JUDGMENT 1. - A student of B.Ed. Course studying in Pandit Badri Prasad Teachers Training College, Bandikui district Dausa, being aggrieved of the action of the college, has filed this writ petition seeking relief that the action of the college-respondent no. 5 in declaring the petitioner as short of attendance by tampering with the attendance register and not deliberately sending the sessional marks to the University be declared illegal and null and void. The petitioner has prayed that the respondent no. 5 be directed to send his sessional marks to the University, it is further prayed that then Controller of Examination of the University of Rajasthan-respondent no. 2 be directed to declare the result of the petitioner afresh after including his sessional marks or in the alternative the respondent no. 2 be directed to allot the sessional marks to the petitioner on the basis of the written examination marks secured by him. He has also prayed to declare the attendance register as manipulated and the higher authorities be directed to take action against the college-respondent no. 5. Any other order or direction be issued in his favour, has been prayed by the petitioner, which is deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The broad facts of the case, are that after being successful in PTET examination of the year 2009, the petitioner was allotted Pandit Badri Prasad Teachers Training College, Bandikui District Dausa. Accordingly, the petitioner joined the college and started attending the classes regularly. It is the case of the petitioner that when he was pursuing the course, the head of institution of respondent no. 5 started making illegal demands, in various names, which he was compelled to deposit. At the time of filing of the examination form, the respondent no. 5 had again demanded Rs. 2,000/-, in the garb of examination and stationary charges. When the petitioner resisted to the said demand by not depositing the same, the head of the college gave threat that he would be made short of attendance and also misbehaved with him. The petitioner had then, in this regard, filed a representation to the Collector, District Dausa (Annexure- 2). Similar representations were also sent to the District Education Officer, Dausa, SDO Bandikui, the Registrar, Jai Narayan Vyas University, the Education Minister, National Council for Teachers Education etc. etc. The petitioner had then, in this regard, filed a representation to the Collector, District Dausa (Annexure- 2). Similar representations were also sent to the District Education Officer, Dausa, SDO Bandikui, the Registrar, Jai Narayan Vyas University, the Education Minister, National Council for Teachers Education etc. etc. This had annoyed the head of the college and the petitioner was not allowed to attend the classes. He was threatened that his career would be spoiled and would not be allowed to appear in the final lessons as well as the B.Ed. Examination, on the ground of short of attendance. 3. There-upon, the Collector, Dausa directed the DEO (Secondary) to enquire into the matter. The DEO had then appointed the Principal of Abhaneri Government Secondary School as the enquiry officer and to submit the report (Annexure-3). The said inquiry officer went to the college on 16.4.2010 but he was not provided the concerning record. Neither the staff nor the students of the college were present on that day. The college-respondent no. 5 had also not co-operated with the inquiry officer and he was asked to come on 19.4.2010. The inquiry officer had again visited the college on 19.4.2010 and perused the record and also recorded statements of the students who were present at that time. Some other students had also represented to the inquiry officer mentioning that the petitioner was a regular student of the college and when the head of the college had raised illegal demand which was opposed, that he was restrained from attending the classes. On completion of Inquiry, a report was submitted to the DEO, Dausa 1 mentioning that when the enquiry officer visited the college on 16.4.2010, neither any staff nor students were present. He had specifically mentioned that Rajendra Prasad Lata and Smt. Tripti Sharma were present in the college but they did not co-operate with him and had asked to come again on 19.4.2010. When the enquiry officer visited the college on 19.4.2010, there were only 49 students present, out of a total of 99. But the attendance of the students recorded in the register was more than the one actually present. The teaching staff was also not available in the college and from the record it was revealed that there were three Principals in the college. But the attendance of the students recorded in the register was more than the one actually present. The teaching staff was also not available in the college and from the record it was revealed that there were three Principals in the college. The inquiry officer 1 also stated that other students had informed him that the petitioner was regular in attending the classes but they cannot say this openly, otherwise the same action would be taken against them by the college as has been done in the case of the petitioner. While submitting the report, mentioning all the illegalities, the enquiry officer had also recommended to the DEO, Dausa that 1 the matter needs to be further enquired by the higher authorities (Annexure-5). 4. In the covering letter of the college written to the inquiry officer, while providing the record, it was mentioned that the classes had started from 1.8.2009 but as per the statements of the students, recorded by the inquiry : officer, the classes had actually started from 1.9.2009. Further, it was mentioned in the said letter that on the basis of telephonic information the name of student Rajulal Meena had been struck out as he was not coming to the college on his being selected in Delhi Police. It has been stated by the petitioner that Raju Lal Meena had actually been selected in the month of January but his name was struck from the attendance register on 16.4.2010 when the inquiry officer had visited the college. But the attendance register was provided to the inquiry officer only on 19.4.2010. The manipulation in the attendance register was further evident from the fact that a student of the college, namely; Siya Ram Gurjar, had sustained burn injury at his residence on 14.3.2010 and was admitted in Government Hospital, Bandikui. Thereafter he was referred to SMS Hospital, Jaipur on the same day, where he remained admitted for a long time. But the presence of the said student was being marked in the attendance register since 4.3.2010, up to the end of the month. In respect of the said fire incident, a news item was also published in the daily news paper on 5.3.2010 (Annexures-7 and 8). 5. The inquiry officer was not provided with the attendance register when he had visited the college on 16.4.2010 and manipulation was done in it, to show the petitioner absent. In respect of the said fire incident, a news item was also published in the daily news paper on 5.3.2010 (Annexures-7 and 8). 5. The inquiry officer was not provided with the attendance register when he had visited the college on 16.4.2010 and manipulation was done in it, to show the petitioner absent. But while doing so the attendance register had not been completed, as some columns were left blank. Further manipulation is reflected from the fact that the Collector, Dausa had declared holiday, in all the educational institutions of the district, from 12.1.2010 to 14.1.2010 due to severe cold and Makar Sakranti (published in the news papers of 13.1.2010 and 14.1.2010). On the same day, a news item was published in the daily news paper that due to Panchayat Election, the Collector had declared holiday in Bandikui block for 29.1.2010 and 31.1.2010. But on all these days which were so declared as holidays, attendance was marked in the register of the college (Annexures 9 to 12). On perusal of the attendance register, it is amply clear that the same has been tampered with by the respondent college. The petitioner was restrained from attending the college, by the order dated 6.3.2010 (Annexure-13) with allegation because he had refused to acceed to the illegal demand made by the college. It is said that the petitioner was a regular student and he had participated in all activities of the college. He had filled up the examination form for B.Ed. Examination for the session 2010. The respondent college had, in other sessions also, raised such illegal demands to the students and had been threatening them that otherwise their career would be ruined. A news item was also published In the paper on 24.4.2010 with regard to the students who were registered for the session 2007-08 and had to face the same situation. Similarly the students of the session 2008-09, who had also resisted illegal demand of the college, were shown to have short of attendance. Such students, being aggrieved of the action of the college, had filed a writ petition (Udai Singh Meena & ors. v. The Secretary, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10370/09 ). They had appeared in the B.ED. Examination, by the direction of the High Court, but as they were declared unsuccessful in the examination, their writ petitions were dismissed. 6. Such students, being aggrieved of the action of the college, had filed a writ petition (Udai Singh Meena & ors. v. The Secretary, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10370/09 ). They had appeared in the B.ED. Examination, by the direction of the High Court, but as they were declared unsuccessful in the examination, their writ petitions were dismissed. 6. Apart from the fact that the attendance of the petitioner was shown to be short by tampering with the register, the sessional marks were deliberately not sent to the University. The petitioner had appeared in the B.Ed. Examination as well as the practical and final lesson, as per direction of the High Court and the result of the same had been declared by the University wherein he had secured passing marks but due to absence of sessional marks which had not been declared failed. In the aforesaid circumstances, being aggrieved of the short of attendance and not sending of sessional marks to the University by the respondent college that the petitioner had filed this writ petition. 