IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 19.01.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.Nos.8063 and 8600 of 2010 S.Dhivagar ... Petitioner in W.P.No.8063 of 2010 Sourav Kumar ... Petitioner in W.P.No.8063 of 2010 Vs. 1.The Director, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Danvantri Nagar, Puducherry-605 006. 2.The Dean, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Danvantri Nagar, Puducherry-605 006. ... Respondents in both WPs Prayer in both WPs: Writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the Memorandum No.JIP/1/2010 dated 01.04.2010 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to permit the petitioners to continue his studies in the respondents' college pending disposal of the criminal case. For petitioners : Mr.V.Ayyadurai For Respondents : Mr.M.Ravindhran, ASGI O R D E R In both the writ petitions, the petitioners have sought for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the proceedings of the Dean, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Puducherry, the 2nd respondent herein, dated 01.04.2010, by which, the petitioners have been suspended from MBBS course with immediate effect and not permitted to attend the classes on the ground that they were alleged to have involved in impersonation in JIPMER MBBS Entrance Examination conducted on 07.06.2009. As pleadings and submissions are common, both the writ petitions are taken up together and disposed of by a common order. 2. According to the petitioners, they have secured good marks in the qualifying examination. They applied for admission to the 2nd respondent institution. They wrote the entrance examination conducted by the second respondent-Institution. In W.P.No.8063 of 2010, the petitioner has submitted that he has scored 132 marks in the entrance examination and secured 26th position in the ranking. After counselling, both the petitioners were admitted to Ist year MBBS course in the 2nd respondent institution in July 2009. While the petitioners were pursuing their studies, to their shock and surprise, they were informed that after verifying the signatures and finger prints of 77 candidates, contradictions were found in the signatures and thumb impressions of four students and therefore, the 2nd respondent has given a complaint to D'Nagar Police station, Puducherry, on 29.08.2009. Though the petitioners have not committed any offence, apprehending arrest, they obtained anticipatory bail. Thereafter, they continued their education. Suddenly, by impugned order dated 01.04.2010, the petitioners were suspended from MBBS course, with immediate effect and that they were not permitted to attend the classes. It is their contention that though they approached the Dean, JIPMER, the 2nd respondent herein, he refused to give any suitable answer. As the examinations for the MBBS course were scheduled on 26.04.2010 and having regard to the fact that they had continued their education without any adverse remarks from July 2009, they were constrained to prefer the present writ petitions for the relief stated supra. According to the petitioners, they have not committed any misconduct, cheating/impersonation, as alleged in the impugned memo dated 01.04.2010, by which they were suspended. 3. Taking this Court, through the admission procedure set out in the prospectus for admission to the Ist year MBBS course in the 2nd respondent institution, Mr.V.Ayyadurai, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that before granting admission to the second respondent-Institution, at each and every stage of the process, the identity of a persons, who applied for admission to the course has been verified and therefore there is no chance for any student for committing any irregularity, muchless cheating or impersonation. According to him, as per the prospectus, applications for the entrance examination to the MBBS course 2009 can be sent through online and that the candidate has to send the application with requisite signatures, photograph, attestation, left thumb print along with Demand Draft. He also submitted that after scrutiny of the applications, they are scanned and only thereafter, hall tickets were issued to the students. 4. Inviting the attention of this Court to the instructions to be followed in the entrance examination, Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the candidates must sign in the attendance sheet, at the appropriate place and affix their thumb impression against the appropriate column of the attendance sheet and failure to comply with the requirements will lead to annulling of the candidature without any previous intimation. He also submitted that there is also a provision to videograph the conduct of the entrance examination, and that the same was done, in the year 2009 and as per the instructions contained in the prospectus in the entrance examination, the candidates are required to keep their head in upright position and face the camera, during videography, so that their identity could be clearly established. According to him, both the petitioners have gone through the abovesaid process, right from the date of submission of their applications till they wrote their entrance examination conducted by the 2nd respondent. Thereafter, they were placed in the order of merit and called for counselling. Therefore, he submitted that at all stages, the identity of the petitioners was verified by the respondents and there is absolutely no scope for any malpractice in the entrance examination. According to him, only in the hall ticket and in the attendant sheet, finger print of the candidates, was not taken. