Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 594 (MP)

Garima Avasthi v. State of M. P.

2016-07-22

ALOK ARADHE, ANAND PATHAK

body2016
ORDER Aradhe, J. -- 1. In this petition, the petitioners inter alia seek a direction to the respondents not to cancel the admission of the petitioners in D.Ed. Course and to permit the petitioners to prosecute their studies in D.Ed. Course in District Institute of Education and Training (DIET) in Morena. 2. Facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition, briefly stated, are that an advertisement dated 20.6.2014 was issued by the Commissioner, Rajya Shiksha Kendra, by which the applications were invited for registration in D.Ed. Course for the academic session 2014-2015 in District Institute of Education and Training, Morena. The petitioners submitted their application forms along with their mark sheets. In the application forms, the petitioners described their discipline as Arts, however, along with the application forms the petitioners annexed their mark sheets of class-10th and 12th, which show that the petitioners belong to Home Science and Agriculture Discipline. The petitioners were granted admission after verification of their documents by the respondents, pursuant to which the petitioners deposited fee on 9.7.2014. However, on 8.8.2014 Principal of District Institute of Education and Training issued notices to the petitioners for cancellation of their admission inter alia on the ground that in admission forms the petitioners have disclosed their discipline to be incorrect. The petitioners submitted the reply to the aforementioned notices and approached this Court. A Division Bench of this Court passed an interim order on 3.9.2014 and directed that the petitioners shall be permitted to continue their studies in D.Ed. Course. Admittedly, during the pendency of the writ petition, by another interim order dated 28.5.2015, the petitioners were permitted to fill the examination forms. It is not in dispute that by virtue of the ad interim order granted by this Court the petitioners had completed the D.Ed. Course. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not played any fraud with the respondents. It is submitted that inadvertently in the application form it was mentioned that the petitioners' discipline is Arts whereas the petitioners belong to Home Science and Agriculture discipline. It is further submitted that along with the application forms the petitioners had annexed the mark sheets of class-10th and 12th, which show that the petitioners belong to Home Science and Agriculture disciplines. It is submitted that the documents of the petitioners were duly verified and thereafter they were given admission. It is further submitted that along with the application forms the petitioners had annexed the mark sheets of class-10th and 12th, which show that the petitioners belong to Home Science and Agriculture disciplines. It is submitted that the documents of the petitioners were duly verified and thereafter they were given admission. It is also urged that the petitioners have already completed the course and at this point of time even if the admission granted to the petitioners is cancelled, the seats cannot be allotted to anybody as the academic session has already expired. It is further submitted that the order dated 12.2.2014 issued by School Education Department of Government of Madhya Pradesh contained in Annexure R-5 provides that in case seats in any discipline are vacant, the same shall be filled in by other disciplines. In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Shri Krishan v. The Kurukshetra University [( AIR 1976 SC 376 )] and Deepa Thomas and others v. Medical Council of India and others [(2012 AIR SCW 1661)]. 4. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate for the respondents No.1 and 2 submitted that the admission was inadvertently granted to the petitioners as they had secured admission by misrepresentation of facts, thereupon an enquiry committee was constituted and in the enquiry it was found that the admission was granted inadvertently to the petitioners by the Incharge of District Institute of Education and Training, who unfortunately has expired. It is further submitted that as soon as the fraud played by the petitioners came to the notice of the respondents, show cause notice was issued to the petitioners and, therefore, the action taken by the respondents is perfectly justified. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submitted that the petitioners by playing the fraud secured admission in D.Ed. Course, therefore, no indulgence is called for. In support of aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has referred to the decisions of Supreme Court in the cases of Israr Ahmad Mansuri v. State of Madhya Pradesh [( AIR 1982 MP 205 )] and Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh and others [ (2012)7 SCC 433 ]. 6. We have considered the rival submissions made at the bar and have perused the record. 6. We have considered the rival submissions made at the bar and have perused the record. It is well settled legal proposition that where a person on whom the fraud is committed is in a position to discover the truth by due diligence, the fraud is not proved. In this connection, reference may be made to decision of Supreme Court in the case of Shri Krishan (supra). In the instant case, the petitioners along with the admission forms had admittedly annexed their mark sheets of class-10th and 12th examinations which clearly show that the petitioners belong to Home Science and Agriculture disciplines. This fact could have been ascertained by the Incharge of District Institute of Education and Training Centre by exercising due diligence. However, after scrutiny of the documents, the petitioners have been given admission in the course in question, therefore, in view of the aforesaid enunciation of law by the Supreme Court, it cannot be said that the petitioners have secured admission in D.Ed. Course by playing fraud. 7. Besides that, admittedly the petitioners on the strength of ad interim order have completed the course, therefore, no useful purpose would be served at this point of time by cancelling the admission of the petitioners and the seats in question against which the petitioners were admitted cannot be allotted at this point of time to anybody, as the academic session has expired. 8. In view of preceding analysis, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioners to appear in the examination subject to fulfilment of the eligibility conditions prescribed in this regard. The proceeding initiated against the petitioners for cancellation of their admission is hereby quashed. However, it is made clear that these directions are issued in peculiar facts of the case and shall not be treated as precedent. 9. With the aforesaid directions, writ petition stands disposed of. M.P.S. Raghuvanshi with Jitendra Sharma for petitioners; Pravin Newaskar, Government Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2; J. P. Mishra with A. K. Nirankari for respondent No.3.