7. The case of the respondents, as unfolded by their replies, filed separately by the respondent no. 2, respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4 and respondent no. 5, is as given here-under: The Controller of Examination, University of Rajasthan-respondent no. 2, has confined the reply to the pleadings in the writ petition which were related to him. The facts concerning other respondents have not been dealt with. As has been so mentioned in the reply, he has not denied the sending of representations by the petitioner to the District Education Officer, 3DO; the Registrar of the University and other officers of the Government of Rajasthan, with regard to the illegal demand of the amount raised by respondent no. 5. It is the case of the respondent University that the examination form filled by the petitioner for B.Ed. Examination, 2010 had been received by it and he had been allowed to appear in the said examination, as per the order of the court. The result of the examination was kept in an envelop and was to be declared only by the order of the court. The respondent no. Examination, 2010 had been received by it and he had been allowed to appear in the said examination, as per the order of the court. The result of the examination was kept in an envelop and was to be declared only by the order of the court. The respondent no. 2 has not disputed the facts, of para 17 of the writ petition, with regard to the students of the session of 2008-09 who had refused to comply with the illegal demand of the college, as a result of which their attendance was made short. Being aggrieved of the said action of the college, they had filed a writ petition 10370/2009, Udai Singh Meena v. The Secretary ). All those students had appeared in the examination, by the direction issued by the High Court but they had failed in the same. The said writ petitions were accordingly decided. The respondent no. 2 has concluded the reply with the averment that appropriate orders or direction be passed to the concerning respondent, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. The other set of respondents nos. 1, 3 and 4 which includes the District Education Officer, Dausa, have come with the case that the petitioner had submitted a representation to the District Collector, Dausa and the same was sent to the District Education Officer, Dausa on 9.3.2010, to enquire into the matter. The respondent no. 4, the District Education Officer, had appointed Principal, Government Higher Secondary School, Abhaneri District Dausa as an inquiry officer on 22.3.2010. The said inquiry officer while submitting his report to the District Education Officer also made recommendation for appointment of high level committee to enquire into the matter. The DEO had then appointed a committee of two members on 27.7.2010 for enquiring into the case. It is said in the reply that the inquiry is pending before the committee. Further, the case of the respondents is that it was due to absence that the name of the petitioner was detached from the college and he was stopped from appearing in the examination. But as the petitioner obtained interim stay order on 8.8.2010, permission was granted to him for appearing in the examination. In respect of the contents of para 7 of the writ petition, it is stated that they are not disputed. The contents of para 8 of the writ petition are also not denied. But as the petitioner obtained interim stay order on 8.8.2010, permission was granted to him for appearing in the examination. In respect of the contents of para 7 of the writ petition, it is stated that they are not disputed. The contents of para 8 of the writ petition are also not denied. Further, it is stated in respect of para 9 of the writ petition that on the basis of recommendation made by the inquiry officer a special committee was constituted and its enquiry is pending. Similarly, though with regard to the contents of paras 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 of the writ petition, it is stated that they are related to respondent no. 5 but it has been reiterated that so far as inquiry is concerned, the same is pending before the committee. Again in respect to the grounds (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) of para 19 of the writ petition, it is replied by the said respondents that the contents of it relates to respondent no. 5 and the inquiry is pending before the committee. In reply to ground (g) of the writ petition, it has also been submitted that the petitioner should submit his grievance before the inquiry committee. In the end, it has been submitted by the respondents that the writ petition be dismissed with costs, in view of the submissions made by them. It may be noted here that the reply filed, on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4, on 27.9.2010 is supported by the affidavit of Kamlesh Sharma, the District Education Officer (Secondary), Dausa. The DEO (Secondary) Dausa is himself party respondent no. 4 to the writ petition but he has deposed that he is officer in-charge in this case and well conversant with all the facts. Further, that the contents of the annexed reply are correct and true; drafted under his instructions by his counsel; he has carefully gone through it and understood the same. The said deposition had been verified on oath that the contents of affidavit are correct and true. 9. The case of respondent no. 5 - Pandit Badri Prasad Teachers Training College, Bandikui District Dausa, as given in its reply filed by the authorised signatory Smt. Tripti Sharma, is that the petitioner did not attend the classes regularly as per the provisions of the Government/NCTE. 9. The case of respondent no. 5 - Pandit Badri Prasad Teachers Training College, Bandikui District Dausa, as given in its reply filed by the authorised signatory Smt. Tripti Sharma, is that the petitioner did not attend the classes regularly as per the provisions of the Government/NCTE. Therefore, after giving various letters/warning for attending the classes regularly, the respondent no. 5 cancelled the name of the petitioner from the course i.e. B.Ed. on 6.3.2010. Further, it is averred that the behaviour of the student was not good and he was continuing to harass the Principal, teachers and other students. He was always making complaints against the institution without any reason and also absenting himself from classes. Therefore, the respondent institution had to take action against the petitioner and before doing so various letters were issued to him for attending the classes and keeping good behaviour. But the petitioner did not care for it. Therefore, the institution had to take steps of terminating him from the institution. It is also the case of respondent no. 5 that the petitioner had made various false complaints against it on which inquiry was initiated and after considering the same as well as the statements of other students that the office of Deputy Director (Secondary) Jaipur dismissed them on 15.7.2010, as being false. 10. The contents of para 1, 2 and 3 of the writ petition have been denied by respondent no. 5 with separate averments. The reply to the contents of para 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the writ petition have been made jointly. It is averred that the petitioner had sent representations to the higher authorities on baseless grounds. The respondent institution or any of its staff member did not demand any money, except the actual fee, from any of the students and all the allegations/complaints of the petitioner were found to be false. The petitioner had himself mentioned names of some of the students in the complaints/letters but none of them had any grievance against the answering respondent. They have also given affidavits on non-judicial stamp papers and after considering all the facts and affidavits of the students, the Deputy Director (Secondary Education), Jaipur, had dismissed the complaints of the petitioner on 15.7.2010. The petitioner had himself mentioned names of some of the students in the complaints/letters but none of them had any grievance against the answering respondent. They have also given affidavits on non-judicial stamp papers and after considering all the facts and affidavits of the students, the Deputy Director (Secondary Education), Jaipur, had dismissed the complaints of the petitioner on 15.7.2010. It is averred by the respondent that the copies of the affidavits will be kept ready for consideration and perusal of the court at the time of arguments. It is further the case of respondent no. 5 that it is wrong to state that the answering respondent did not co-operate with the inquiry officer. The respondent had provided all the documents to the inquiry officer even though the inquiry officer did not conduct the inquiry properly and submitted the report on false grounds. Therefore, the said inquiry report was not accepted by the higher authorities. Similarly, reply in respect of para 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the writ petition has been given jointly. It is averred that the answering respondent had acted in accordance with law and there is no illegality in deleting the name of the petitioner from the attendance register. The petitioner did not attend the classes regularly and out of 157 working days, he remained absent on 89 days. Therefore, the attendance was below 75% and the petitioner did not fulfil the provisions of NCTE Rules and Regulations. Further, it is averred that as soon as the respondent got information about student Siya Ram Gurjar that he is not attending the classes due to serious burn injuries, a letter was issued to him. The student had submitted an affidavit in this regard on 14.7.2010. It is also the case of respondent no. 5 that a copy of the register (Annexure-12 to the writ petition) clearly speaks about the attendance of the petitioner. The answering respondent had always helped the students. It is also the case of respondent no. 5, in the reply to para 16 of the writ petition that the institution had never threatened the students for illegal demand and so many students have given affidavits deposing that the petitioner was wilfully absent from the classes and he has preferred this writ petition to avoid himself from the liability of 75% compulsory attendance. 