5 college and also admission in Dental College is concerned, same has been endorsed by the learned Additional Advocate General, however, the action recommended against Justice IS Israni committee has been opposed on the grounds otherwise urged by learned counsel for the University. 21. It is lastly urged that the State Government has already issued instructions to the University for taking action pursuant to Mr. P.K. Singh committee report as recommended at para No. 6.9.1. Aforesaid instructions were issued vide letter dated 29.4.2010 followed by reminder on 18.5.2010 and 1.7.2010. 21. It is lastly urged that the State Government has already issued instructions to the University for taking action pursuant to Mr. P.K. Singh committee report as recommended at para No. 6.9.1. Aforesaid instructions were issued vide letter dated 29.4.2010 followed by reminder on 18.5.2010 and 1.7.2010. It was in view of the fact that even Mr. P.K. Singh committee enquired the matter beyond its jurisdiction. Learned Additional Advocate General has relied on the judgments in the case of "Regional Manager, Central Bank of India v. Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir & ors" (2008) 13 SCC 170 , "Mallikarjuna Mudhagal Nagappa & ors v. State of Karnataka & ors" (2000 ) 7 SCC 238 , "State of Punjab & ors v. Renuka Singla & ors" (1994) 1 SCC 175 , "State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Sahebrao Roundale & ors" (1992) 4 SCC 435 and "Ram Preeti Yadav v. UP Board of High School Intermediate Education & ors" 2003 (8) SCC 311 . 22. Learned counsel appearing for the University and the learned Additional Advocate General seriously opposed the plea raised by respondent No. 5-medical college regarding 13 admissions in MBBS course and other admissions in Dental course for which session started from the year 2009. Both the counsel specifically submitted that respondent No. 5-medical college was sent a list of 126 students after first counselling against 127 seats. On 17/18.9.2009, reshuffling was permitted and a list of 39 candidates was sent along with waiting list of 28 candidates. This was sent on 18.9.2009. The respondent No. 5 college published an advertisement soon thereafter on 19.9.2009 and 20.9.2009 calling for applications to fill up vacant seats without even waiting for candidates to report pursuant to list sent on 18.9.2009. The only excuse taken by the respondent college is in reference to the letter dated 25.9.2009 without realising that their advertisement and action to fill up vacant seats is much prior to aforesaid letter and thereby ignoring meritorious candidates, 13 students were given admission in MBBS course and, similarly, 34 students in BDS course in an illegal manner. 23. Learned counsel for Mahatma Gandhi Medical College & Hospital- respondent No. 5 Mr SP Sharma submits that the college has not committed any illegality in admitting students for MBBS/BDS course. The college comes into picture only when candidates are finally allotted to it pursuant to the counselling conducted by the RUHS. Thus, not only Mr. 23. Learned counsel for Mahatma Gandhi Medical College & Hospital- respondent No. 5 Mr SP Sharma submits that the college has not committed any illegality in admitting students for MBBS/BDS course. The college comes into picture only when candidates are finally allotted to it pursuant to the counselling conducted by the RUHS. Thus, not only Mr. P.K. Singh committee ignored this aspect but went beyond the orders passed by this court for inquiry. The issue was regarding allegation of cheating by impersonation in RPMT 2009 thus any report other than the issue referred to above is to be ignored. 24. Without prejudice to the aforesaid arguments, learned counsel for the college urged that action for admission in MBBS course for the year 2009 has wrongly put under dispute more so when college had fully cooperated Mr PK Singh committee for its enquiry. Before conducting the enquiry against the college, no notice was given to the management of the college. Mr. P.K. Singh committee submitted its report based on surmises and conjectures, and High Court should not have asked the police authorities to conduct inquiry to find out whether college committed any illegality. He has supported his view by referring the judgment in the case of "Sescerrevtiacreys, Mui. Npo. R& Irorrisg.Ation & Rural Engg. v. Sahngoo Ram Arya & Anr" AIR 2002 (SC) 2225 and 1999 SC 2997. 