Miss. Anurag Gupta vs State of Haryana and another

This judgment of mine will dispose of C. W. P. No. 16315 of 1992, as also C. W. P. No. 1597 of 1993. The fate of the latter writ petition depends on the result of the former writ petition.

The petitioner in C.W.P. No. 16315of 1992, Miss Anurag Gupta, had passed the Senior Secondary Examination of Board of School Education, Haryana (hereinafter called the Board), in the year 1991 and had obtained 234 marks out of 400 marks. In the subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Biology, she had secured 51/100, 55/100 and 67/100 marks respectively. She had applied for improvement of marks in the subject of Physics and after the improvement in marks, her total marks increased from 234 to 241 out of 400. On 22nd September, 1992, the Secretary of the Board wrote to the petitioner that on account of the improvement of marks she should return the old detailed marks certificate, so that a new detailed marks certificate could be issued showing the improvement in the marks.

The petitioner sought admission to B.A.M.S. Ist year course in Shri Krishna Government Aryurvedic College, Kurukshe-tra, for the session f 992-93. The merit list is prepared on the basis of aggregate of marks in the three elective subjects, i. e. Physics, Chemistry and Biology in 10 + 2 examination. When she submitted her admission forms, she mentioned that she had obtained 60% aggregate marks in the Physics, Chemistry and Biology in the qualifying examination, i.e. 10 + 2. At the time of interview before the admission Committee, she produced the Gazette showing that she had obtained 241 marks. From the averments made in the written statement of the respondents, I find that the petitioner had been given admission by taking into consideration the Gazettee shown to the Admission Committee and taking it that the petitioner had obtained 241 out of 300 marks in the subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Biology, i.e. 80.33%. Her merit was prepared on the basis of 80.33% marks. The petitioner did not point out the error that in fact she had only obtained 60% marks in the three subjects, referred to above, and not 80.33% marks.

Vivak Kaushik, petitioner in C.W.P. No. 1597 of 1993, had earlier filed a petition in this Court, being C.W.P. No. 12819 of 1992, praying that he had got 60% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology and Miss Anurag Gupta had in fact also got the same percentage of marks and she was wrongly shown to have obtained higher percentage of marks in these subjects and or that basis it was he who should have been given admission and not Miss Anurag Gupta. It may be observed that if two candidates were getting the same percentage of marks in the elective subjects in the qualifying examination, then the older in age was to be given admission. When notice of motion was issued in that case, the respondents represented that Miss Anurag Gupta had been wrongly given admission and her admission was being cancelled. Since Miss Anurag Gupta''s admission was being cancelled and no candidate lower in merit than Vivek Kaushik had been admitted, the writ petition filed by Vivek Kaushik was dismissed at the motion stage on 12th November, 1992.

Miss Anurag Gupta has challenged the cancellation of her admission in C.W.P. No. 16315 of 1992. The said writ petition was admitted and the respondents were directed to allow the petitioner to attend the classes. Thereafter, Vivek Kaushik filed C.W.P. No. 1597 of 1993, claiming that since Miss Anurag Gupta had been granted provisional admission, he was also entitled to the same relief being higher in merit than Miss Anurag Gupta. The said writ petition was admitted and ordered to be heard with Miss Anurag Gupta''s writ petition.

As observed earlier, it is the case of the respondents that petitioner Miss Anurag Gupta had obtained aggregate of 60% marks only in the subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Biology in the qualifying examination and when she had produced the Gazette showing the improvement of marks to 241, it was taken as if the improvement of marks was only in the subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Biology, but in fact the Gazette notification represented that the aggregate of all the subjects had been increased from 234 to 241. When this mistake was detected after the filing of the earlier writ petition by Vivek Kaushik, a notice was issued to her on 20th October, 1992 to furnish original detailed marks certificate in respect of the improvement of marks by her. She failed to submit the same. Another show cause notice was issued on 24th October, 1992 to apprise as to whether she had obtained 241 marks in the subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Biology in the qualifying examination and she should produce the original detailed marks certificate and if she cannot produce the same, she should show cause as to why her admission should not be cancelled. She replied on 30th December, 1992 that she had not yet received the detailed marks certificate and further no decision be taken regarding the cancellation of her admission till Vivek Kaushik''s writ petition (C.W.P. No. 12819 of 1992) was pending. No mention was made by her that in fact she had obtained 241 marks in all the subjects on improvement and not only Physics, Chemistry and Biology. On 2nd November, 1992, her admission was cancelled, which order has been impugned in the writ petition.