5, in the reply to para 16 of the writ petition that the institution had never threatened the students for illegal demand and so many students have given affidavits deposing that the petitioner was wilfully absent from the classes and he has preferred this writ petition to avoid himself from the liability of 75% compulsory attendance. The respondent has averred that Annexure-14 is of no relevance to the present case and not related to the petitioner. The facts of the present case are different from the case cited by the petitioner in para 16 of the writ petition and, therefore, it is not applicable to this case. The petitioner was not entitled to participate in the examination of B.Ed. as his attendance was short and he had not completed the lessons according to the rules. He is not entitled for any benefit from this court. 11. In response to ground (b) of the writ petition, the respondent has averred that the petitioner has wrongly made allegations against the institution as it had not raised any illegal demand from the students. The attendance of the petitioner was short i.e. less than 75% and, therefore, his name had been rightly deleted from the attendance register. All the allegations/complaints were made by the petitioner after deletion of his name from the attendance register. The respondent had, before deleting the name of the petitioner, issued various warning letters to him but he had been avoiding them and did not attend the classes regularly. He had pressurised the answering respondent to mark his presence in the attendance register. The respondent gave many warning about attendance but the petitioner did not attend his classes regularly. In respect of ground (e) of the writ petition, the case of respondent no. 5 is that it had not received any information about ill-health of the petitioner. After receipt of the information about absence from classes of B.Ed. Course, the respondent sent a letter to the student and he submitted affidavit. The absence of student Siya Ram Gurjar was due to accident which was a bona fide cause and he got the benefit of the same. The case of respondent no. 5 in reply to ground (g) of the writ petition is that the inquiry officer had not conducted the inquiry in fair and impartial manner. The absence of student Siya Ram Gurjar was due to accident which was a bona fide cause and he got the benefit of the same. The case of respondent no. 5 in reply to ground (g) of the writ petition is that the inquiry officer had not conducted the inquiry in fair and impartial manner. Therefore, the higher authorities rejected the report and dismissed the complaint after holding it to be false and fabricated. It is also observed by the Deputy Director, Secondary Education, on 15.7.2010 that the allegations are incorrect and the petitioner has made complaints against the institution after deletion of his name from the attendance register. The respondent had not made illegal demand from the students and in respect of it so many students have submitted affidavits. In reply to ground (h), it has been submitted that the answering respondent had never threatened the petitioner or any other students nor raised any illegal demand from them. The facts of the writ petition, mentioned in ground (i), according to respondent no. 5, were different from the present case. The answering respondent has not allowed any of the student, as mentioned in ground (j) of the writ petition. The petitioner has not deposited any amount against the norms as averred in ground (k) of the writ petition. It is the case of the respondent no. 5 in reply to para 19 of the writ petition that it has not committed any illegality. Therefore, the Deputy Director (Secondary Education) dismissed all the complaints, as being false and baseless. 12. On having received the reply from respondent no. 5, the petitioner had filed a rejoinder controverting the facts mentioned therein by the institution. In respect of averments made in the reply and letter Annexure R-1 filed with it, the petitioner has stated that the same is a manipulated one. It is mentioned in the letter that the petitioner came to the college along with his father on 5.3.2010 and threatened/misbehaved with the Secretary of the College whereas on that day, the father of the petitioner was suffering from illness and undergoing treatment at Jaipur. In support of the averment, documents such as medical certificate, order of sanctioning the medical leave etc. have been placed on record as Annexure- 15. In support of the averment, documents such as medical certificate, order of sanctioning the medical leave etc. have been placed on record as Annexure- 15. Similarly the letters which are said to have been sent to the petitioner for attending classes, filed on record, are manipulated as revealed from the despatch register of the college. It is clear from the said register that the letter was sent by the Principal, Chiman College, Dausa, which is a veterinary college run by the head of the institution. This shows that the letters were got prepared so as to misuse the same against the students. A copy of the relevant page of the despatch register, obtained by the petitioner under RTI Act, has been placed on record as Annexure-16. It is also the case of the petitioner that he had sent various complaints to higher authorities, as given in para 3 and 4 of the writ petition, but no complaint had been sent to the Deputy Director (Secondary), Jaipur. In case any complaint had been forwarded to the Deputy Director, by any other authority, then he should have called the petitioner so as to afford an opportunity of hearing. The Deputy Director (Secondary), Jaipur should have also called the relevant record from respondent no. 5 institution. In these circumstances and in absence of notice to the petitioner as well as the record from the college, the order passed by the Deputy Director (Secondary), Jaipur is illegal, without any basis and in violation of the principles of natural justice. It has been averred in the rejoinder that after receipt of the report from the inquiry officer, appointed by the District Education Officer, Dausa and on recommendation for inquiry by higher authorities, the District Education Officer (Secondary) Dausa had constituted a Two Members Committee to enquire into the matter. The said committee, after having gone through the entire record of the institution, submitted a report to the District Education Officer, Dausa on 9.9.2010, which is against the college. A copy of the said report obtained under the RTI Act, has been placed on record as Annexure-17. The said committee, after having gone through the entire record of the institution, submitted a report to the District Education Officer, Dausa on 9.9.2010, which is against the college. A copy of the said report obtained under the RTI Act, has been placed on record as Annexure-17. As regards the affidavits filed by the respondents before the Deputy Director (Secondary), Jaipur it is 5 submitted that the same have been manipulated/created by the respondent-college, as most of them have been notarised on the same day and more than that, it is to be noted that all of them are stereo type and having identical language. All such affidavits had not been submitted before any of the inquiry officers who had submitted the reports in furtherance of the o order passed by the District authorities. It has also been averred by the petitioner that the affidavit of Siya Ram Gurjar is manipulated for the reason that he had sustained serious burn injuries in a fire accident, wherein a family member was also lost and he was referred to SMS Hospital, could not have possibly given an application to the college on the same day for not is attending the classes. 13. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has emphasised that the head of the institution-respondent no. 5, had made illegal demand of money under various heads which the petitioner had to deposit. Prior to examination a demand of Rs. 2,000/- was again made which the petitioner resisted and did not deposit the same. Therefore, the head of the institution-respondent no. 5, threatened and misbehaved with him. In this regard, the petitioner had thereafter submitted a representation to the Collector, Dausa, District Education Officer, Dausa and other higher authorities. Consequently, the head of the institution got annoyed and had shown his attendance short, by tampering with the attendance register. The sessional marks of the petitioner had not been sent deliberately to the University. The name of the petitioner was struck off from the attendance register. Therefore, the petitioner had been arbitrarily deprived from giving examination and his sessional marks were illegally with held by respondent no. 5. It is also submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the inquiry which was proceeded under a principal of another school by orders of the District Education Officer, reveals that initially respondent no. Therefore, the petitioner had been arbitrarily deprived from giving examination and his sessional marks were illegally with held by respondent no. 5. It is also submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the inquiry which was proceeded under a principal of another school by orders of the District Education Officer, reveals that initially respondent no. 5 did not co-operate with the inquiry officer nor produced the relevant record before him. When he visited the college again a number of illegalities were found and the circumstances revealed that the action taken by the college, against the petitioner, was mala fide. Therefore, the inquiry officer had submitted the report in favour of the petitioner and had also recommended that an inquiry in the matter be made by a High Level Committee. The committee appointed thereafter by the district authorities had also concluded in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent no. 5. