AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.K. Yog, J.—Bundelkhand University, Jhansi, a Slate University incorporated under U.P. State Universities Act, 1973-for short'' the University'' (Petitioner No. 1) and the Registrar of the University (Petitioner No. 2) have filed this Writ Petition invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226, Constitution of India with the prayer to issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 7-7-2003 in favour of one Amit Pal /Respondent No. 4. (Annexure 1 to the Writ Petition) passed by State Commission for Backward Classes, at Lucknow, constituted under U.P. State Commission Act for Backward Classes, Act, 1996 (called the Commission).
Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings of the parties, Also perused the record brought on record by the parties before this Court.
Present Writ Petition presents interesting, but unusual, setting of facts which are, as they emerge on the canvas of the case, recapitulated hereinafter.
The University was authorised by the State of U.P./Respondent No. 1 to hold examination-CPMT-2002 (for-Combined Pre-Medical Test-2002) and to prepare a merit list of candidates who may seek admission in recognized M.B.B.S. and other Medical courses conducted by State Medical Colleges and recognized institutions in the State of U.P.
An Advertisement was issued inviting applications from desirous candidates willing to pursue ''medical courses''. Amit Pal/respondent No. 4, as reserved-category candidate (O.B.C.) submitted application, to appear in CPMT-2002. ''Admit Card''-bearing Roll No. 21 13619 (in reserved category 27%) was issued and he also appeared in the examination on scheduled dates.
Every candidate was given ''Question-paper-at the-beginning of examination. Each question-paper had 100 questions. Every question had four alternative answers-marked ''A'' ''B'' ''C'' ''D'' out of which only one of it represented correct answer. Candidates were supplied ''Answer-Sheet/s'' (on separate papers). Every Answer-sheet had an identical detachable duplicate copy (with self-carbon impression device). Hereinafter ''Original Answer Sheet'' on top is referred to as ''University Copy'' and its duplicate copy as ''Candidate''s Copy''.
Instructions were given on the top of each Answer Sheet. Instructions No. 4 & 6 clearly provided that more than one circle should not to be darkened/answered or otherwise it shall be treated to have been wrongly answered.
For convenience aforesaid ''Instructions'' are reproduced-
INSTRUDCTIONS
funsZ''k
1&mRrj fy[kus ds fy, ,oa ckWDlksa esa fy[kus ds fy, d`i;k dsoy uhys ;k dkys ckWy IokbaV isu dk gh iz;ksx djsaA
2&fn;s x;s ckWDlksa esa gh iz''u iqfLrdk dksM fy[ksa vkSj uhps fn;s x;s o`Rrksa dks Hkj nsA
3&mijksDrkuqlkj gh viuk jksy uEcj ckWDlksa esa fy[ksa vkSj uhps fn;s x;s o`Rrksa dks Hkj nsA
4&iz''uksa ds mRrj nsus ds fy, mRrjksa esaa ls ,d gh lgh mRrj dks pqus vkSj bl mRrj ds fy, fn;s x;s o`Rr dks Hkjus ds fy;s uhys ;k dkys ckWy IokbaV isu dk iz;ksx djsaA
vuqi;qDr fof/k mi;qDr fof/k
5&D;ksafd o`Rr dks ,d ckj Hkjus ds ckn mldks cnyuk vlaHko gS] blfy, lgh mRrj fuf''pr djus ds ckn gh o`Rr dks HkjsA
6&,d ckj tks mRrj Hkj fn;k x;k mls cnyuk oftZr gSA ,d iz''u dk ,d ls vf/kd mRrj nsus ij mRrj xyr le>k tk;xkA vkSj mlds fy;s vad ugha fn;k tk;xkA
7&vkUlj''khV ij dksbZ dPpk dk;Z �jQ odZ� u djsaA
8&;g mRrj i= nks izfr;ksa esa gSA mRrj&i= ij fdlh izdkj dk fu''kku u yxk;s vkSj eksMs+ ughaA
9&mRrj i= ij lHkh izfof"V;kW cMs+ vPNjksa esa HkjsA
Please use only BLUE or BLACK point pen to mark your answers and for writing in all the relevant boxes
Write the Question Paper Code in the Boxes provided and darken the corresponding CIRCLES below.
