AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Lahiri, J.—The application under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 23.6.83 passed by the Principal, Assam Medical College, forfeiting the admission of the Petitioner into the Medical College and expelling him from the College and Hostel for obtaining admission in the M.B.B.S. course by submitting False mark sheet of the Pre-Degree (Science) Examination raising marks in science subjects from 48% to 75%.
The, Petitioner, was admitted to 1st year M.B.B.S. course in the Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh in the academic session of the year 1981-82. In the application he had set-forth the marks obtained by him in. his Pre-Degree (Science) course. He claimed that be passed in the 1st Division. As usual, there was a contract clause in the application form itself wherein the father of the Petitioner gave an undertaking as follows:
I undertake to see that my son abides by the rules of the college and hostel attached to it in case he/she is, admitted and pay all fees, deposits and other dues as laid down in the college rules. I also undertake to with-draw him/her from the collage or hostel should the principal decide that such withdrawal is necessary in the interest of the Institution.
Sd/- Budheswar Dutta Signature of the Father 30.8.81
Therefore, the condition as to the admission of the Petitioner in the college and hostel was, that his stay in the institution would be subject to the decision of the Principal and if the latter desired that in the interest of the institution, the student should be withdrawn from the college, Sheri Budhesvar Dutta, the father, was to withdraw his sod. It was out and out a contract and on the basis of the contract, the Petitioner was admitted in the M.B.B.S. (1st year) in the Medical College. We extract the mark-sheet submitted by the Petitioner vide Annexure-A 2 along with the application for admission, on the basis of which the Petitioner was admitted into the M.B.B.S. Course:
English Paper� I ....43
- do - � II .... 47
Internal assessment ....17
Total- 107
Modern Indian language/Alternative Paper.
Paper � I .... 50
Paper �II ....55
Internal assessment ....16
Total� 121
First Subject� ''Physics
Paper - I .... 59
Paper � II .... 51
Internal assessment � 14
Theory total 124
Practical � 47
Total- 171
Chemistry
Paper � I .... 53
Paper � II .... 45
Internal assessment .... 14
Theory total 112
Practical ....45
Total- 157
Third Subject � Mathematics:
Paper - I .... 79
Paper � II .... 64
Internal assessment .... 20
Total- 163
Total marks secured in all subjects without additional subject� 719
Additional subject: Biology
Paper I ....37
Paper � II .... 32
Internal assessment .... 14
Total- 83
passed an order of cancellation or his admission and expulsion from the College and hostel for submitting false marks sheet. Admittedly, the order was served on the Petitioner on May 23, 1983./ Prior to this, the Principal of the Medical College had asked the Petitioner to submit the original Marks Sheet hut the Petitioner did not comply with the request. However, Mr. G.K. Talukdar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that no such notice was given to the Petitioner to produce the original Mark Sheet, if so served with any notice the Petitioner could have produced the original certificate and/or could have explained away the circumstances.
The sole grievance of Mr. G.K. Talukdar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the impugned order was passed in breach of the principles of natural justice. Mr. D.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Govt. Advocate submits that the withdrawal of the Petitioner from the College was in pursuance of the- request made by the father. No proceeding was taken up perhaps, not to publicize the matter. The principal himself enquired into the matter, asked the University to furnish the true, and correct marks obtained, the Petitioner''s father was apprised of the facts, the Petitioner was asked to produce documents to support his claim and on the authority of the letter dated 12.5.83 sent by the Controller of Examination, Dibrugarh University, the impugned action bad to be taken in the interest of the Institution, therefore, the Petitioner was entitled to, no other or father; opportunity. The contentions have sufficient force.
However, we feel that it is, not merely a question of getting admission by fair or foul means in a science discipline of academic life but if the allegations are correct, it amounted to deprivation of a needy, deserving and perhaps a poor student, it was a grave mischief and harm committed not only to the Medical College but a meritorious student. In public interest, therefore, to see that recurrence of such incidents do not occur in future, some enquiry should have been held and opportunity should have been given to the Petitioner to show why the proposed penalty should not; be imposed and if the allegations were found established the authority should have given adequate and deserving penalty. However, this may not be taken that we have assumed or accepted the allegations made against the Petitioner as correct, The Petitioner should be granted opportunity to meet the charge against him and to show that report of the Controller of Examination, Dibrugarh University, was false or incorrect and/or the certificate furnished by him to too Medical College was true copy, not forged or manipulated.
There are cases and cases. Indeed, natural justice is now a brooding omnipresence but there are various spheres of activities where the principles need not be followed. There are English decisions where the Courts never interfered with the proceedings of academic discipline. However, there are cases in which the Courts in England desired that the principle of natural justice should be followed. In R. v. Aston University Senate-exp. Roffey (1969) 2 QB. 538, the relief was refused on the ground of undue delay in bringing the proceeding. In Gelyan v. Keele University (1911) 1 WLR 487, a student who had been find and rusticated for exhibiting himself nude in the campus was able to show that the Vice-Chancellor bad failed to observe the requirements of natural justice, since he had given the student no hearing initially but bad informed him that he could appeal against the penalty. In the case, no injunction was granted because there was no assertion made by the student that the allegations against him were false. In the instant case as well there is nothing to show that the report of the Controller of Examinations, Dibrugarh University, was incorrect. Therefore, on the basis of the report itself the principal was well within his right to take the disciplinary action. However, relief was denied in Gleen (supra) as well as in R. v. Oxford University exp. Sorchover (1970) The Times 7th October 1970, on the ground that there was no necessity for granting any relict to party. Indeed, there are cases in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court have expressed that the principles of natural justice should be followed in academic disciplinary matters vide Shri Krishan v. Kurukshetra University AIR 1916 SC 376; Prem Prakash Kaluniya v. The Punjab University AIR 1912 SC 1408 ; Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar Vs. Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat, However, there are cases in which drastic actions of rustication were taken against the students without affording them opportunity to show causes and their Lordships held that the student were not entitled to the opportunity of prior hearing and/or enquiry. In those cases their Lordships of the Supreme Court
Piratical .... 40
Total- 123
Excese marks of additional subject .... 63
Grand Total- 782
Remarks- 1 (Div.)