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is more than clear that the attendance register was tampered with and in order to favour some of the students, their attendance was marked even on the days which were declared holiday by the District Collector. In the last, it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in the written examination where the petitioner had appeared after the indulgence granted by the court, he had secured more than passing marks but the respondent no. 5 institution had not sent the sessional marks and the same was not done even after the order of the court passed on 19.5.2012. Therefore, it has been prayed that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the career of the student petitioner which is being sought to be tarnished in an illegal and arbitrary manner by the respondent, the writ petition be allowed and direction be issued to respondent no. 5 to allot sessional marks to the petitioner and the same be added in the marks secured by him in the written examination. The University respondent no. 2 be also directed to declare the result of the petitioner, afresh. 14. The counsel for the respondents has argued that the writ petition be dismissed with costs. A contest was particularly made by the counsel for the respondent no. 5. The other counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. The University respondent no. 2 be also directed to declare the result of the petitioner, afresh. 14. The counsel for the respondents has argued that the writ petition be dismissed with costs. A contest was particularly made by the counsel for the respondent no. 5. The other counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4 which includes the District Education Officer, Dausa had also submitted that the writ petition has no force and the same be dismissed. The counsel for respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4 had broadly reiterated the averments made in the reply and submitted that there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the action of the respondents. He has further submitted that the inquiry officer appointed by the District Education Officer on 22.3.2010 had recommended for an inquiry by High Level Committee and the same was appointed on 27.7.2010. The said inquiry is pending before the committee. As regards the fact that the petitioner was a student of B.Ed. Course of Pandit Badri Prasad Teachers Training College. Bandikui District Dausa; was going to the college for attending the classes and appeared in the examination after passing of orders by the High Court, had not been denied and nothing further has been submitted in this regard. 15. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 has also submitted that the respondent institution had to struck off the name of the petitioner because of short of attendance and as per the relevant rules when attendance is short of 75%, no student can be permitted to appear in the examination. Further he has submitted that the respondent-institution had never raised illegal demand from any of the student and the allegation made by the petitioner is false and baseless. It has also been submitted by the counsel for the respondent-college that the petitioner was never serious towards his studies and his behaviour was not good. He has been continuously harassing the Principal, teachers and the students and made false complaints against the institution without any reason. It has been submitted that the petitioner himself remained absent from classes despite of letters/reminders having been sent by the college. Therefore, the respondent-college had to take action against the petitioner and he was terminated from the institution. He has been continuously harassing the Principal, teachers and the students and made false complaints against the institution without any reason. It has been submitted that the petitioner himself remained absent from classes despite of letters/reminders having been sent by the college. Therefore, the respondent-college had to take action against the petitioner and he was terminated from the institution. It has 3 further been submitted that the complaints made by the petitioner were false and that is why the Deputy Director (Secondary) Education, Jaipur dismissed all the complaints vide his order dated 15.7.2010. The other students have filed affidavits which were considered and this also goes to show that the petitioner had made the complaints only because he was not allowed to 5 appear in the examination on account of short of attendance. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondent that from the documents on record filed along with reply as well as the writ petition, goes to show that the petitioner was running short of attendance for which he was not allowed to appear in the examination and he did not respond to the to reminders sent by the college warning him about his attendance. It is also revealed from the record that the petitioner has made false allegations with regard to illegal demand of the amount by the college and no student was harassed in any manner by the college and this is evident from the affidavits filed by other students. Therefore, the counsel for the respondent has 35 submitted that there is no illegality committed by the college in its functioning and as such the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 16. On having been qualified in PTET Examination, 2009, the petitioner was allotted Pandit Badri Prasad Teachers Training College, Bandikui District Dausa (respondent no. 5) as an institution for B.Ed. Course. He joined the 40 college and started attending classes. The petitioner is said to have been, thereafter, harassed by the college authorities as he was unable to fulfil their demand of money on various counts which was being made, from time to time. He had deposited amount of Rs. 44,429/- which was asked for stationary, educational tours etc. and an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as well as Rs. 45,15,000/- for which no receipt was given, at the initial stage as and when the same was demanded by the college. He had deposited amount of Rs. 44,429/- which was asked for stationary, educational tours etc. and an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as well as Rs. 45,15,000/- for which no receipt was given, at the initial stage as and when the same was demanded by the college. But such demand for depositing the money continued, as for instance, an amount of Rs. 2,000/- was demanded for examination and stationary. When the petitioner could not deposit the said amount, on account of his weak financial condition, he raised protest against it. Consequently, the head of the institution threatened the petitioner that in case the amount is not deposited, his attendance would be made short and he will not be able to give examination. 17. Being agitated with such state of affairs of the college, the petitioner had then given a detailed representation (Annexure-2) to the District Collector, Dausa. In the said representation, the petitioner named the authorities of the college who had been harassing him; pointed out the irregularities in respect of teaching staff which was contrary to the norms fixed by NCTE; disclosed the fact that after deposit of fee for B.Ed. Course an amount of Rs. 44,429/-more was being asked on the ground of stationary, educational tours etc. whereas an amount of Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- in instalments had already been given to the college and no receipt was being issued for the same; about getting an affidavit signed from the petitioner on white paper mentioning that no amount has been taken from him and when such demands were not fulfilled then threatening was given in respect of marking absent and to fail him in practical examination. The petitioner was so much aggrieved and depressed by such action of the college that in the said representation he had requested the Collector that if appropriate and immediate action is not taken against the college, then he would commit suicide. The copies of the said representation were sent to various authorities including DEO District Dausa, this obviously annoyed the college authorities and as such the petitioner was not allowed to attend classes and threatening was given that his career would be spoiled by not allowing him to appear in the final lessons as well as B.Ed. Examination, on account of shortage of attendance. 18. Examination, on account of shortage of attendance. 