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that when positive and effective materials were already available with the respondents, and when such strict procedure has been followed to prevent any malpractice being committed in the entrance examination for admission to MBBS course, in the 2nd respondent institution, the respondents have chosen to hastily act on the basis of an unconfirmed report from a former Assistant Director of the Forensic Department (Retd.) and a finger print consultant, Chennai, for passing the impugned order of suspension. According to the Learned Counsel for the petitioners, no conclusion of guilt can be arrived at, based on the report of the said persons. He further submitted that the whole proceedings, both prosecution and the internal action in suspending the petitioners have been taken purely on the basis of suspicion, that they were involved in cheating/impersonation. Even assuming that there is a high degree of suspicion, that should not be a cause for suspending the petitioners from MBBS course and that would affect their career. According to the learned counsel, though a complaint was lodged with the police in August 2009, under Sections 419 and 420 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, as early as on 31.08.2009, the petitioners and two others were permitted to complete the academic year and when they were ready to take up the examination in April 2010, being actuated with malice, the 2nd respondent, has issued the order of suspension. Though the respondents had the relevant materials in their possession, to verify the signatures and thumb impression, as to the identity of the persons, who took up the entrance examination, the second respondent, in order to prevent the petitioners from taking up the examination, has issued the order of suspension and therefore, malafide is apparent. 5. Taking this Court, through the contents of the order of suspension, he further submitted that the reports of the experts engaged by the 2nd respondent college, cannot be said to be authenticated reports given by competent authorities, as stated in the impugned order of suspension and in such circumstances, there is a total non application of mind, on the part of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned order of suspension. He also submitted that the impugned order does not spell out any valid reasons, such as formulation of any charges or enquiry into grave charges under contemplation and in such circumstances, this Court has to consider as to whether the petitioners-students have to remain under suspension, endlessly till the completion of the criminal case registered against them, along with others. According to him, the allegation levelled against the students, cheating or impersonation in the examination and their consequential suspension from pursuing MBBS course should not be equated with that of suspension of a government servant, pending enquiry and that the same has to be considered, taking into account their career, if suspension is prolonged. Pointing out that the respondents are not interested in initiating departmental proceedings, against the petitioners and others, who were alleged to have involved in cheating/impersonation, and rather prefer to wait till the completion of the criminal case wherein, the petitioners have been charge sheeted and of the fact, that two students against whom, the charge sheet has been laid, along with the petitioners, have already absconded and the delay, which is likely to be caused in the process of splitting up the prosecution in respect of the petitioners and the uncertainty in the result of the prosecution levelled against them, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that retaining the petitioners under suspension endlessly would affect their education and career of the petitioners and ultimately, if they come out successful in the trial, the time lost by them cannot be regained and in such circumstances, when the petitioners are willing to face any departmental enquiry, the respondents can permit them to continue the course, subject to the outcome of any internal enquiry. 6. Repelling the above submissions, Mr.M.Ravindhran, Learned Additional Solicitor General of India, submitted that the petitioners submitted the application forms in the pre-printed form [scannable and non scannable forms]. In the non scannable form, the petitioners had affixed their left hand thumb impressions and left hand index finger impressions and signatures and the non scannable form also contains the photograph with placard and signatures. He further submitted that insofar as admission to MBBS course in JIPMER, Puducherry, is concerned, the entrance examination was conducted at various places and a total of 17,389 candidates wrote the entrance examination and after publication of the results, on 19.06.2009, 77 of them were called for counselling from 15.07.2009. After admission of the candidates to the Ist year MBBS course 2009-10, the correctness of the certificates, matching of signatures and fingerprints were verified by a Professor and Former Director [Documents] (Retired), Forensic Science Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, and a Finger Print Expert, Chennai. In their reports, it was clearly stated that the signatures of the petitioners were different and the finger prints obtained at the venue of examination hall were also not identical. In view of the same, a police complaint was lodged to the Sub Inspector of Police, D'Nagar Police station, Puducherry, against the petitioners and others, for appropriate action. In this regard, the Learned Additional Solicitor General of India, also took this Court through the contents of the complaint lodged by the Dean of the 2nd respondent institution. 