25. Learned counsel Shri SP Sharma submits that so far as admissions in private medical college are concerned, it is governed by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of TMA Pai Foundation & ors v. State of Karnataka & ors, JT 2002 (9) SC 1 , Islamic Academy of Education and anr v. State of Karnataka & ors., (2003) 6 SCC 697 and P.A. Inamdar and others v. State of Maharashtra & ors., AIR 2005 SC 3226 . The gist of the judgments cited at the Bar is that State is not having power to insist on seat sharing in unaided private medical colleges. It is for the college management to decide from where it wants to fill up the seat. The only mandate is to follow merit admission system. In this case, respondent-medical college opted to get students in order of merit from RPMT 2009. It is for the college management to decide from where it wants to fill up the seat. The only mandate is to follow merit admission system. In this case, respondent-medical college opted to get students in order of merit from RPMT 2009. All meritorious candidates recommended through counselling were given admission leaving those who failed to deposit fee in time and the Convenor was unable to send another list of available candidates for their admission. The respondent medical college cannot keep seats vacant thus it had no option but to invite candidates at their own level, who were meritorious enough and ready to pay the fee. For admission in the year 2009, respondent college was having 127 seats for MBBS course other than in NRI quota. After first counselling, a list of 125 candidates was sent vide letter dated 18.7.2009. Respondent college thereupon sent a letter on 7.8.2009 mentioning names of 34 candidates who did not report for admission. A separate list was sent for the candidates of BDS course. The Undergraduate Admission Board thereafter conducted second counselling and sent a complete list of 125 candidates on 18.9.2009 which was inclusive of wait list containing names of 28 candidates. Out of second list, only 5 students took admission. So far as other students are concerned, they did not report either from the main list or the wait list and 13 residual seats in MBBS course remain vacant for the year 2009. Same was the position regarding BDS course. In the aforesaid circumstances, answering respondent college was left with no option but to issue an advertisement to fill up remaining vacant seats. Copy of the advertisement was sent to the RUHS. The aforesaid advertisement was issued pursuant to the recommendations made by Hon'ble Justice IS Israni and letter dated 25.9.2009 endorsed to the respondent medical college. Hon'ble Justice IS Israni committee recommended certain modes to fill up seats. The committee was consist of officer of the State Government and Vice Chancellor of the University. Endorsement of the letter dated 25.9.2009 was sufficient to show that respondent medical college was given liberty to fill up vacant seats, as no further counselling was to take place after 25.9.2009. Thus action of the respondent medical college was in consonance to the aforesaid decision. Endorsement of the letter dated 25.9.2009 was sufficient to show that respondent medical college was given liberty to fill up vacant seats, as no further counselling was to take place after 25.9.2009. Thus action of the respondent medical college was in consonance to the aforesaid decision. Justice IS Israni committee had given liberty to remove negative marks of the candidates declared failed in RPMT 2009 examination apart from PCPMT examination. The university accordingly declared the result after removing negative marks of those students who were declared failed. List was then made available on website. The respondents herein made a representation raising their objections to the aforesaid. In any case, respondent medical college followed the instructions as given under letter dated 25.9.2009 and filled up vacant seats of the session 2009. 12 students were admitted who had passed RPMT 2009, PCPMT or All India Pre Medical Test. One student was given admission by shifting from NRI quota in view of the fact that she was declared passed in revised list. Excess fee was refunded to her. 26. The facts aforesaid show that there was transparency in the action of the respondent medical college. This is more so when the respondent medical college was under an obligation to fill up vacant seats within the schedule of admission given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Mridul Dhar (minor) & anr v. Union of India & ors", ( 2005 (2) SCC 65 . 27. I have considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for parties, perused the judgments cited at the Bar and scanned the matter carefully. 28. Looking to the seriousness of the allegations made in the writ petition and preliminary report submitted by the committee pursuant to the directions of this court dated 11.9.2009, this court proceeded to call for detailed enquiry report when in the preliminary report a case of cheating by impersonation was found. Mr. P.K. Singh committee so constituted by this court thereupon was directed to look into all the aspects of the matter independent to what had been done by the committee/ team constituted by the official respondents. The committee submitted a detailed report after thorough enquiry. The report was covering all the aspects regarding examination of RPMT-2009 and admission to MBBS/BDS course pursuant thereto. 29. The committee submitted a detailed report after thorough enquiry. The report was covering all the aspects regarding examination of RPMT-2009 and admission to MBBS/BDS course pursuant thereto. 29. Respective parties, including respondent No. 5-college, were given liberty to seek copy of the report and to submit their response/ objections, if any, thereupon and, accordingly, respondents submitted their response. 