Similarly, write your Roll No. in the Boxes and darken the corresponding CIRCLES below.
While answering, chose the correct alternative from the choice of four and mark the same in corresponding circled in your answer sheet. While marking you answer, darken the CIRCLES completely by BLLE or BLACK BALI. POINT PEN only.
INCORRECT METHODS CORRECT METHODS. 5. Since once marked, no change is possible, darken the CIRCLE if you have made up your mind.
change of answer is not permitted, If more than one answer is attempted to a particular question, your answer will be treated as incorrect and no credit will be given.
Rough work must not be done on the answer sheet.
This answer Sheet is in duplicate. Do not mark anywhere except appropriate space.
All entries should be made in CAPITAL LETTERS only.
After ''instructions'', Answer-Sheets'', had blank spaces/columns-one to be filled in by ''candidate'' to indicate his roll number and the other for the invigilator to sign in lieu of having checked particulars of candidate in question at the beginning of the examination. Below these spaces/ columns, a ''tabulated chart'' was given wherein number 1 to 25, 26 to 50, 51 to 75 and 76 to 100 (representing question numbers) were serially mentioned in four columns. Opposite each question number, one found ''Four Boxes'' with circle inside marked with letters ''A'' ''B'' ''C'' ''D'', Candidate was required to ''darken'' by Ball-pen one circle only against one question to indicate his ''option'' of the alternative representing correct answer (as per question paper) and leave other three circles blank-against said question. By darkening circle on ''University copy'' carbon impression was to appear instantly/ simultaneously on the corresponding circle in the ''Candidate''s Copy'' in the ''Examination Hall''. This could be possible- only if candidate did not detach the ''two copies''.
''University copies'' along with Question-papers were collected by the Invigilator/In-charge ''Examination Hall'' before a candidate left Examination Hall. Candidates were allowed to retain duplicate copy/''Candidate''s Copy'' to enable them to compare it with Model Key-Answers to be published later by the University to ensure that there was no mistake in computing marks. In case of discrepancy between the marks calculated as per ''Candidate''s Copy'' vis a vis with model ''Key Answers being detected, rules required a candidate to apply for scrutiny of marks. The object of the process, according to the university, is to maintain transparency and accord credibility to the examination process.
CPMT-2002 result was declared on September 2, 2002. Amit Pal, was shown to have, secured ''Zero'' marks in both the papers. Model ''key answer'' was. thereafter, published on September 13, 2002/1-10-2002. According to Amit Pal, on comparing with model ''key Answer'' with the ''candidate''s copy (in his possession), he was entitled to 178 marks in total. Consequently, he applied for scrutiny of his Marks but the CPMT Examination Committee on scrutiny found no mistake in the computation of marks and ''Zero'' marks (originally allotted to him) remained unchanged. The Committee, found that he had filled all 400 Circles (100 Questions x 4 alternatives) of each of the two answer-sheets and failed to select/ indicate the alternative-representing correct answer of a question and had failed to attempt correctly even a single question. In other words, it was as good as leaving Answer Sheet-virtually blank.
Serutiny result was declared on 28-09-2002 and counselling commenced w.e.f. 7-10-2002. Amit Pal, meanwhile, filed a ''representation'' before University but with no result.
Being aggrieved, Amit Pal. filed Writ Petition No. 3272 (MAS) of 2002 (Amit Pal v. State of U.P. and three Ors.) which is pending before Lucknow Bench of this High Court wherein he has claimed following reliefs:
(i) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents concerned to piece petitioner at appropriate place of his ranking in the merit list of CPMT-2002.
(ii) Issue a further writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus allowing petitioner to appear in the counseling and to admit film for the Graduate Medical Course according to his merit, if necessary, in the reserved category.
(iii) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction as the Hon''ble Court may think it proper in favour of the petitioner.
(iv) Allow the petition with cost.