7. As regards the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was hastiness in suspending the petitioners from MBBS course, he further submitted that the verification of the finger prints and signatures of all the abovesaid candidates, who took up the entrance examination conducted in various centres like, Puducherry, Chennai, Hyderabad, Thiruvanandhapuram, etc., were verified by the experts, between July and August' 2010 and it took nearly two months. After examination of the reports, it was found that only four finger prints and signatures did not match with the application forms and thereafter, a detailed complaint was preferred to the police, as the matter required further investigation and action to be initiated, if confirmed. 8. Taking this Court through the report of the police dated 29.03.2010 of the Inspector of Police, D'Nagar circle, Puducherry, addressed to the Dean of the 2nd respondent institution, the Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the handwritings/signatures found in the MBBS application forms submitted by the petitioners and in the entrance examination application forms, admitted handwriting, signatures of the suspected persons, during counselling and the sample handwriting, signatures of the suspected persons, obtained by the Police, have been forwarded to the Forensic Sciences Department, Mylapore, by the police, through a court of competent jurisdiction and after obtaining the opinion of the Fingerprint Expert and Document Expert, the Inspector of Police, D'Nagar Circle, Puducherry, has prima facie found that the petitioners, who attended counselling for the Ist year MBBS course, were not the persons who wrote MBBS entrance examination and that therefore they have committed impersonation and dishonestly obtained admission to the Ist year MBBS course in the second respondent-Institution. According to him, the respondents have acted on the basis of an authenticated report given by the investigating officer and the suspension of the petitioners is based on the prima facie material and it was not actuated by any malafide intention. 9. Inviting the attention of this Court to the final report filed before the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Puducherry, and the criminal case in C.C.No.393 of 2010 dated 09.06.2010, Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that out of the four persons alleged to have committed impersonation and charge sheeted, two of them have absconded and therefore, the trial has to be split up and conducted against the petitioners. He also submitted that the trial is posted on 25.01.2011 and since most of the witnesses are from the second respondent-Institution and experts, it may not take a long time for the completion of trial. It is his further submission that since the original finger prints and the application forms containing the signatures of the petitioners and others have been taken by the police during investigation and sent for experts opinion, as stated supra, and since the matter involves adjudication with reference to the experts opinion namely, finger print expert and handwriting expert, the College administration has desired to await for the outcome of the trial by the competent criminal court. 10. Learned Additional Solicitor General of India also submitted that if there is any apprehension on the part of the petitioners that the trial is likely to be prolonged, appropriate directions may be issued to the Criminal court for early disposal of the trial. He further submitted that the loss of one seat in the college, an institution of national importance, is a loss to the country and the petitioners who have involved themselves in such dubious method, do not deserve any sympathy from this Court, particularly, when both the Fingerprint and handwriting experts, have come out with a prima facie opinion. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that though adequate precautionary measures have been taken in the entrance examination and selection of candidates to the Ist year MBBS course in the 2nd respondent institution, which has very limited seats and having regard to the past experience and despite the introduction of the method of obtaining the signatures, fingerprints, etc., still the petitioners with a desire to get admission to the second respondent- Institution, at any cost, have indulged in serious acts of impersonation and gained admission. He further submitted that if appropriate action is not taken against them, then the discipline to be maintained the institution, the foremost aspect in education, would be very much affected. He further submitted medical education is the most sought for by the meritorious candidates and the same cannot be acquired by this method, thereby, depriving the chances of other meritorious students. 