Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 976 (MP)

Ved Prakash Singh v. State of M. P.

2017-09-07

NANDITA DUBEY, R.S.JHA

body2017
ORDER : The petitioners have filed this petition praying for the following relief’s : “(i) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondent No. 2 University to issue the certificate of degree of B.P.Ed. Course, wherein they got through in the examination conducted in the year 2008. (ii) Any other direction/order may be passed in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners took admission in the respondent No. 4/College for the academic session 2007-2008 and thereafter, appeared in the first year examination that was held in the year 2008. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that result of the candidates including the petitioners who had appeared in the B.P.Ed. Examination held in the year 2008 was declared on 25-9-2010 (Annexure-P/17) and mark sheets were subsequently issued to the petitioners No. 1 and 2 on 12-11-2010 and 27-11-2010 respectively. It is stated that though the result has been declared, the degree and the necessary certificates have not been issued to the petitioners till date, hence this petition. 3. Before we consider the ostensibly innocuous relief prayed for by the petitioners, it is pertinent to note that the respondent No. 4/College had previously filed Writ Petition No. 12056/2007 before this Court along with several other institutions being aggrieved by the fact that the National Council for Teacher Education (for short ‘the NCTE’), which is responsible and authorized to grant permission and recognition for establishing colleges and institutions that impart degrees and diplomas in Teacher Education including Physical Education i. e. B.P.Ed., had committed delay and was not processing the application filed by the respondent No. 4/Institution for obtaining recognition for the academic year 2007-2008. The respondent No. 4/Institution also challenged letter dated 20-8-2007 issued by the Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Development under section 29 of the NCTE Act directing all Committees to withhold the grant of recognition to institutions or for granting recognition for additional intake. The respondent 4 had also challenged the requirement prescribed under the regulations framed by the NCTE providing for obtaining a No Objection Certificate from the State Government before applying for recognition. The respondent 4 had also challenged the requirement prescribed under the regulations framed by the NCTE providing for obtaining a No Objection Certificate from the State Government before applying for recognition. The respondent No. 4 had prayed for a direction to issue a writ of mandamus to the respondent/University as well as the NCTE commanding them to take a final decision on the application for recognition filed by the petitioner/institution for the academic session 2007-2008 and to declare the resolution of the University and the provision relating to obtaining of No Objection Certificate contrary to law. 4. The Writ Petition No. 12056/2007 filed by the respondent No. 4/college was ultimately decided along with the entire bunch of similar petitions, the leading petition being W.P. No. 14227/2007, Amrit Vidya Peeth B.Ed. College v. State of M.P. by judgment dated 29-11-2007 reported in ILR (2008) M.P. 54, and all the petitions including that of respondent No. 4, were dismissed. The order passed by this Court in the aforesaid bunch of petitions ultimately travelled up to the Supreme Court and was ultimately dismissed by the Supreme Court by the judgment reported in (2012) 2 SCC 425 , Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya v. Subhash Rahangdale. 5. It is pertinent to note that the Supreme Court while dismissing the petition, upheld the order passed by the High Court to the effect that no permission for recognition can be granted to the institution unless the mandatory conditions prescribed under the provisions of the NCTE Regulations are complied with and that no institution can admit students unless and until it has obtained unconditional recognition from the Regional Committee and affiliation from the examining body. The Supreme Court also affirmed the view taken by this Court that the private institution, including respondent No. 4, could not have granted admission to students on its own de hors the entrance examination conducted by the State Government. The Supreme Court, after taking the entire law into consideration and discussing it extensively, held that such students are not entitled to appear in the examination or for claiming declaration of result even if they had pursued their studies or appeared in the examination on the strength of an interim order passed by the High Court more so as they had obtained admission otherwise than through the entrance and eligibility test conducted in accordance with the Rules and Regulations. In other words, the Supreme Court specifically held that the students of unrecognized, unaffiliated institution could not claim declaration of their result or in cases where they were granted admissions by the private institution on its own. 6. It is also worth noting that the respondent No. 4 had subsequently filed a second petition which was registered as W.P. No. 2728/2009 being aggrieved by the fact that the students of the respondent No. 4/college had not been permitted to appear in the first paper of the B.P.Ed. Examination held on 5-3-2009 and were being restrained from appearing in the second paper that was scheduled for 7-3-2009. The petition filed by the respondent No. 4/College was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 6-8-2009 by recording a finding to the effect that all the students admitted by the respondent No. 4/College had been granted