Relevant extract of order dated 7-10-2002 passed by learned Single Judge read:
...
The petitioner has already made a representation to opposite party No. 3 through fax on 25-9-2002, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition.
List this petition in the week commencing 21-10-2002.
In the meantime, the opposite party No. 3 shall consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 25-9-2002.
Amit Pal, at this juncture, filed a ''representation'' before the Commission as is evident from the perusal of order dated 4-12-2002 (passed by Lucknow Bench), which reads:
...The petitioner, as informed by the learned Counsel for the University, has also approached the O.B.Cs. Commission where some enquiries are pending.
Considering all what has been said above, I am of the view that no case for interim stay at mis juncture is made out.
The Commission finally allowed said ''representation'' in favour of Amit Pal vide impugned order dated 7-7-2003/Annexure-l to the writ petition and directed the State/the University authorities to award marks on the basis of the ''Candidate''s Copy'' and if successful on merit, to initiate consequential follow up action i.e. 10 call for counselling and to admission in MBBS Course/s in question.
The Commission, in the impugned order, primarily noted that:
(i) it was admitted to the candidate/Amit Pal and the University that while ''darkening'' a circle on ''University copy'' its identical ''carbon impression'' was to appear on ''Candidate''s Copy'' attached with it,
(ii) in ''University copies'' all 400 circles have been darkened while in ''Candidate''s Copy'' only one circle is shown to have been darkened against one question ( in other words the original and the duplicate do not tally);
(iii) ''University copy'' and ''Candidate''s Copy'' appears to be genuine/authentic as both bear genuine signature of the Invigilator made in examination hall.
(iv) on behalf of the University, an attempt is made to plead that original and Duplicate (carbon) copies were probably separated; (v) University/State were given more than sufficient opportunity to get the ''Original'' and ''Duplicate'' Answer-sheets ''examined'' by expert or tested in Laboratory to prove that candidate''s copy was forged/fabricated �tkyh�;
(vi) burden to prove that candidate''s ''copy'' was forged or tampered was upon the State/the University who failed to prove that ''Candidate''s Copy'' was not genuine; (vii) it appears to be certain that ''University copy'' has been tampered after it was handed over by the candidate to the invigilator/Incharge-Examination Hall;
Perusal of Order-sheet particularly orders- e.g. dated 4-4-2005, 2-5-2005, 9-5-2005, 26-5-2005, 27-5-2005, 15-7-2005, 20-7-2005, 26-7-2005 & 16-8-2005 show that Amit Pal adopted low profile in defending Writ Petition at Allahabad while, on the other hand, he attempted to seek ''Admission'' in MBBS Course by obtaining an ''interim order'' in the Writ Petition pending before Lucknow Bench. Amit Pal, however, failed in this ''hide and seek''.
At the out set, learned Counsel for the University submitted that the Commission has no jurisdiction/authority to adjudicate or sit in appeal over the decision of the University/Examination Committee which is an autonomous body vested with authority in law to hold the examination and decide dispute/s of present nature; impugned order passed by the Commission to admit Amit Pal/Respondent No. 4 is without legal authority/jurisdiction; such an order is a nullity and the Commission'' cannot be allowed to usurp functions of the University/C.P.M.T. Examination Committee.
To appreciate this argument, relevant statutory provisions have to be perused. ''Commission'' is constituted u/s 3, State Commission for Backward Classes Act, 1996 (PRESIDENT''S ACT No. 1 of 1996). Section 9 of the Act, which provides for its functions, read-
Functions of the Commission.- (1) The Commission shall perform all or and of the following junctions, namely:-
(a) the commission shall examine requests for inclusion of any class of citizens as a backward class in the Schedule and hear complaints of wrong inclusion or non-inclusion of any backward class in the Schedule and, tender such advice to the State Government as it deems appropriate;
(b) to investigate and monitor all matters relating to the safeguards provided for the backward classes under any law for the rime being in force or under any order of the Sate Government and to evaluate the working of such safeguards;
(c) to enquire into specific complaints with respect to the deprivation of rights and safeguards of the backward classes;
(d) to participate and advise on the planning process of socio-economic development of the backward classes and to evaluate the progress of their development;
(e) to present to the State Government annually and at such other times as the Commission may deem fit, reports upon the working of those safeguards;
(f) to make in such reports recommendations, as to the measures that should be taken by the State government for the effective implementation of those safeguards and other measures for the protection, welfare and socio-economic development of the backward classes; and
(g) to discharge such other function in relation to the protection, welfare, development and advancement of the backward classes as may be referred to it by the Stale Government.