18. The Collector, Dausa, after receipt of representation of the petitioner, directed the District Education Officer for taking appropriate steps. In furtherance thereof, the District Education Officer (Secondary) had appointed the Principal, Abhaneri Government Secondary School, as inquiry officer on 22.3.2010 and directed him to submit a report. The inquiry officer proceeded to the college on 16.4.2010 for inspection and holding inquiry. But no purpose was served as the relevant record was not provided to him by the head of the college. More over, the inquiry officer found that neither the staff nor the students of the college were present. The respondent college instead of co-operating with the inquiry officer on the day of his visit, asked him to come : again on 19.4.2010. Thereafter, the inquiry officer went to the college on 19.4.2010 and perused the relevant record. He also recorded the statements of the students who were present. A joint complaint was also submitted to the inquiry officer by the students of the college mentioning about the irregularities in the 1 college in respect of teaching staff, illegal demand of money in the name of fee, stationary etc. and that the petitioner has been removed by the college whereas he was regularly attending the classes and educational activities of the college, from time to time. 19. As mentioned earlier, during the course of inquiry, the respondent 4 college had given certain information's to the inquiry officer vide letter dated 19.4.2010. The information's given by the college were wholly incorrect, as for instance, it was stated that the classes had started from 1.8.2009 but the inquiry officer found that the classes had actually started from 1.9.2009. Similarly, incorrect information was given to the inquiry officer with regard to striking off the name of a student, namely; Rajulal Meena in April 2010, as he was not coming to the college due to his selection in Delhi Police whereas his selection was made as back as in January, 2010. Another instance which shows that the attendance register had been tampered by the college, is evident from the fact that a student Siyaram Gurjar had sustained serious burn injuries due to fire accident on 4.3.2010. He was thereafter admitted in Government Hospital, Bandikui and was subsequently referred to SMS Hospital, Jaipur. Another instance which shows that the attendance register had been tampered by the college, is evident from the fact that a student Siyaram Gurjar had sustained serious burn injuries due to fire accident on 4.3.2010. He was thereafter admitted in Government Hospital, Bandikui and was subsequently referred to SMS Hospital, Jaipur. He remained admitted in the hospital for a long period but even then his attendance had been marked in the register for the entire months of March, 2010. The incident with regard to burning of Siyaram Gurjar was also published in the daily news paper on 5.3.2010. The indoor ticket and the news item (Annexures 6, 7 and 8) corroborates the said facts. Further more, a news item was published on 13.1.2010 wherein a mention had been made for declaration of holidays by the Collector, in all the institutions of the District, from 12.1.2010 to 14.1.2010, on account of severe cold. Again 14.1.2010 was declared holiday on account of makar sakranti and the same was also published in the news paper. On account of Panchayat Election, the Collector had also declared holiday in Bandikui block for 29.1.2010 and 31.1.2010 and the said news was published in the paper. But on all such holidays, declared by the Collector, the attendance of the students had been marked in the college register. 20. All this reflects about the manner in which the attendance register was maintained by the college and leads to the inference that the same was manipulated and tampered. It is revealed from the record that demand of money was made by the college from time to time in respect of different heads and if the same was not fulfilled by the students, their career was put under threat by having their attendance short. Apart from the letter issued to the petitioner on 6.3.2010 striking off his name from the college on the ground of shortage of attendance, action in similar manner was taken against the students of other sessions, as for example, 2007-2008. A news item in this regard was also published in the news paper (Annexure-14). Apart from the letter issued to the petitioner on 6.3.2010 striking off his name from the college on the ground of shortage of attendance, action in similar manner was taken against the students of other sessions, as for example, 2007-2008. A news item in this regard was also published in the news paper (Annexure-14). The students of the session 2008-2009 had also faced similar situation of demand of money by the college on some pretext or the other and on non-fulfilling of the same, their attendance was made short as a result of which they had to approach this court, by way of filing of the writ petition (10370/09). However, as the said students were declared unsuccessful in the examination, the writ petition was dismissed. 21. On conclusion of the inquiry, the officer submitted his report to the District Education mentioning about the condition of the college which had been witnesses by him on 16.4.2010 and the fact that Rajendra Prasad Lata and Smt. Tripti Sharma, who were present at that time, did not co-operate and asked him to visit again. When the inquiry officer visited the college on 19.4.2010, there were only 49 students out of 99 whereas in the register attendance of more than 49 students had been recorded. Further, he had mentioned that no teaching staff was available but even then complete record in this respect was maintained by the college. He had also found that there were three principles in the college. As regards the petitioner, the enquiry officer has mentioned in his report dated 22.4.2010 that he was told by other students that the petitioner was a regular student but they cannot make the statement openly otherwise similar action, as has been taken against the petitioner, would be taken against them by the college management. In the last, the inquiry officer had suggested that the instant matter needs to be enquired by an authority of higher level (Annexure-5). 22. As per the said recommendation made by the Enquiry Officer, the District Education Officer (Secondary), Dausa constituted two member committee to enquire into the matter. After going through the record the committee stated that the college was not being run properly and harsh action has been taken against the petitioner. The report submitted by the committee on 9.9.2010, obtained by the petitioner under RTI Act, has been placed on record as Annexure-17. 23. After going through the record the committee stated that the college was not being run properly and harsh action has been taken against the petitioner. The report submitted by the committee on 9.9.2010, obtained by the petitioner under RTI Act, has been placed on record as Annexure-17. 23. As the writ petition has been contested also by the Secretary, Higher Education Department; Collector Dausa and the District Education Officer (Secondary), Dausa, a reply has been filed, on behalf of the said respondents on 30.10.2010, by the officer in-charge who is none else but the District Education Officer (Secondary) Dausa. In regard to the report submitted by the Principal, Government Higher Secondary School, Abhaneri, who was appointed as inquiry officer by the District Education Officer on 22.3.2010, it has been stated that he had recommended for appointment of high level inquiry committee to look into the matter. But nothing has been mentioned about the contents of the report and the finding given therein. Though it was DEO, Dausa to whom the enquiry report was submitted on 22.4.2010, as he had ordered for enquiry and appointed the officer. As a matter of fact, on having found serious irregularities in the functioning of the college that the enquiry officer had recommended for enquiry by a high level committee and thereafter the DEO had again appointed an inquiry committee on 27.7.2010. However, no mention has been made about the subsequent report of the committee submitted on 9.9.2010 which are very much relevant in the present context. It is pertinent to note here that the reply to the writ petition was filed by DEO District Dausa on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 3 and for himself as being respondent no. 4 on 30.10.2010. But it has been stated in the reply that the enquiry of the committee is pending whereas the report had already been submitted by that time. A look to the said reply wherein the fact with regard : to pending of the enquiry of the committee has been stated at number of places, goes to show that respondent no. 4 had not only made incorrect averment but has deliberately concealed the fact from this court about filing of the enquiry by the committee on 9.9.2010, much prior to filing of the reply. 4 had not only made incorrect averment but has deliberately concealed the fact from this court about filing of the enquiry by the committee on 9.9.2010, much prior to filing of the reply. This further establishes that the averments made on oath, through affidavit sworn in support of reply, are not true and false. It can never be said, on behalf of respondent no. 4 DEO, that the fact of submitting report by two member committee was not in his knowledge. It was the DEO who had appointed the said committee and as such the report was submitted to him. 24. this speaks volumes as to how the authorities of the State 4 Government had taken a U turn later, at behest of the private party when the matter came up before the court. On the contrary, It is the minimum expectation form the officers of the State to be truthful before the court in respect of narration of fact. In the present case of the DEO, respondent no. 4, who had earlier taken steps to appoint an enquiry officer and thereafter a committee of two members for enquiring into the matter, has deliberately concealed facts from this court which are not only in knowledge but the said report was submitted to him and was a part of record of his office from where the petitioner obtained a copy under RTI. 25. In view of above, it appears that the stand now taken by the DEO is purely on the basis of information given by the respondent no. 5 college and following the line of reply submitted by it. Neither the reply nor the submissions made on behalf of respondent no. 1, 3 and 4 is based on the record of District Education Officer, District Dausa. Above all the concealment made by the DEO in respect of receipt of the report of the enquiry committee on 9.9.2010 needs to be condemned. A bare perusal of the report filed by the committee leaves no room of doubt that the petitioner and some other students have been harassed by the college and it has gone to the extent of playing with their future and career in life in the garb of short attendance and by illegal demand of money on one pretext or the other, for which no receipt was being issued. 