1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 105/2007 Smt. Preety Vijay Chhattani ..vs.. Rashtrasanth Tukdoji Maharaj, Nagpur University and others -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Dewani, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Shukla, Advocate for respondent no. 4. CORAM: D. K. DESHMUKH AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATED : 18 th NOVEMBER, 2008 1. The petitioner passed third year examination of B.H.M.S. It was then discovered that the petitioner had, in fact, failed in the second year examination but in order to secure admission to third year and prosecute her studies in third year, she had procured fake mark-sheet showing that she had passed her examination. Taking equitable view of the matter, this Court permitted the petitioner to reappear for second year examination because result of this examination was cancelled. The petitioner appeared for second year examination in the year 2006 and she cleared it. 2 2. The petitioner, by this petition, is insisting that though she had passed second year examination in the year 2006, result of her examination of third year, which was declared in the year 1999 should be held to be valid for some equitable grounds which, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, have been accepted by the Supreme Court by Judgment in Sandeep Subhash Parate ..vs.. State of Maharashtra and others; AIR 2006 Supreme Court 3102. In our opinion, the submission is not well founded because when the petitioner agreed to appear for second year examination again, the petitioner conceded the position that she had produced fake mark-sheet and, therefore, she had failed in the second year examination. Obviously, therefore, admission of the petitioner to third year course was not valid and if admission of the petitioner to third year course was not valid, her result of third year examination would also not be valid. 3. It appears that the respondent-University has taken 3 a reasonable stand. The University is not insisting upon the petitioner for prosecuting the studies but it only wants the petitioner to appear for the third year examination. 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly looking to the acceptance of the petitioner of producing fake mark-sheet, no exception can be taken to the stand taken by the University. In our opinion, such petitions do not deserve any interference at the hands of this Court in its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is, therefore, rejected. However, the petitioner is directed to pay cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand Only) to the respondent-University. JUDGE JUDGE kahale