(2) The State Government shall cause the reports of the Commission to be laid before each House of the State legislature along with a memorandum explaining the action taken or proposed to be taken on the recommendations and the reason for the non-acceptance, if any, of any of such recommendations.
According to the University, none of the powers-conferred u/s 9 of the Act, 1996, empowers the Commission to take upon itself investigation/inquiry with regard to holding of the CPMT-Examination which is governed and regulated by its own statutory provisions- viz.- U.P. State University Act, 1973, Statutes framed thereunder, Government. Orders, Rules, etc. Commission has no role in the matter of CPMT-Examination. Amit Pal, as backward candidate, had no occasion to approach the Commission in the matter of present grievance and the Commission, could, at best, require the University to hold an enquiry in the matter of CPMT-2000 in accordance with law. The Commission, according to the University, exceeded in its jurisdiction in directing the University/CPMT Examination Committee to evaluate marks on the basis of ''candidate''s'' copy, in contravention of Examination procedure adopted in case of candidates without exception.
Section 9 of the Act 1996 (quoted above), we have no doubt, does not confer power issuing direction to evaluate marks as per ''Candidate''s copy, The Commission did exceed in its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order and to that extent, it is a nullity.
learned Counsel for the petitioners/University next argued that CPMT Examination Committee-2002 was constituted by the State Government which conducted- CPMT Examination-2002 strictly in accordance with relevant G.O./Regulations issued from time to time. It is pointed out that there is no question of obtaining expert opinion in a case like the present one wherein all 400 circles (100 questions x 4 alternatives) have been ''darkened'' in the ''University copy''. The Commission failed to appreciate that it was not a case where ''handwriting'' expert was required. In the instant case-a candidate was not to write-answers. It was a case where candidate was required to darken ''circles''.
According to the University, as also noted by the Commission in the impugned order, Amit Pal himself detached ''University copy'' from the ''Candidates'' Copy'', while darkening ''four hundred circles'' in the ''University copy'' in the Examination Hall and later outside examination hall, he managed ''carbon impressions'' in the ''candidate''s copy'' in his possession with external help and his claim is nothing but an endeavour to make out a case of victimization by making wild allegations against the University/Examination Committee.
Amit Pal/Respondent No. 4 denied the above. He asserts that he had correctly attempted 178 questions as per candidate''s copy and denies charge of higgling with or processing ''Candidate''s Copy'' in his possession outside examination hall.
Contrary pleadings before the Court by the respective parties, pose interesting question, namely, (i) ''whether, Amit Pal himself filled all 400 circles ( in the University copies) in side Examination Hall-after detaching candidates'' copy and. on the other hand, he took with him blank ''candidate''s copies'' and later, outside examination-hall, he manipulated carbon impressions in the ''circles'' indicating one option only against one question (total 178 correct answers).
The answer is simple and not far to seek.
The Commission failed to appreciate that Amit Pal did not submit before it original-''Candidate''s Copy'' which was admittedly in his possession and hence, at no stage, it had an opportunity to peruse the same. The Commission failed to appreciate that it was essential for it to ''peruse'' and compare ''University copies'' with ''Candidate''s Copies'' which was otherwise not possible on perusing ''Photo-Copies'' of the ''Candidate''s Copies'' submitted by Amit Pal before it, liven before this Court Amit Pal has also failed to explain as to why he did not submit before the Commission original ''Candidate''s Copies'' which were admittedly in his possession.
