Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 823 (MP)

Madan Singh v. State of M. P.

2016-09-16

S.A.DHARMADHIKARI, SHEEL NAGU

body2016
ORDER 1. The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailed the order dated 4.3.2016 passed by the Dean, Gajra Raja Medical College, Gwalior (respondent No.4 herein) contained in Annexure P-1, whereby the earlier order dated 2.2.2016, vide Annexure P-5 allowing the petitioner to pursue his MBBS course pending investigation, has been cancelled. 2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard. 3. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was admitted to MBBS course after appearing in PMT Examination of 2007. The said examination became subject to criminal investigation as complaints were made about petitioner and others having adopted unfair means in passing the PMT 2007 Examination. During pendency of investigation, the admission of the petitioner to MBBS course was cancelled where after he approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.6671/2015, which came to be decided finally in a bunch of petitions by a common order dated 14.8.2015, vide Annexure P-4 in following terms :- “It has not been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that question involved in this petition has already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 1.12.2014 passed in Writ Petitions No.3983/2013, 6232/2013, 1931/2014, 2001/2014, 2003/2014, 2014/2014, 2027/2014, 5451/2014, 6015/2014, 10689/2014, 13587/2014, 16281/2014 and 16476/2014. Having regard to the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, all these writ petitions are also disposed of in terms of the said order dated 1.12.2014 passed by the Division Bench in Writ Petition No.3983/2013 and other connected cases. In the result, the impugned order passed in these petitions are hereby quashed and set aside. However, liberty is granted to Professional Examination Board as well as to the concerned College to commence an independent inquiry against the petitioners by supplying all the documents on which reliance is placed. We hope and trust that Professional Examination Board/Deans of respective Medical Colleges will commence the proposed inquiry against the concerned petitioners in the light of liberty given in this order and conclude that inquiry expeditiously preferably not later than six weeks from today. The concerned petitioners must extend full cooperation for conclusion of that inquiry, if opportunity of hearing is required to be given to the concerned petitioners during the inquiry. We may not be understood to have said that the petitioners are entitled for personal hearing during such inquiry. The concerned petitioners must extend full cooperation for conclusion of that inquiry, if opportunity of hearing is required to be given to the concerned petitioners during the inquiry. We may not be understood to have said that the petitioners are entitled for personal hearing during such inquiry. That is a matter to be considered by the inquiry authority in the light of the observations in the decision of this Court in similar cases on the subject matter. It would be open to the petitioners to submit representations to the competent authority of the College for permission to attend the classes. The said authority shall examine the representations of the petitioners and shall deal with it on merits in accordance with law. C.C. as per rules.” 4. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was permitted to pursue his course pending investigation by the order dated 2.2.2016, vide Annexure P-5 issued by the Dean, GRMC, Gwalior. 5. Subsequently, in another round of litigation, the petitioner attended with similar circumstances approached this Court assailing the order of cancellation of their admission to MBBS Course by the Dean of GRMC, Gwalior, primarily raising the ground that since the cancellation was based upon unfair means adopted in the examination conducted by the M.P. Professional Examination Board (Vyapam), it was the Board alone which was competent to take any decision in regard to the petitioners therein. This contention of the petitioners in the said bunch of cases was accepted in the case of Ku. Pratibha Singh (Minor) v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others [ 2014(III) MPJR 178 ], which was subsequently followed by the Division Bench in Writ Petition No.1530/2015 (Bhimsen Yadav v. The State of Madhya Pradesh). 6. More so, the said decisions of Ku. Pratibha Singh and Bhimsen Yadav (supra), and further decision in the case of Arun Sharma v. State of M.P. [2015(3) MPLJ 206], have been relied upon by a coordinate bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.6091/2016 which was decided on 9.9.2016 in following terms :- “In view of the law laid down in the case of Ku. Pratibha Singh (supra), it is evident that the Professional Examination Board alone is the competent authority to take action and the College can take action only if the case is covered within the purview of Clause 3.2 and 3.3 of the PMT Entrance Rules, 2009. Pratibha Singh (supra), it is evident that the Professional Examination Board alone is the competent authority to take action and the College can take action only if the case is covered within the purview of Clause 3.2 and 3.3 of the PMT Entrance Rules, 2009. In the instant case, the case of the petitioner clearly falls within the scope of enquiry relating to his appearing in the examination which was conducted by the Professional Examination Board. In the result, the impugned order dated 4.3.2016 passed by the Dean, G.R. Medical College, Gwalior is quashed. However, liberty is granted to the Professional Examination Board to take appropriate action in accordance with law against the petitioner. Certified copy as per rules.” 7. Learned counsel for the respondents though dispute contention raised by the petitioner but are unable to counter the categorical ground raised in regard to incompetency of the Dean to take a decision in regard to illegality and irregularity committed in PMT Examination 2007 on the basis of which the impugned order has been issued. The respondents' counsel further do not dispute the factum of judicial orders having been passed in cases attended with similar circumstances (supra). 8. In view of above, this Court looking to the facts prevailing in the instant case and the fact that Dean of GRMC, Gwalior does not appear to be competent to decide the question of illegality or irregularity committed by the petitioner in PMT Examination 2007, is of the considered view that the impugned order has to pave the way of extinction. 9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 4.3.2016 passed by the passed by the Dean, GRMC, Gwalior (respondent No.4 herein) contained in Annexure P-1 is set aside. However, liberty is available to M.P. Professional Examination Board to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law and in terms of PMT Entrance Rules, 2007. Umesh Kumar Bohare for petitioner; Praveen Newaskar, Government Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2/State; Vivek Khedkar for respondent No.3; Smt. Nidhi Patankar for respondent No.4; D. S. Raghuvanshi for respondent No.5.