In May 1983, when the Principal of the Medical College enquired about the marks secured by the Petitioner in his Pre-Degree Examination held in 1979, the Controller of Examination Dibrugarb University informed that the Petitioner obtained the following marks in his Pre-Degree Examination; English Paper I-44, Paper II-18. Internal Assessment-16. Total-78. In M.I.L. (Assamese) Paper I - 28, Paper II-43. Internal assessment-10. Total-105, Physics Paper I-37, Paper II-39. Internal assessment-8, Practical-21, Total-105. Chemistry Paper l-40, Paper II-22 internal assessment-Practical-20. Total-92 Biology Paper I -34, Paper II-27 Internal assessment-II Practical-20,Total-92 (Mathematics additional). The marks underscored by us show far lower marks than those submitted by the Petitioner while making the application for admission into the Medical College. It may be stated here that in the certificate submitted by the Petitioner, the additional subject was shown ''Biology'' and not ''Mathematics''. Therefore, the Grand Total, without the additional subject comes to 448. In Mathematics be secured the following marks-Paper 1-39, Paper II Internal assessment-12. Total-99: Grand Total-487. Naturally, the Controller stated that the Petitioner passed his Pre-Degree (Science) Examination in 2nd Division. We wonder how the things could be taken so lightly by the authority who called the father of the Petitioner, and, it appears to us that in all probability, explained the matter to him and Shri Budhesh war Dutta, father of the Petitioner, by writing the letter dated 16.5.83 desired to withdraw his son from the College on and from the 16th day of May 1983. It is thus seen that in terms of the agreement which finds place in the application, the father withdrew the Petitioner from the College because indiscipline was writ large on the records, on which, perhaps, if the allegations are correct, stringent measures oould1 have been taken against the Petitioner. The Principal, perhaps, did not desire to take very strong view of the matter, accepted the same and held that the principles of natural justice were not required to be meticulously followed vide: Principal, Patna College, Patna and Others Vs. Kalyan Srinivas Raman, ; Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar Vs. Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat, The Bihar School Examination Board Vs. Subhas Chandra Sinha and Others,
We propose not to decide the question as to whether in the instant case it is necessary that the Petitioner should have been given an opportunity or not. But we feel that in public interest and in the interest of the academic life of the Institution itself, an enquiry should be held and if the allegations are proved, the authority may take appropriate action as it deems fit and proper. However, if the authority is satisfied that the Petitioner has had a case it will Dot take any action against him. As desired by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, we remit the matter to the Principal, Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh, who shall inform the Petitioner the a legations against him and shall issue a show cause notice to him forthwith and an enquiry should be held which may be considered to be just and appropriate by the Principal. Along with the show cause notice, the report of the Controller of Examinations dated 10.5.83, the letter of Budbeswar Dutta dated 16.2.83 should be furnished to the Petitioner, to enable him to explain the matters in his show cause. It ii expected that the Principal shall dispose of the matter expeditiously. If it is found that no action need be taken against the Petitioner, the Principal may rescind, recall, or set aside the impugned order. But, if there are materials in support of the allegations, appropriate action may be taken against the Petitioner, The Petitioner must also be informed the nature of penalty that may be imposed on him while serving the show cause notice. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we grant a post-decisional opportunity to the Petitioner as was done in the case of Indian Hard Metals (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India (UOI), Paring the course of enquiry, the Respondents shall be at, liberty either to announce or not to announce the result of the Petitioner or the authority may or may not examine the papers of the Petitioner in the current examination However, if the Petitioner is exonerated of the charges, his papers be examined and the result may be announced and duly published. If the charges against the Petitioner are found to be substantially established the Respondents shall be at liberty not to publish the result of the Petitioner.
With these observations, we dispose of the applications Mr. Talukdar, leaded Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the enquiry may be held after the examinations are over though the show case notice may be given to the Petitioner forthwith. It is further submitted by Mr. Talukdar that the enquiry should be held expeditiously in the interest of the Petitioner. We also feel that in public interest the enquiry should be held expeditiously and the Petitioner should co-operate in the proceedings for the reasons that his results shall not be announced until disposal of the proceedings. Mr. D.N. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the Respondents submits that the Petitioner might claim for admission in 3rd year M.B.B.S. Course. Unless the result is out he cannot be admitted in 3rd year course. We, therefore, direct that until the enquiry is over, in the interest of justice he should not be allowed to study in 3rd year course.
The petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of the judgment without cost.