It is a matter of general experience that it is well neigh-impossible to compare and detect ''erasions'' or ''darkening-impressions'' on the basts of ''Photo-Copies'', which generally do not represent exact ''impression'' or ''erasion'' on its original documents. ''University Copy'' and ''Candidate''s Copy'', if not detached in Examination Hall, are like ''Negative'' and ''Positive'' of a camera film. Carbon impression, if it is procured simultaneously and instantly while darkening was done on ''University copy'', must be exactly identical and match with darkening on ''Candidate''s Copy''.
Minor ''blank-spaces'' inside or ''excess/over-stepped darkening'' of particular circles can he matched only by perusing the original of the ''University Copies'' and the original ''candidate''s copies''. The Commission, as noted above, had no occasion to compare the University copy (in possession of the University) with the original-''candidate''s copy'' to detect manipulation/forgery/tampering by either party. The Commission thus failed to appreciate this aspect, committed an error apparent on the face of record, and missed to arrive at correct conclusion.
''Time'' is ''vital'' in the nature of present case. Amit Pal/Respondent No. 4 has already lost 3/4 years in litigation. learned Counsel for the parties agreed that this Court itself may peruse the record and compare the ''University copy'' and original ''Candidates'' copy'' now brought on record by Am it Pal.
We have undertaken the said exercise with the help of learned Counsel for the parties in order to give final quietus to the litigation between the parties.
We find no sign of ''eraser'' being used in any of the circles either in University copy or in Candidates'' copy. In the instant case, however, the ''Modus-operandi'' of the beneficiary is otherwise.
A candidate was required to darken/fill up circles by ball-pen on University copy. And no wonder that ''minor'' blank spaces, were left inside and in some cases ''darkening'' overstepped certain circles.
We have carefully compared the pattern of ''darkening'' ''circles''-on the ''Candidate''s copies'' and original answers sheets (numbered as 0116739 and 0316739).
To be precise, on comparing the original Answer Sheet and ''Candidate''s copies'' we find that there is no excess darkening in the circles in University copies-whereas it is so in Candidate''s Copies-as per chart given below:
------------------------------------------------------------------- Carbon Copy of Answer Carbon Copy of Answer Sheet Number 0116739 Sheet Number 0316739 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Question Alternative Question Alternative Number Number Number Number ------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 D 3 C ------------------------------------------------------------------- 11 D 8 D ------------------------------------------------------------------- 12 A 11 D ------------------------------------------------------------------- 21 B 27 A ------------------------------------------------------------------- 26 D 31 C ------------------------------------------------------------------- 43 A 32 D ------------------------------------------------------------------- 51 D 36 D ------------------------------------------------------------------- 60 A 51 D ------------------------------------------------------------------- 64 C 60 A ------------------------------------------------------------------- 72 B 66 C ------------------------------------------------------------------- 76 B 86 C ------------------------------------------------------------------- 77 A 87 D ------------------------------------------------------------------- 78 B 89 B ------------------------------------------------------------------- 86 B 90 D ------------------------------------------------------------------- 91 D 93 D ------------------------------------------------------------------- 96 B 94 B -------------------------------------------------------------------
''Blank spaces'' in the circles on ''Candidate''s copies'' not being found identical in the corresponding circles on the ''University copy'' is sought to be explained by Amit Pal by submitting that blank spaces in the circles in the ''University copies'' have been filled subsequently by unknown person while ''Original Answer-sheet'' was in possession of" the University. Explanation, furnished by Amit Pal is not only strange but also difficult to accept.
There is another aspect. It could be easily ascertained by ''naked eyes'' that excess darkening outside certain circles in ''candidate''s copies'' do not tally with that of the corresponding circles in ''University copies'' with the University-like positive and negative of a camera film. This exercise required no indepth investigation/inspection or expert report. This shows that carbon impressions (darkening) in the ''Candidate''s copies'' are not the one which have come in existence instantly/simultaneously while the circle in ''University copy'', was darkened in the ''examination hall''.