26. 26. The facts that when the inquiry officer went to the college on 16.4.2010, the concerning record was not provided by the head of the college; neither any staff nor any student were present and the respondent no. 5 did not co-operate with him, has not been denied by respondent no. 4. Similarly the facts with regard to declaration of holidays by the Collector, Dausa on 12th, 13th and 14th January, 2010 due to cold, 14.1.2010 also for makar sakranti and on 29th and 30th January, 2010 as a holiday in block of Bandikui due to Panchayat Election, has also not been denied. Likewise, the respondents have not denied the averments made in para 18 of the writ petition. Moreover, the respondents have not denied the fact that the petitioner had appeared in B.Ed. Examination conducted by the University as well as in practical and final lessons, as per direction of the High Court. The result has also been declared by the University for which the petitioner had secured more than passing marks but due to non-sending of sessional marks to the University by respondent no. 5 that the petitioner had been declared fail. 27. So far as respondent no. 5- college is concerned, it has taken up a stand, in the reply and at time of submission, which is totally general and evasive. Preliminary objections have been sought to be raised by respondent no. 5- college which are rather in a form of additional facts and not at all in respect of objection for maintainability of the writ petition. In respect of the averments made by the respondent college that the petitioner did not attend classes regularly despite of the letters/warnings having been given to him resulting in his name being cancelled, the petitioner has while denying the allegation of being irregular in attending classes reiterated that illegal demand of money was being made from him failing which he was declared short of attendance by manipulating the register. A letter dated 6.3.2010 has been placed on record by the respondent college. On perusal of the letter it is revealed that the petitioner came to the college along with his father on 5.3.2010 and had threatened and misbehaved with the Secretary of the college, whereas on the said date, the father of the petitioner was suffering with illness and was undergoing treatment at Jaipur. On perusal of the letter it is revealed that the petitioner came to the college along with his father on 5.3.2010 and had threatened and misbehaved with the Secretary of the college, whereas on the said date, the father of the petitioner was suffering with illness and was undergoing treatment at Jaipur. The medical certificate as well as the order sanctioning the medical leave from 2.3.2010 to 10.3.2010 have been placed on record (Annexure-15). Further, the respondent college has stated that the behaviour of the petitioner was not good and he was continuously harassing the principal, teachers and the students by making false complaints. Therefore, the institution had to take steps against the petitioner and before doing so various letters to attend classes and to keep good behaviour are said to have been given to him. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioner, it has been mentioned that all such letters have been manipulated which is reflected from the despatch register of the college submitted before the inquiry officer wherein it has been shown that a letter was sent by the Principal of Chiman College, Dausa which is a veterinary college being run by the head of the institution. A copy of the relevant page of the despatch register as obtained by the petitioner under RTI Act has been placed on record (Annexure-16). 28. So far as the complaint given by the petitioner against the institution which is said to have been considered by the Deputy Director (Secondary), Jaipur and dismissed as being baseless on 15.7.2010 is concerned, the fact remains that no such complaint had ever been filed by him to the Deputy Director (Secondary), Jaipur and as such there was no occasion for him to have passed an order on 15.7.2010. In case any complaint, given by the petitioner to other authorities, had been transferred to the Deputy Director (Secondary), Jaipur, then he ought to have intimated him; given an opportunity of hearing and should have called the relevant record of the college before passing any order. Therefore, the order passed by the Deputy Director (Secondary), Jaipur on 15.7.2010 is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The respondent college has also stated that the petitioner has wrongly mentioned about demand of Rs. Therefore, the order passed by the Deputy Director (Secondary), Jaipur on 15.7.2010 is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The respondent college has also stated that the petitioner has wrongly mentioned about demand of Rs. 2,000/- having been made from him; he had absented from classes for which many warning letters had been issued to him; he did not care for his future and absented from classes and tried to pressurise the institution to mark his attendance even on the days when he was absent. When the institution refused to mark attendance, the petitioner made complaints against it. All such averments have been specifically denied in the rejoinder and it has rather been the continuous stand of the petitioner that he was a sincere student and was regularly attending the classes as well as appeared in all educational activities which have been conducted by the college, as per schedule of NCTE. It was prior to the examination when illegal demand of money was made that the petitioner made complaints to the higher authorities which obviously must have resulted in annoyance to the respondent college and immediately thereafter the attendance of the petitioner was declared short, by tampering with the attendance register. There is nothing on record to show that the letters of warning given to the petitioner by the college were ever received by him. 29. On the complaint made by the petitioner, the inquiry officer was appointed by the District Education Officer (Secondary), Dausa who had submitted a report (Annexure-5) and also suggested that an inquiry of the institution is required to be done by higher authorities. Thereafter, the District Education Officer had constituted two members committee to enquire into the matter and after going through the entire record and material, the committee gave a report to the District Education Officer on 9.9.2010 stating, inter-alia, that the college was not being run properly and harsh steps have been taken against the petitioner (Annexure-17). As regards the affidavits which are sold to have been filed before the Deputy Director (Secondary), Jaipur, the same are doubtful for the reason that most of them have been notarised on 10.7.2010 and a bare perusal of the same goes to show that they are in identical language (Annexure-18). As regards the affidavits which are sold to have been filed before the Deputy Director (Secondary), Jaipur, the same are doubtful for the reason that most of them have been notarised on 10.7.2010 and a bare perusal of the same goes to show that they are in identical language (Annexure-18). The affidavit of injured Siyaram Gurjar (Annexure R/4) reveals that he had given an application to a class-mate for not attending the classes but instead of it, he has been marked as present. A person who had sustained serious burn injuries in a fire accident and has been referred to SMS Hospital, Jaipur, it is not possible that an application would be given by the injured, at that very time, to the college, with regard to his attendance. It is also note worthy that the respondent college has not given specific reply to the averments made by the petitioner in his writ petition, particularly, to paras 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. A perusal of the relevant reply would reveal that the earlier averments have only been reiterated. The averments made by the respondent college with regard to the co-operation given to the inquiry officer, providing of the relevant record etc. are contrary to the specific finding given by the inquiry officer as well as the committee. 30. On over all consideration of the case, it is apparent that the stand taken by the respondent college, while denying the case of the petitioner, is wholly general such as that the petitioner was irregular in attending classes; used to misbehave in the college; and no illegal demand of money was made; the college had taken care for the future of the students; warning was given to the students with regard to attendance etc. etc. A look to the case of the respondent college, as taken in its reply, goes to show that it is of a general denial in the aforesaid manner and where ever specific reply is sought to be made by the respondent college, with support of some documents, the petitioner has in his rejoinder filed documents which shows that the documents filed by respondent college have been prepared after filing of the writ petition. The communication which is said to have been given to the petitioner or the record like affidavits of the students etc. appears to have been prepared for the sake of reply. The communication which is said to have been given to the petitioner or the record like affidavits of the students etc. appears to have been prepared for the sake of reply. The respondent college has avoided specific reply to certain material facts which has come out from the case of the petitioner as for instance, the finding given by the inquiry officer and by committee which goes to show that there had been irregularities and harassment caused to the students by the college. The respondent college has avoided specific reply to certain material facts which has come out from the case of the petitioner as for instance, the finding given by the inquiry officer and by committee which goes to show that there had been irregularities and harassment caused to the students by the college. For the sake of illustration, the observations