admission by the college at its own level de hors the provisions of law and, therefore, all the admissions were illegal and contrary to law. By recording such a finding, the petition filed by the respondent No. 4/College was dismissed. It is significant to take into consideration the fact that this Court while dismissing the W.P. No. 2728/2009 (Annexure-R-4/2) and W.P. No. 10300/2013 took into consideration the contention of the petitioners and the response thereto submitted by the respondent/University in respect of the contention that the students were entitled to declaration of the result on account of the fact that the University had permitted them to appear in the examinations in the following terms contained in paragraph-5 of the order dated 6-5-2009 passed in W.P. No. 2728/2009 filed in W.P. No. 10300/2013 which reads as under : “5. Mr. Vibhudhendra Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University would submit that the petitioner/institution was allowed to admit students provisionally by virtue of order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 12056/2007 on 5-9-2007, which was later on dismissed on 29-11-2007 but the said fact was never disclosed to them. He further submitted that the scrutiny of the examination forms revealed that the students were given admission in the B.P.Ed. course by the petitioner-institution without following the procedure prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education and enquiry in this regard is underway.” 7. He further submitted that the scrutiny of the examination forms revealed that the students were given admission in the B.P.Ed. course by the petitioner-institution without following the procedure prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education and enquiry in this regard is underway.” 7. The order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 2728/2009 was assailed by the respondent No. 4/College before the Supreme Court by filing Civil Appeal No. 712/2013 which has been dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 22-1-2013, and while doing so, the Supreme Court has specifically held that the respondent No. 4/college did not obtain and had not been granted recognition by the NCTE for the academic session 2008-2009, and that all admissions granted by the respondent No. 4/college were illegal. The Supreme Court while dismissing the petition also took note of the statement made by the learned counsel appearing by the University to the effect that the result of the examination has already been cancelled by the University. 8. After dismissal of the aforesaid two petitions by this Court and the affirmation thereof by the Supreme Court relating to the academic session 2007-2008 and academic session 2008-2009, the petitioners filed W.P. No. 10300/2013 before this Court praying for a direction to the respondent-authorities to provide the degree of Bachelor of Physical Education to the petitioners. From a perusal of the record of W.P. No. 10300/2013 which was requisitioned by this Court and is before us today, it is apparent that the entire history of litigation which has been enumerated by us in the preceding paragraphs was not mentioned or stated by the petitioners in the body of the petition. However, when notices were issued by this Court in W.P. No. 10300/2013, the respondent/University, the NCTE as well as the respondent No. 4/College who were parties in the aforesaid petition, filed their returns bringing and placing on record the orders passed by this Court in W.P. No. 12056/2007, the fact of the affirmation by the Supreme Court in the case of Adarsh Shiksha Mahavidyalaya (supra), the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 2728/2009 and the order passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 712/2013 affirming the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 2728/2009. 9. 9. It is also evident from a perusal of the record that all these documents and orders were duly supplied to the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petition. In fact order sheet dated 27-11-2013 of W.P. No. 10300/2013 indicates that the counsel appearing for the petitioners even sought time to go through the returns and file a rejoinder. The order sheets of W.P. No. 10300/2013 further indicate that the aforesaid writ petition was ultimately dismissed on 10-1-2014 by recording the fact that the petitioners are not interested in pursuing the petition. 10. After dismissal of the W.P. No. 10300/2013, the petitioners have now filed the present second petition again seeking for the same relief that had been prayed for by them in W.P. No. 10300/2013, as is evident from the relief clause which has been reproduced by this Court in the first paragraph. Surprisingly a perusal of the petition filed by the petitioners and the relief prayed for also indicates that though the petitioners had full knowledge about the entire history of the litigation including the orders passed by this Court and the Supreme Court as is evident from a perusal of the record of W.P. No. 10300/2013 which had been previously filed by them and the returns filed by the respondents therein, there is no mention about any of these facts in the body of the petition filed by the petitioner except for stating in paragraph-2 of the petition that the petitioners had filed an earlier petition which was withdrawn at the instance of the respondent No. 2 who had assured the petitioners that it would grant the certificate or degree. It is also evident from a perusal of the paragraph-2 that while making this assertion the petitioners have neither mentioned the number of their previous petition nor the date when it was withdrawn. On the contrary, it is apparent from a perusal of the record of W.P. No. 10300/2009 that the previous petition filed by the petitioners had in fact not been withdrawn on any assurance given to them by the University as stated by them, but, was disposed of by this Court on account of the fact that the petitioners were not interested in pursuing the petition and, therefore, the averment made by the petitioners in paragraph-2 is apparently false and misleading. 