There is no plausible reason to fetch: as to why ''unknown person'' should darken all blank circles when this object could be achieved by darkening 2nd circle- one more circle- i.e. against the answered questions (as per candidate''s copies. To darken large number of excess circles was a redundant exercise for ''unknown person''. On the other hand, one cannot also ignore that the person so doing is normally not leisurely. Circles on original answer-sheet does not show that they have been, darkened in a hush-hush manner.
It becomes evident, if a deeper thought is given that Amit Pal could not succeed in his game-plan unless all 400 circles were darkened. In the examination hall, Amit Pal did not know- the ''correct -alternative'' and by darkening 2nd or 3rd circles ( apart from 1st circle) would have indicated his attempt in examination hall. Darkening of all 400 circles in each of the two ''University copies'' show that Amit Pal has processed/fabricated ''candidate''s copies'' outside examination hall.
Sri D.K.S. Rathore. Advocate representing Amit Pal/Respondent No. 4, however, failed to furnish any explanation whatsoever as to why excess ''darkening'' in particular circles in ''candidates'' copy'' is not present in corresponding circles of original answer sheets.
This established beyond doubt that excess ''carbon-markings'' in ''candidate''s copies'' of answer sheets do not tally with their corresponding circles in the ''University copy'' as they have not been obtained simultaneously and instantly on the two sheets in question.
This shows that ''candidate''s'' copies'' have been fabricated by manipulation and by processing it after examination was over and not the vice-versa as alleged by the candidate. Apparently this has been done by Amit Pal/the candidate as per preconceived plan-viz, by detaching ''candidate''s copies'' while darkening circles on ''University copies'' in the examination hall.
In addition to it one finds no explanation as to why all 400 circles over in both ''University copies'' have been darkened unless they were available to one person for doing so. Preponderance and probability tilts suspicion towards the candidate. Amit Pal, in our considered opinion, did detach the two copies while darkening circles in examination hall. This itself frustrated object of having instant impressions on candidate''s copy.
learned Counsel, Sh. D.K.S. Rathore and Amit Pal, after consulting each other, attempted to convince the court by submitting that correct alternatives were marked in the question papers (which were also retained along with University copies) by the University and his claim based on ''candidate''s copy'' can be verified. On perusing the two question papers (bearing Code No. 53353 and 78877) we find that the candidate has not ticked any particular ''alternative'' and instead he has ticked or marked the ''question numbers'' only. The stand taken by the candidate in this respect is also not borne out from the record.
this Court is satisfied, beyond pale of doubt, that Amit Pal/Respondent No. 4 in pursuance to his pre-pondered plan, set to pursue his scheme to seek Admission in MBBS Course by playing fraud upon the authorities. The master mind -ingenious ''modus operandi'' adopted by Amit Pal to seek Admission in MBBS Course through ''fraud'' by making wild allegations against University Authorities is nothing short of misleading University authorities and abusing process of law and Court. Unscrupulous/surreptitious conduct of Amit Pal to seek admission in MBBS course-by fraudulent means- has to be deprecated.
In view of the aforesaid clinching circumstance, we have no hesitation in concluding that Amit Pal/Respondent No. 4 has created evidence of securing marks by putting ''carbon impressions'' in circles (representing correct answers in the ''candidate''s copies'') after ''key-answer'' were published. This is also the reason that Amit Pal, had to allege that he could collect his result with difficultly. In fact he wanted time to create evidence after result was published.
The Commission failed to appreciate that the course adopted by it was froth with danger to encourage candidates to stake claim of evaluation of marks as per candidate''s copies-even if processed and fabricated outside examination Hall and no exception ought to be made in the case of Amit Pal- who did not submit original ''Candidate''s copy'' which was in his possession and for which no reasonable explanation is available on record.
Otherwise also we find from the record, that Amit Pal/Respondent No. 4, cannot claim to be bright student as is evident from the standard of language used by him in his Application, copy of which is Annexure-5 to his counter affidavit and which is reproduced:
To,
Chairman, CPMT-2002 &
Vice Chancellor
Bundelkhand University, Jhansi.