of the Enquiry Officer are as follows: " 5- jkds'k dqekj Hkknqdk tks bl dkWyst dk Nk= Fkk dk uke ekpZ 2010 dks i`Fkd~ dj fn;k x;k gS ,oa laLFkk ds ekfyd }kjk pSysat fd;k gS fd fdlh Hkh gkyr esa eq[; ijh{kk ,oa Qkbuy yslu esa ugha cSBus nwWaxk tcfd Nk=k/;kid }kjk 20] 20 yslu Vhfpax yslu iw.kZ djok fn, x, gSa vUr ls'ku esa uke i`Fkd~ djds Nk=k/;kid dks ekufld ihM+k ,oa Hkkoukvksa ij dqBkjk?kkr fd;k x;k gS blfy, fd izkFkhZ }kjk dsoy vfrfjDr iSls izkIr djus dk fojks/k trk;k x;k gSA 6- blls iwoZ ds l= esa Hkh nks Nk=k/;kid bl Hkkafr gh fudky dj vgerko'k bl l= esa Hkh bldk ifjp; iznku fd;k gS ftldk dksVZ dsl pyk jgk crk;k ;g Hkh lapkyd egksn; us tkudkjh iznku dh gSA vr% ;g Li"V gS fd bl laLFkku dh mPp Lrjh; desVh ds }kjk tkWap djokdj O;kIr vfu;errk] Nk=ksa dks ;kruk,a ,oa 'kks"k.k ls eqfDr fnyokus dk Je djsa[ ftlls jkds'k dqekj Hkknqdk ds thou dks f[kyokM ugha cuk;k tk ldsA " The conculsion of the Two Member Committee is as under: " 08- fu"d"kZ %& izdj.k esa Nk=k/;kid ds }kjk dkWyst iz'kklu ds fo:) tks f'kdk;r ntZ dh x;h gS mldh xgu tkap djus ds mijkUr ;g desVh bl fu"d"kZ ij igqWaph gS fd dkWyst iz'kklu us Nk=k/;kid ds lkFk T;knrh ls dke fy;k vkSj lkekU; rjhdksa ds LFkku ij dBksjrk ls crkZo fd;kA fu;fer :i ls izfrfnu mifLFkfr ntZ ugha dh x;h o mifLFkfr iaftdk dk la/kkj.k mfpr ,oa U;k;laxr rjhds ls ugha fd;k x;kA vfrfjDr 'kqYd olwyus dk vkjksi i;kZIr lk{;ksa ds vHkko esa fl) ugha gksrk] fdUrq O;fDrxr :i ls tkWap ds nkSjku v/kksgLrk{kjdrkZvksa ds }kjk ;g eglwl fd;k x;k fd laLFkk esa Nk=k/;kidksa ds e/; dqN Hk; dk ekgkSy gSA " It is definitely a matter concern that the inquiry officer, after submitting the report wherein he had given finding on his observation at time of inspection of the college, had recommended that the matter be enquired into by higher authorities. In other words, the inquiry officer was of the view that the irregularities in the college are of serious nature. A two member committee for inquiry was constituted by the District Education Officer. The committee initiated inquiry on 27.7.2010 and concluded the same on 9.9.2010. A copy of the report has already been placed on record by the petitioner. 31. Besides, the conduct of the respondent college during the present proceedings is equally shocking. After petitioner having appeared in the examination, by the order of the court, the result was called for and it was found that the petitioner was shown absent in sessionals, whereas the petitioner stated that he did appear in it. The respondent college did not deliberately forward the relevant record to the University. It was on 17.5.2012 and 19.5.2012 that the court had directed the college to sent the sessionals marks of the petitioner but the same was not done. Moreover, it is to be noted here that the respondents had filed an application (30550) on 18.7.2012 for taking documents (three in number) on record. One of them was a copy of the letter dated 30.9.2009 (Annexure-R/5/A) which is said to be an application written by the petitioner to the Principal of the college-respondent no. 5. The petitioner had filed reply to the said application with the prayer that the same be dismissed. He had specifically averred that "--------- it is also relevant to mention here that annexure which is submitted along with the application as Annexure R/5/5 is also manipulated by respondent no. 5, which is never been written by the petitioner". 32. A strong objection was raised by the counsel for the petitioner in respect of the said document. The counsel for the respondent no. 5 pointed out that, another document on record Annexure-4 to the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner and also bears his signature along with other students, is similar to one mare on the application to the Principal of the college-respondent no. 5, filed along with the application (Annexure R/5/5A). The court had itself looked into the two signatures and being primafacie satisfied that they were dis-similar, deemed it proper to send them for opinion of a hand writing expert. Accordingly, Director, FSL was directed to get the signatures of the petitioner, on the said documents, examined by a hand writing expert for opinion. The court had itself looked into the two signatures and being primafacie satisfied that they were dis-similar, deemed it proper to send them for opinion of a hand writing expert. Accordingly, Director, FSL was directed to get the signatures of the petitioner, on the said documents, examined by a hand writing expert for opinion. The admitted signatures of the petitioner were on Annexure-4 filed along with the writ petition. In furtherance thereof, the FSL had marked admitted signatures on Annexure-4 of the writ petition as Y-1 and the disputed one, on Annexure R-5/5A, as X-1. On receipt of the opinion from the hand writing expert, FSL report was received by the court on 3.8.2012 wherein it was opined that the two signatures are different. This establishes the fact that the respondent college along with application (30550) which was supported by an affidavit filed by Smt. Tripta Sharma wife of Rajendra Lata swearing that annexed application has been drafted under her instructions and read over to her which she had understood and the contents of the application are true and correct, had filed a document which is forged. Therefore, Tripti Sharma wife of Rajendra Lata, the authorised signatory of the college-respondent no. 5 had not only submitted a forged and fabricated document in the proceedings before this court but had filed a false affidavit in support of the application wherein it has been averred that the application was submitted by the petitioner himself on 30.9.2009 and assured the principal that he will complete 75% attendance. 33. After considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case in detail and the submissions made by the counsel for the respective parties, this court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition has force. On admission of the petitioner in Pandit Badri Prasad Teachers Training College, Bandikui (respondent no. 5) after being qualified in the PTET Examination, 2009, he joined the college and started attending the classes. However, soon after depositing the fees for B.Ed. Course which was about Rs. 44,000/-(Rupees Forty Four Thousand), the respondent college had started raising demand for depositing more amount as a result of which the petitioner had paid about Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) at different times. That was not the end of the matter as more money was being demanded by the college in the name of stationary, educational tours etc. 44,000/-(Rupees Forty Four Thousand), the respondent college had started raising demand for depositing more amount as a result of which the petitioner had paid about Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) at different times. That was not the end of the matter as more money was being demanded by the college in the name of stationary, educational tours etc. More over, what-ever amount had been deposited by the petitioner, no receipt was being issued by the college. Above all, an affidavit was got signed from the petitioner mentioning that no extra amount has been taken from him. On account of poor financial condition, the petitioner was unable to meet the demands or could not fulfil them within time, then the respondent college had given threatening that he would be marked absent and fail him in practical examination. Ultimately, on account of such like harassment petitioner gave representations to the District Collector, Dausa and other State authorities. The representation was then forwarded to the District Education Officer who had appointed on inquiry officer on 22.3.2010 and he had then proceeded with the matter. The inquiry officer has, in his report, given details which he had noted at the time of his inspection of the college. He had mentioned about the position of teaching staff, students, the manner in which the record was maintained by the college including the attendance register etc. Some of the students present at the time of inspection had informed the inqiry officer that the petitioner was a regular student but they cannot make a statement 1 openly or give in writing otherwise similar action, as has been taken against the petitioner, would be taken against them by the management. It was also noted that the members of the management of the college such as Rajendra Prasad Lata and Smt. Tripti Sharma had not co-operated with him and as 5 such he had to visit the college more than once. The information furnished by the college to the inquiry officer in respect of the date from which the classes had started, about marking of attendance in the register of the student such as Rajulal Meena, Siyaram Gurjar etc. was found to be incorrect. After concluding the inquiry, the officer had submitted the report on 22.4.2010. The information furnished by the college to the inquiry officer in respect of the date from which the classes had started, about marking of attendance in the register of the student such as Rajulal Meena, Siyaram Gurjar etc. was found to be incorrect. After concluding the inquiry, the officer had submitted the report on 22.4.2010. 11 Looking to the state of affairs of the college and the prevailing conditions in respect of teachers, classes, the amount of money taken from the students etc., the inquiry officer had recommended that the matter needs to be enquired by some higher authorities. The functioning of the college being not up to the mark of the 1 guidelines laid down by NCTE and causing harassment to the students by way of demanding money on various counts, during the time of the petitioner, was not something unusual. Earlier in the academic year 2007-08 similar information was received through a news item. The students of the session 2008-09 had also faced similar situation as a result of which they had 2 approached the High Court' by way of filing a writ petition which was ultimately disposed of because the petitioners therein were unsuccessful in the examination. 