30. At the stage when writ petition was filed, the only allegation made therein was regarding cheating by impersonation. It was stated that despite representations given to the official respondents, no action has been taken. So far as allegation of cheating by impersonation is concerned, it was found proved by the committee constituted by the University itself and, now, in the inquiry made by Mr. P.K. Singh committee. 31. Respondents No. 1 to 4 have raised no objection regarding findings in the enquiry report, rather they intend to take action against 16 students found involved in the matter of cheating by impersonation and admitted to different medical colleges. In view of aforesaid, first issue is concluded with the direction to the respondents to take action against those students who are found involved in cheating by impersonation. This includes action by lodging FIR and other action not only against students but against others who are involved therein. Since respondents have also taken a decision to cancel admission, no direction is required except to direct for prompt action in that regard. 32. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied on various judgments to substantiate his arguments. The case of Nirmal Singh Kehlo v. State of Punjab, AIR 2009 SC 984 has been relied for lodging an FIR pursuant to the enquiry report sought by the court. The case of Harish Verma & ors v. Ajay Srivastava & ors., AIR 2003 SC 3371 and Manish Ujjwal v. MDS University, 2005 (8) RDD-217 (SC) have been relied to cancel admission made in an illegal manner and, for that purpose, even principles of natural justice are not required to be followed as held in the case of Mohammad Sartaj v. State of UP., 2006 (2) SLR 1999 (SC) so as the case of State of MP v. Shyama Pardhi, AIR 1996 (SC) 2219 . 33. Further judgments is that equity does not lie in favour of those who have taken admission by illegal or fraudulent means. 33. Further judgments is that equity does not lie in favour of those who have taken admission by illegal or fraudulent means. Various judgments have been relied by learned counsel for petitioner to strengthen the arguments as applicable to the present matter and are supported by the judgments cited by learned counsel for State of Rajasthan and the University thus directions as given for 16 students should be carved out at the earliest. 34. Now, the issue comes regarding admission of 13 students in MBBS course and others in the BDS course by the respondent No. 5-medical college. 35. Learned counsel for respondent No. 5- medical college raised preliminary objections regarding Mr PK Singh enquiry committee report on the ground that committee enquired the matter beyond directions of this court. He has even challenged the directions for constitution of enquiry committee. It is stated that contents of the writ petition and relief prayed for pertain to the allegations of cheating by impersonation thus question of admission of less meritorious candidates in respondent No. 5 medical college is not subject matter of this writ petition. 36. I have considered the aforesaid arguments. It is, no doubt true that writ petition makes allegations of cheating by impersonation and, accordingly, prayer has been made. However, while the enquiry was conducted by Mr. P.K. Singh committee, the entire matter was taken up regarding RPMT 2009 and admissions in different courses as a consequence thereof. It seems to be pursuant to directions of this court dated 30.9.2009 wherein the enquiry team was directed to examine all aspects of the matter. In any case, even if it is taken to be a case where Mr. P.K. Singh committee has given report beyond the directions of this court, the fact remains that the allegations of admission to less meritorious candidates in MBBS and BDS courses by respondent No. 5 medical college has not been disputed though they have justified their action in the facts and circumstances. The official respondents have already decided to initiate action in the matter. In that regard, University vide its letter dated 17.3.2010 sought instructions from the State Government and, in turn, State Government vide its letter dated 19.3.2010 issued directions to take action for cancellation of 13 illegal admissions with suitable action against respondent No. 5 medical college as well as Dental college. 37. In that regard, University vide its letter dated 17.3.2010 sought instructions from the State Government and, in turn, State Government vide its letter dated 19.3.2010 issued directions to take action for cancellation of 13 illegal admissions with suitable action against respondent No. 5 medical college as well as Dental college. 37. Letter dated 15.3.2010 has been sent to the Indian Medical Council for taking appropriate action. Similar letter has been sent to the University on the same date. Aforesaid initiation of action in the matter is at the instance of the official respondents themselves. 