Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2015 DIGILAW 864 (SC)

Sonal v. Union of India

2015-07-13

A.K.SIKRI, ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

body2015
ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. Since the pleadings are complete and learned counsel for all the parties are ready to argue the matter finally, we have heard the matter and are disposing of the appeal by this order. 3. To put the facts in brief, the appellant herein had successfully completed her MBBS degree examination from Government Medical College, Haldwani, Nainital, Uttarakhand in the year 2009. Thereafter, she appeared in the All India Post-Graduate Entrance Examination conducted by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) in January, 2011. In the said entrance examination, she obtained 81st rank and on the basis of the aforesaid position in the merit list, she was allotted a seat for the MD (Radio-Diagnosis) course in respondent No.4 Institution on 19.04.2011. In between, the appellant has also done Junior Residentship with Tata Memorial Hospital. 4. In or around July, 2011, a complaint was registered against one Mahipal Singh and one Rajib Ghatak by Shri Manoj Kumar, Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), New Delhi, alleging a criminal conspiracy to rig the results of the aforesaid entrance examination which was conducted by the AIIMS in January, 2011. The same was done to favour certain students and the appellant was also named as one of the beneficiaries. Insofar as the appellant is concerned, the allegation was that the aforesaid conspirators which included the appellant manipulated the 'OMR' sheets for financial consideration. On the basis of the said complaint, a case bearing No. RC 2192011 E 0007 was registered by the CBI on 28.07.2011 against all the aforesaid accused persons under the provisions of Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The investigation was conducted and the charge-sheet has been filed under the provisions of Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused persons and under Section 3 of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA) only against accused Mahipal Singh in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-01 (South) (MCOCA Courts), Saket District Courts, New Delhi. On a petition, by co-accused Mahipal Singh, this Court held that the provisions of MCOCA would not apply to the present case and therefore the charges under Section 3 of MCOCA against accused Mahipal Singh were dropped and accordingly, the trial of the criminal case was transferred from the court of Additional Sessions Judge-01 (South) (MCOCA Courts), Saket District Courts, New Delhi to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, Saket District Courts, New Delhi. The matter is pending at the stage of framing of the charges. 5. The appellant in the meantime continued with her MD course. She has even appeared in the final examination in the said course. However, on 22.05.2012, the appellant was served with a notice by respondent No. 4-College asking her to show cause as to why her admission to MD course should not be cancelled in the light of the aforesaid criminal case pending against her. She replied to the said show cause notice on 25.05.2012 pleading her innocence and stating that she has been falsely impleaded in the aforesaid case. She was also given a personal hearing pursuant to the said show cause notice by the Committee constituted by respondent No.4-College. Thereafter, the Committee submitted a report recommending that the appellant's request for permission to continue the course and appear for the examination may be examined and considered subject to her furnishing the following: - (1) An attested copy of the charge-sheet; (2) An undertaking in favour of TMC and HBNI to the effect that in the event of her conviction in the criminal case, her studentship and her candidature to the examination shall automatically stand cancelled. 6. On the basis of the said report, the appellant was asked to file an affidavit to the aforesaid effect. She submitted affidavit dated 28.07.2012 in this behalf. 7. Notwithstanding the submission of the aforesaid affidavit, the result of the appellant for the final year has not been declared. It is for this reason, the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay seeking declaration of her results of the final year of the MD course. In this writ petition being Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2498 of 2014, orders dated 23.12.2014 were passed by the High Court of Bombay stating that the appellant may resort to appropriate remedy as may be available in law. In this writ petition being Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2498 of 2014, orders dated 23.12.2014 were passed by the High Court of Bombay stating that the appellant may resort to appropriate remedy as may be available in law. The appellant prayed for liberty to approach the court again after decision is taken on the aforesaid application and this liberty was granted. Thereafter, the appellant made an application under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for discharge from the aforesaid case pending with the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, Saket District Courts, New Delhi. However, the said application has not been decided till date. Only orders dated 13.01.2015 were passed in that application by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate observing that the aforesaid application would be heard at the time of arguments on charge. As pointed out above, the arguments on charge have yet to be heard. 8. Since the matter was getting delayed and as per the appellant, because of this delay and withholding of her results, her future career is suffering, she approached the Court again by filing Writ Petition No. 1056 of 2015 in the High Court of Bombay. This writ petition has been dismissed by the impugned orders dated 06.05.2015 with the following observations: - "We have perused the record placed before us and the affidavit filed by respondent No. 4. It is submitted that the petitioner has filed application for discharge. The charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner by the respondent. In view of the allegations made and in the fact that charge-sheet is filed, we are not inclined to entertain this petition. We have already heard this plea while disposing of Writ Petition (Ldg.) No. 2498/2014. All issues on merits are kept open." 9. In the aforesaid circumstances, the only question for determination is as to whether the result of the appellant should be kept in abeyance and in a sealed cover or there should be declaration of the said results during the pendency of the aforesaid criminal case against the appellant. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the aforesaid approach taken by the High Court may not be entirely correct. At this stage, only the charge-sheet is filed and even the application of the appellant for discharge is yet to be examined. Further, the charges have also not been framed so far. 10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the aforesaid approach taken by the High Court may not be entirely correct. At this stage, only the charge-sheet is filed and even the application of the appellant for discharge is yet to be examined. Further, the charges have also not been framed so far. If the charges are framed, ultimately it may lead to trial which would take quite some time. If the result of the appellant is not declared in the meantime and ultimately she is acquitted in the criminal case against her, the loss which the appellant shall suffer would be irreparable as the said loss suffered by her would not be compensated. On the other hand, if the result is declared now and the same is made subject to the outcome of the criminal case, that is a more equitable solution to the issue at hand. We feel that the Committee which was constituted by respondent No. 4-College itself had given suggestion almost to the same effect by allowing the appellant to go ahead with the course and at the same time asking her to file an affidavit, which direction of the respondent No. 4-College was duly complied with. 11. In these circumstances, we allow this appeal with the following directions: - (1) The result of the appellant shall be declared forthwith. We may point out at this stage that the result was brought to this Court in a sealed cover and after perusing the result, we found that the appellant has passed in the final year examination as well. Therefore, as a consequence thereof, she would be entitled for grant of MD degree also. However, at present, she would be given only provisional MD degree. (2) The aforesaid degree shall be subject to the outcome of the criminal case pending against the appellant. If the appellant is convicted in the criminal case and/or findings are arrived at in the said matter to the effect that the appellant could get the admission in the MD course by practising the foul means as alleged in the charge-sheet, the effect thereof would be that the admission of the appellant to the MD course shall stand cancelled. As a consequence, it would be permissible for the respondent-authorities to nullify the MD course undertaken by her and cancel the provisional MD degree granted to her. As a consequence, it would be permissible for the respondent-authorities to nullify the MD course undertaken by her and cancel the provisional MD degree granted to her. (3) In case, the appellant is discharged and/or acquitted in the aforesaid criminal proceedings, the appellant shall be given final degree of the MD course. No costs.