34. Even before this court, the respondent college had either not given specific reply to the averments made in several paras of the writ petition or ; they had made general denial to the contents thereof. Where-ever reply has been given by the respondent college with some documents, the petitioner has by way of filing rejoinder not only specifically denied the said facts and pointed out the incorrectness of such document but has also given about the incorrectness of the facts mentioned by the respondent college while placing : certain documents on record Consequently, the irregularities in teaching and functioning of the college as well as harassment caused to the students is apparent. The same is further corroborated by the inquiry report submitted by the Principal, Abhaneri Government Senior Secondary School, who was appointed by the DEO and the later report submitted by the two members committee, also appointed by the DEO on 27.7.2010. The conclusion of the inquiry submitted by the committee on 9.9.2010 is more than clear to show that the students of the college were being harassed. The conduct of the respondent college during the course of proceeding of the present writ petition, was equally astonishing. The conclusion of the inquiry submitted by the committee on 9.9.2010 is more than clear to show that the students of the college were being harassed. The conduct of the respondent college during the course of proceeding of the present writ petition, was equally astonishing. When the result of the petitioner was called for after his appearance in the examination, by the order of the court it was revealed that the petitioner was shown absent in sessionals whereas he had appeared in the same. Subsequently, the record of the sessionals of the petitioner was not sent to the University despite of direction issued by this court on 17.5.2012 and 19.5.2012. More glaring act of the respondent college came before the court when along with an application, respondent college had filed certain documents including an application said to have been written by the petitioner to the Principal, to which the petitioner emphatically denied. Ultimately, on a strong contest from both the sides in respect of author of the application, the signature on the same was got verified from the FSL and the expert opinion is that the signature on it was dis-similar to the admitted signature of the petitioner. 35. The stand taken by other respondents, particularly the District Education Officer, in respect of the case of the petitioner as given out in the writ petition, is equally strange. It was at the instance of District Education Officer and the Collector, Dausa that inquiry had been held by the Principal of another school and also the Inquiry by the committee of two members. The said reports were very much submitted to the DEO but he was taken a U turn, in so far as stand taken before this court is concerned and the reply filed by him as officer-in-charge in the case of behalf of the respondents is not correct in respect of factual position. Through a report had been submitted by the two members committee on 9.9.2010, the DEO had all through-out stated in the reply that the inquiry by two members committee is still pending whereas a copy of the same, obtained by the petitioner under RTI, has been submitted with the rejoinder. Through a report had been submitted by the two members committee on 9.9.2010, the DEO had all through-out stated in the reply that the inquiry by two members committee is still pending whereas a copy of the same, obtained by the petitioner under RTI, has been submitted with the rejoinder. This establishes the fact that though the reply by the DEO was filed much later to the submission of the report by the two members committee on 9.9.2010, it was still stated in the reply, which was supported by the affidavit of DEO, that the inquiry by the committee is still pending. As a matter of fact, reply filed by the DEO and other state authorities shows that the same had been prepared on what-ever information was furnished by the college respondent no. 5 and the office record was never looked into. There cannot be any doubt about the fact that the submission of the report by the two members committee on 9.9.2010 was very much in the knowledge of the DEO. The respondent no. 4 DEO who was duty bound to place correct factual position before this court, had rather made incorrect averments and the affidavit supporting the reply was false. 36. It is rather a matter of serious concern that the respondent college had furnished incorrect information in its reply, suppressing material facts and had also placed on record the documents by way of application, which according to them was filed by the petitioner, bearing forged and fabricated signature which is now proved by the report obtained from the FSL. Similarly, respondent no. 4- DEO is not legging much behind by his irresponsible act in filing reply before this court which not only contains incorrect information but had deliberately suppressed the material facts such as submission of the report by two members committee. In such a situation, this court considers it a duty to go into facts of the case while considering the matter in its writ jurisdiction so as to do complete justice by unfolding the truth. 37. In views of the aforesaid reasons, the inevitable conclusion is that the respondent college had wrongly declared that the petitioner was short of attendance and they had acted arbitrarily in not sending his sessional marks to the University. 37. In views of the aforesaid reasons, the inevitable conclusion is that the respondent college had wrongly declared that the petitioner was short of attendance and they had acted arbitrarily in not sending his sessional marks to the University. In such a situation, the petitioner is entitled to be declared as having fulfilled the minimum requirement of attendance and that the respondent college should furnish the sessional marks of the petitioner to the University. 38. Consequently, the writ petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The action of the respondent college in declaring the petitioner as short of attendance and in not sending his sessional marks to the University is wholly illegal and null and void, the respondent no. 5 is directed to send the sessional marks of the petitioner to the University. The Controller of Examination of the University of Rajasthan-respondent no. 2 is directed to declare the result of the petitioner afresh after including his sessional marks. In the alternative, respondent no. 2 is directed to allot sessional marks to the petitioner on the basis of marks secured by him in the written examination. 39. Before parting with this order, it is to be noted that on behalf of the respondent college an application with annexure was filed on 10.7.2012. The annexure is said to be an application signed by the petitioner and submitted to the college. The petitioner had soon thereafter raised a strong objection about the application as well as the genuineness of the signature on it and submitted that no such application was filed by him to the respondent college and the signatures on it are forged and fabricated. This court had then ordered on 19.7.2012 that the Director, FSL, should get the signatures examined by the hand writing expert. The report dated 23.7.2012 had been received from the FSL with the expert opinion of difference in signatures. Therefore, the document filed along with the application by the respondent-college is prima-facie a forged one. The said application filed on behalf of the college was supported by an affidavit of Tripta Sharma. In other words, Tripta Sharma is primafacie liable for filing a false documentary evidence as well as affidavit before this court. Further more, Mr. Therefore, the document filed along with the application by the respondent-college is prima-facie a forged one. The said application filed on behalf of the college was supported by an affidavit of Tripta Sharma. In other words, Tripta Sharma is primafacie liable for filing a false documentary evidence as well as affidavit before this court. Further more, Mr. Kamlesh Sharma, District Education Officer (Secondary) Dausa, has filed the reply to the writ petition, on his behalf as well as for other State Government authorities who are respondents in the present case, as officer-in-charge. The said reply was filed on 22.10.2010 categorically mentioning, at places more than one, that the inquiry of the two member committee is still pending. The petitioner has placed on record the report of the committee appointed on 27.7.2010, obtained under the RTI Act. The said report was submitted by the committee on 9.9.2010. In other words, despite of the fact that the District Education Officer-respondent no. 4 was having the knowledge of filing of the report by the committee as it was submitted to him, false statement had been made in the reply which is supported by his affidavit. Therefore, the District Education Officer, respondent no. 4 has filed a false affidavit before this court by deposing incorrect fact in the reply. Consequently, he is prima facie liable for filing a false affidavit before this court. In view of above, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur Metropolitan is directed to proceed under section 340 Cr.RC. to initiate criminal proceedings against Ms. Tripta Sharma and Mr. Kamlesh Sharma, the District Education Officer, under the appropriate offences for filing false affidavit and fabricated document before the court of law. 40. The Deputy Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send a copy of this order forthwith to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur Metropolitan along with the relevant documents including FSL report, as mentioned here-in-above. Copies of this order be also sent to the Chief Secretary and Secretary Education (Secondary) Government of Rajasthan for information and consideration. Writ Petition Allowed. *******