I will want to informing von that I am Amit Pal who is competitive of CPMT exam. I obtained the marks 178/200 in CPMT-2002 but your document who''s given by India result rewarded me total marks 0/200. How it is possible because there, was no negative marking in CPMT-2002. First of all I am awaiting your marksheet but within three week of exposure (of) result, but, you have never sent it & your Website is also be hang. So I will want only declaration about it. I saw your add of scrutiny but the time is over. So I find out the marksheet on India result then 1 saw that your examination body rewarded me only ''0'' marks out of 200; but when I checked my photocopy carbon answer sheet I found 178 marks, then please giving the declaration.
Application No. -0175110 Name of Applicant Roll No. -2113619 Sd/- (Amit Pal)
"Fraud and justice never dwell together" as observed by the Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra singh and Ors. (2000)3 Supreme Court Cases 581. Relevant para-3 of the aforesaid judgment reads:
Fraud and justice never dwell together" (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant) is a pristine maxim which has never lost its temper over all these centuries. Lard Denning observed in a language without equivocation that "no judgment of a conn, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud, for, fraud unravels everything" (Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley).
Conduct of Amit Pal/Respondent No. 4, apart from disentitling himself to seek admission in MBBS Course, also deserves to be strongly deprecated as observed by the Apex Court in the case of Dr. Vijay Kumar Kathuria Vs. State of Haryana and Others, Relevant extract of para 1 & 3 are reproduced-
...In other words, it is clear that on 1-10-1982 the petitioners made a false representation to this Court that they were continuing their studies as post-graduate students of Medical College Rohtak on 1-10-1982, and obtained an order of status quo as of that date to be maintained from this Court. But for the misrepresentation this Court would never have passed the said order. By reason of such conduct they have disentitled themselves from getting any relief or assistance from this Court and the Special Leave Petitions are liable to be dismissed.
...
3...The District Judge''s report in that behalf is eloquent and most revealing as it points out how the two petitioners and their counsel, (who also gave evidence in support of the petitioners'' case before the District Judge) have indulged in telling lies and making reckless allegation of fabrication and manipulation of records against the College Authorities and how in fact the boot is on their leg. It is a sad commentary on the scruples of these three young gentlemen who are on the threshold of their careers. In fact, at one stage we are inclined to refer the District Judge''s report both to the Medical council as well as the Bar Council for appropriate action but we refrained from doing so as the petitioners'' counsel, both on behalf of his clients as well as on his own behalf tendered unqualified apology and sought mercy from the Court. We, however, part with the case with a heavy heart expressing our strong disapproval of their conduct and behaviour but direct that the petitioners will pay a sum of Rs. 2,500/- each by way of costs to the respondents....
We, therefore, direct Respondent Authorities to consider the issue and adopt such ''modus operancli''/methodology wherein there is no chance of a candidate taking out ''Candidate''s copies'' which do not tally with ''original answer-sheet'' while submitting it to the In-charge-Examination Hall. For example, a candidate can he required to give separately total circles-representing correct alternatives-correct marked as ''A'' ''B'' ''C'' ''D'' in both the Answer Sheets-both ''original'' and ''Duplicate'' which may be verified and countersigned by the Invigilator at the end of the examination. However, it is for the Respondent Authorities to look into this aspect and ensure that in future such ''fraudulent'' device is excluded.
We further direct Registrar General of this Court to place a copy of this judgment on the record of Writ Petition No. 3272 (MS) of 2002- Amit Pal v. State of U.P. and Ors. pending in this High Court (Lucknow Bench) with direction to the concerned Bench Secretary to bring this judgment to the notice of the Court ( Lucknow Bench) at relevant time while hearing the said writ petition in future.
Impugned order dated 7-7-2003/Annexure-l to the writ: petition passed by State Backward Commission/Respondent No. 3 is hereby quashed with the declaration that Amit Pal/Respondent No. 4 is not entitled for admission on the basis of CPMT Examination-2002. He is also debarred in future to appear in C.P.M.T. Examination in the State.
Writ Petition stands allowed with Rs. 25,000/- as costs to be paid within one month of delivery of this judgment by Amit Pal/Respondent No. 4) to the University, failing which said amount shall be recovered by the University from him as land revenue.