38. At this state, learned counsel for medical college- respondent No. 5 submitted that the claim against 13 admissions in dispute may not be entertained as no one can be given admission from the year 2009 thus instead of directing or permitting the State Government or the University to proceed further, alternative order may be passed so that 13 admissions may continue as they are not otherwise lacking in qualifications. Looking to their career, medical college is even ready to bear the penalty if imposed by this court. It is also assured by the medical college that onwards they will make endeavour to give admission based on merit of RPMT only. This is to avoid further litigation and to keep the things transparent. 39. I have considered the submissions aforesaid. It is not in dispute that 13 less meritorious candidates have been given admission through medical college has tried to justify their action, however, I am not convinced by it as advertisement to fill up the seats cannot be given at the stage when second list was received on that date only. It should not have been done in anticipation at that stage. It is, however, a fact that against those admissions in dispute, no admission can be given from the year 2009, however, medical college deserves to be penalised. 40. In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the medical college, I am of the opinion that Medical College should pay fee of one year of 13 students to the University as a token of penalty and it may be taken in sufficiency of the action proposed against the medical college and the students. A specific direction to this effect has otherwise been given in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 8875/2010, Anu Saini & ors v. State of Rajasthan & anr. A specific direction to this effect has otherwise been given in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 8875/2010, Anu Saini & ors v. State of Rajasthan & anr. The aforesaid case was heard recently but judgment of the said case has been pronounced along with this judgment. The aforesaid arrangement is allowed in the background that admission of 13 students is not based solely on 10+2 qualification but they had appeared in competitive entrance examination either at All India level or in the RPMT/ PCPMT. Thus, there exist difference between candidates having admitted solely based on 10+2 qualification which otherwise goes against the Medical Council of India Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997. It is, however, clarified that if penalty amount as aforesaid is not paid by the medical college despite acceptance then official respondents may proceed to take further action so far as admissions of 13 students are concerned. 41. So far as Mr. P.K. Singh committee report covering other aspects are concerned, it shows alarming facts and, the way enquiry has been conducted, needs appreciation. Nobody should be allowed to take education as a business and if somebody tries to indulge in an illegal practice leaving pious object, no equity can come in their favour. The official respondents are, accordingly, directed to look into the enquiry report submitted by Mr PK Singh committee in respect of other aspects and take independent decision for initiation of action pursuant to the illegalities indicated. It is expected that such a decision would be taken without bias but with an effort to dis-allow illegalities. A decision in that regard would be taken within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 42. At this stage, it may be clarified that so far as recommendations of Justice IS Israni committee is concerned, it travels somewhere beyond jurisdiction given to the said committee by the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is having jurisdiction to look into the matter pertaining to admission by PCPMT only. While the committee's recommendations were received by the Government, it was obligatory on their part to look into aforesaid aspect before issuing an order for that purpose. In any case, the order/circular was issued on 25.9.2009. It is having jurisdiction to look into the matter pertaining to admission by PCPMT only. While the committee's recommendations were received by the Government, it was obligatory on their part to look into aforesaid aspect before issuing an order for that purpose. In any case, the order/circular was issued on 25.9.2009. Officers of the State Government were called in the court and they assured that in future the committee will not take up matter pertaining to any issue of RPMT and, accordingly, recommendations of Mr PK Singh committee for taking action against Justice IS Israni committee is not accepted. It may, however, be clarified that result once declared should not be ordered to be modified in any manner. The committee is expected to promote level of education and not demote it. 43. In the light of the observations and directions made above, official respondents are expected to take prompt action in the matter specifically regarding the matter of cheating by impersonation and other related matter. On cancellation of admission of those who are involved in cheating by impersonation, willing petitioners in the connected cases be allowed to reshuffle. The other related issues focused by Mr PK Singh committee may be taken up by making scrutiny of the facts at the level of official respondents themselves with follow up action. 44. With the aforesaid directions, writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs.Writ petition allowed as above. *******