Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 676 (ALL)

SUSHIL KUMAR v. STATE OF U. P.

2015-04-02

YASHWANT VARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Yashwant Varma, J.—The challenge in the present writ petition is to the orders dated 25.2.2012, 17.3.2012 and 4.4.2012. The orders uphold a decision taken by the respondent University canceling the provisional certificate/B.Ed degree issued to the petitioner. 2. From the reading of the impugned orders, it appears that the University has concluded that a serious act of forgery had been committed and that the petitioner who had failed to clear the examination in question was shown as passed and consequentially issued the provisional certificate and degree in question. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioner asserts that he completed his B.Ed course in the session 2004 after appearing in all the theory papers and also undergoing the practical examinations. It is then asserted that he applied for scrutiny of marks whereafter the marks awarded to him in the 7th paper were increased. Consequent to the above, the petitioner asserts that a fresh mark sheet was issued to him on 17.1.2006 and it was based on the aforesaid mark sheet that the provisional certificate of B.Ed 2004 was issued to him. It further transpires that pursuant to and on the basis of the provisional certificate so issued, the petitioner successfully passed the Special B.T.C. Training Examination and came to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher in a Primary School in Faizabad. It appears that the employer of the Primary School sent the documents/testimonials submitted by the petitioner for verification to the respondent University. The respondent University appears to have informed the respondent No. 3 by letter dated 22.11.2011 that the mark sheet submitted by the petitioner was forged. Based on this communication, the petitioner was called upon to show-cause by the respondent No. 3 as to why his appointment and selection be not cancelled. It is at this stage, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 5223 of 2012 with a prayer commanding the respondent University to provide him with a degree of B.Ed 2004. This petition came to be disposed of by judgment and order dated 31.1.2012 with a direction to the respondent University to take an appropriate decision on the representation submitted by the petitioner. 4. This petition came to be disposed of by judgment and order dated 31.1.2012 with a direction to the respondent University to take an appropriate decision on the representation submitted by the petitioner. 4. The respondent No. 3 - Principal, DIET, Faizabad ultimately by the impugned letter dated 25.2.2012 cancelled the selection of the petitioner in Special B.T.C. Training Course and consequently the respondent No. 4 also cancelled the appointment of the petitioner vide order dated 17.3.2012. In compliance with the directions issued by this Court on Writ Petition No. 5223 of 2012, the University proceeded to pass the order on 4.4.2012 canceling the provisional certificate of B.Ed issued to the petitioner. 5. It is in the above backdrop that the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition. This Court while entertaining the writ petition on 8.5.2012 passed an interim order providing that the impugned orders, referred to above, shall not be given effect to. Subsequently, the parties have exchanged pleadings on this writ petition and it is with their consent that this Court has proceeded to hear and decide the matter finally. 6. Sri Satya Prakash Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no notice or opportunity was provided to the petitioner before the cancellation of the provisional certificate. He submits that the marks of the petitioner in the 7th paper were correctly enhanced from 19 to 69 and it was pursuant to his scrutiny application that the aforesaid exercise had been undertaken. He submits that the mere fact that this correction was not incorporated in the Confidential Section of the University could not be a ground for the cancellation of the B.Ed certificate provisionally issued to him. 7. Sri Neeraj Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent University, has on the other hand referred to the detailed order passed by the University on 4.4.2012 and has submitted that the petitioner was found guilty of having committed an act of forgery with the assistance of certain employees of the respondent University and therefore was not entitled to any relief or indulgence by this Court. He has submitted that the records of the University do not carry or bear any application that the petitioner may have allegedly made for scrutiny of the marks awarded to him in the 7th paper. He has submitted that the records of the University do not carry or bear any application that the petitioner may have allegedly made for scrutiny of the marks awarded to him in the 7th paper. He has further submitted that the mark sheet which is issued to a candidate carries a Disclaimer to the effect that in case a discrepancy is noticed between the marks recorded in the Examination Department and the Confidential Department of the University, then it is the records of the Confidential Department alone which would be countenanced and would be liable to be taken into consideration. 8. Having heard learned counsel for parties, this Court finds that the case of the petitioner primarily pivots on an assertion that he had applied for scrutiny of the marks awarded to him in the 7th paper. This assertion taken in paragraph 20 of the writ petition is stated to be based on the record. However, despite pointed queries of the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner had not been able to indicate or bring to the attention of this Court any material or record in support of the above assertions. This fact assumes significance in light of the categorical denial of the University that the petitioner had ever applied for scrutiny. In fact a reading of the impugned order dated 4.4.2012 shows that the records of the University did not carry or bear any application that the petitioner may have made to it for the purposes of the above. Even the writ petition is silent on this score and carries no details of when this application was made, fee deposited. 9. Further reading of the impugned order shows that the cuttings/interpolations are said to have been made in the examination tabulation chart where by the marks of the petitioner were enhanced from 19 to 69. Further interpolations were made in the total marks obtained by the petitioner and the word ‘unsuccessful’ was scored out. These interpolations appear in the tabulation chart alone. However as is noted in the impugned order, the tabulation chart, a copy of which is also maintained in the Confidential Section of the University, did not carry any such change. This Court cannot loose sight of the fact that the changes which are said to have occurred pursuant to the scrutiny are not ministerial or insignificant. However as is noted in the impugned order, the tabulation chart, a copy of which is also maintained in the Confidential Section of the University, did not carry any such change. This Court cannot loose sight of the fact that the changes which are said to have occurred pursuant to the scrutiny are not ministerial or insignificant. The marks are said to have increased from 19 to 69. The total marks have also consequentially shown to have been increased and the result of the petitioner was changed from unsuccessful to successful. In the opinion of this Court, it is perhaps for overcoming such a situation that the Disclaimer referred to above stands embodied in and upon the mark sheets issued to a candidate. In fact in the opinion of this Court, the said Disclaimer is a complete answer to the various submissions raised and urged on behalf of the petitioner. 10. Coming then to the last submission urged on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was provided an opportunity of hearing before cancellation of the provisional certificate, suffice it to say that the order dated 4.4.2012 is itself one which came to be made upon the representation submitted by the petitioner. This representation itself was made pursuant to the order and directions issued by this Court on 31.1.2012 upon the writ petition preferred by the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, the making of the representation and the decision of the University upon a consideration of the same was in sufficient compliance of the principles of natural justice. Regard must be had to the effect that the principles of natural justice do not in all situations either envisage or embody/mandate an oral hearing. In the opinion of the Court, the petitioner was fully aware of the charge leveled against him and it was in full knowledge of the said facts that the representation came to be made by him. This representation was taken into consideration by the University and it was only thereafter that the impugned order came to be made. 11. Upon an over all consideration of the facts existing on record and thus noted in the impugned order, this Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to prove that he had ever applied for scrutiny of the marks awarded to him in the 7th paper. 11. Upon an over all consideration of the facts existing on record and thus noted in the impugned order, this Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to prove that he had ever applied for scrutiny of the marks awarded to him in the 7th paper. This Court further finds that large scale interpolations made with respect to the marks obtained by the petitioner in the tabulation chart are not borne out from the records maintained in the Confidential Section of the University. In the large scheme of things, this Court is of the firm opinion that the Disclaimer carried on the mark sheet giving override effect to the veracity of facts maintained in the Confidential Section of the University is justified and valid. This petition must therefore consequently fail. Accordingly and in view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed. ——————