The penultimate para of the order, cancelling her admission, reads as under:--

"She submitted her reply but the same is very evasive. She had not denied that she never secured 241 marks in the three subjects in the examination held in March, 1992. She has only stated that she appeared in Physics paper in March, 1992 and improved the same but with what marks not stated. In her reply, she had not disclosed the marks obtained by her. She has not submitted the D.M.C. This shows that she has not obtained 241 marks at all in the three subjects but played fraud by producing an attested copy of the Gazette notification. Her percentage of marks in the merit list, selection list, admission list were shown as 80.33% on the basis of gazette notification but she never raised objection to this percentage of marks and got admission. Thus, she played fraud by producing the Gazette notification and concealing the D.M.C. she misrepresented her marks and got admission. The last candidate so admitted was with 79.00% marks whereas she had only 60% of marks. Thus, she would not have got admission, had she not played fraud and misrepresented her marks. Therefore, her admission to B.A.M.S. Course 1st Prof. is cancelled with immediate effect."

It is the case of the petitioner that she had not played any fraud or kept anything secret from the Authorities and had not tried to mislead them. She had clearly mentioned in the admission form that she had obtained 60% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology and had no where mentioned or represented that the Gazette notification issued after the improvement of marks only related to the marks in the subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Biology and not to the whole examination. Be that as it may, it is quite clear now that in fact the petitioner had obtained 60% marks in aggregate in Physics, Chemistry and Biology in the qualifying examination and not 241/300 marks in the said subjects, i.e. 80.33%. The initial admission was granted to her by taking as if the petitioner had obtained 80.33% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology. This mistake was detected and the petitioner was given full opportunity to show if she had obtained more than 60% aggregate marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology. The petitioner did not produce any document to show the same. It is not her case that in fact in Physics, Chemistry and Biology her aggregate marks are more than 60% or are in fact 80.33%. If due to some error or inadvertence, the College Authorities had granted her admission, the petitioner cannot take any benefit as immediately the mistake was defected and the petitioner was given show cause notice as to why her admission be not cancelled. No person lower in merit than the petitioner Miss Anurag Gupta has been admitted. No benefit can be taken by the petitioner in getting admission on the basis that she was getting 241 marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology, whereas in fact she was getting only 180 marks in these subjects. The petitioner did not show or represent after the show cause notice was issued to her that she had in fact obtained more than 60% marks in Physics, Chemistry and Biology. Inference can be drawn that she knew that infact she had been wrongly granted admission by taking her aggregate marks in three elective subjects as 241 instead of 180.

A candidate has only a right to get admission on the basis of merit. On the basis of merit obtained by petitioner Miss Anurag Gupta she was not entitled to get admission. The Authorities had rightly cancelled her admission after giving her due opportunity. There is nothing wrong with the cancellation of her admission.

For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition of Miss Anurag Gupta (C.W.P. No. 16315 of 1992) is hereby dismissed, but without any order as to costs.

In view of the fact that the writ petition of Miss Anurag Gupta has been dismissed, there is no merit in the writ petition of Vivek Kaushik, as the whole basis of Vivek Kaushik was the grant of provisional admission to Miss Anurag Gupta by this Court. This writ petition is also dismissed, but without any order as to costs.

Petition dismissed.