11. 11. Quite apart from the above, from the orders passed by this Court in the previous petitions filed by the respondent No. 4, which have been affirmed and confirmed by the Supreme Court, it is also evident that the respondent No. 4/college had no recognition for conducting the B.P.Ed. course and that all admissions made by the college were illegal as they had been made by the college at their own level and that the University had subsequently cancelled the entire result. 12. In the backdrop of the aforesaid fact, it is apparent that present petition has been filed by the petitioners in spite of knowing the fact that their admissions are illegal and their result had subsequently been cancelled and in spite of having full knowledge of the fact that similar and identical averments made in the petitions filed by the respondent No. 4/College had already been considered and rejected by this Court and the Supreme Court in the petitions filed by it as all these orders had been supplied to the petitioners along with the returns filed in W.P. No. 10300/2013, after going through which the petitioners had got the petition dismissed as they had lost interest in pursuing the same. It is clearly established that the petitioners have filed the present petition claiming for the same relief which was ultimately dismissed by this Court in W.P. No. 10300/2013 by suppressing all these facts and have deliberately not placed all the aforesaid facts on record. 13. We are therefore of the considered opinion that the relief of issuance of degree etc., prayed for by the petitioners deserves to be and is hereby rejected as their admission was illegal and their result has already been cancelled. 14. At the same time, while doing so, we are also of the considered opinion that heavy costs deserves to be imposed upon the petitioners on account if the fact that the petitioners by filing the present petition have made an attempt to over reach not just the orders passed by this Court but also the orders passed by the Supreme Court in the petition filed by the respondent No. 4/College as well as the order of dismissal of their previous petition No. W.P. 10300/2013. 15. 15. We are compelled to impose heavy cost upon the petitioners on account of their repeated unscrupulous attempt to suppress facts and mislead this Court as well as on account of the abuse and misuse of the process of this Court. As such incidents have become frequent taking of such strict and prohibitive measures have become necessary to discourage such unscrupulous litigants. 16. We therefore, impose a cost of Rs. 50,000/- on each of the petitioners which shall be deposited by the petitioners before the High Court Legal Services Committee, failing which necessary proceedings for recovery shall be initiated against each of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of law including the proceedings for recovery by due rests. 17. The learned counsel for the petitioners prays for and is granted liberty to the extent that the petitioners would be permitted to deposit the aforesaid cost in installments of Rs. 10,000/- per month within a period of five months, subject to the fact that they would deposit the first installment within fifteen days from today. 18. Non-compliance of this order by the petitioners would amount to contempt requiring further punitive action and therefore, the matter be placed before this Court in case, so required. 19. The prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners to recover the cost that has been imposed on them by this Court from the respondent No. 4/College is rejected as the said cost has been imposed upon the petitioners on account of the fact that they have filed this petition by suppressing the material facts and in spite of having full knowledge of the fact that the High Court and the Supreme Court had already declared that their admissions were illegal and the authority and sanctity of the respondent No. 4/College to conduct courses had also been declared to be null and void. However, as has been observed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 712/2013, the liberty to take up appropriate proceedings for claiming compensation, and not costs, against respondents No. 4 would be available to the petitioners in case such a course is permissible under the law. 20. However, as has been observed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 712/2013, the liberty to take up appropriate proceedings for claiming compensation, and not costs, against respondents No. 4 would be available to the petitioners in case such a course is permissible under the law. 20. As the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners states that certain students who had appeared along with the petitioners or thereafter have been granted degrees by the respondent/University, although the respondent No. 4/institution is unrecognized, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4/University is directed to look into the matter and take appropriate steps in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from today. 21. It is further directed that a copy of this order be sent to the concerned authorities of Uttar Pradesh bringing to their notice the fact that the qualifications and degrees possessed by the petitioners are unrecognized and have no authority of law so that necessary action in that regard can be taken by the said authority against them. 22. With the aforesaid directions, this petition is dismissed.