11. Inviting the attention of this Court, to clause 19 of the instructions to be followed in the instructions, contained in the prospectus, Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that what is stated in the prospectus is that the conduct of the examination could be videographed, but in the case on hand, on the date of entrance examination, no videographing was done and that it is not mandatory as per the prospectus. He also submitted that even though the evidence collected and possessed by the college administration was sufficient to take appropriate disciplinary action against the petitioners and two others, by placing them under suspension, yet, the college administration did not act arbitrarily on the basis of the opinion obtained from their experts, but only after receipt of an authenticated report from the police, suspension was resorted. Therefore, the Learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that action has been taken on the basis of the report from a competent authority and for the reasons, prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions. 12. By way of reply, Mr.V.Ayyadurai, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the contention that no videograph was taken on the date of the entrance examination, without there being any averments in the counter affidavit need not be considered by this Court and if the respondents have not taken any videography, as per the instructions contained in the prospectus, the petitioners cannot be put to hardship. It is his further submission that even the police report, which is alleged to have been taken, as the basis for suspension of the petitioners from the medical course has not been referred to in the impugned order of suspension and it is nothing but an invention of the college administration to place the petitioners under suspension. Summing up, he prayed that while adjudicating the issue, this Court may consider the plight of the students and their career, and if they have to be kept away from pursuing their medical education, till a finality is arrived at in the trial, it would result in hardship. Learned Counsel stressed that the petitioners who are now accused of certain criminal charges need not be punished, at this juncture, without there being any finding on the charges. 13. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 14. Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Puducherry, is an institution of national importance founded in 1823 by the French Government and taken over by the Government of India in 1956 and it was upgraded as Post graduate institution in 1964. The courses imparted by this institution are recognised across the country and even abroad. Admission to MBBS course is through entrance examination conducted by JIPMER and as per the prospectus, there are six centres for conducting the entrance examination i.e., Chennai, Puducherry, Hyderabad, Thiruvanandapuram, Kolkatta and New Delhi. As per the information furnished by the Dean, JIPMER, the entrance examination for admission to MBBS course has been conducted on 07.06.2009 at six centres in various places, stated supra, namely, Puducherry- 5 venues, Chennai- 3 venues, Hyderabad- 6 venues, Thiruvanandapuram- 5 venues, Calcutta- 5 venues, and New Delhi- 9 venues. About 17,389 candidates have written the entrance examination. As per the instructions contained in the prospectus, a candidate can send the application through online. In respect of online applications, they will have a printed form [2 pages] and not separate scannable and non scannable forms. Through online, the candidate can send the application form with requisite signatures, photograph, attestation, left thumb print along with the Demand Draft. 15. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the hall ticket would bear only the photograph, name, examination centre and other particulars such as roll number, date of birth etc., and not the finger prints. As per clause 16 of the instructions to be followed in the examination hall, the candidate must sign in the attendance sheet, at the appropriate places and affix his left thumb impression, against the appropriate column in the attendance sheet. Though clause 19 of the instructions states that the conduct of examination could be videgraphed and that the candidates are required to keep their head in upright position and face the camera during videography, so that their identity could be clearly established, it is the specific case of the respondents that videography is only obligatory and not mandatory and in the instant case, no videography was done, on the date of entrance examination for admission to the Ist year MBBS course 2009-10. As rightly contended by the Learned Additional Solicitor General, the language employed in the prospectus does not mandate videography and it is only an enabling provision. 16. Pleadings and material on record disclose that to ascertain the identity of the persons who wrote the entrance examinations and to ensure that the one and the same person applied, had written the examination and presented himself for counselling and admission and to find out the genuineness of certificates, matching of signatures and finger prints of all the selected candidates have been referred to Professor Mr.K.Ramakrishnan, Assistant Director (Documents), [retired] Forensic Science Department, Government of Tamil Nadu and Mr.Dick Philips, Finger Print Consultant, Chennai. The documents sent for verification to the experts are as follows: Q1  Signature and finger prints in two application forms sent by each selected candidate. Q2  Signature and finger prints in the attendance sheet of each selected candidate obtained at the venue of entrance examination. Q3  Signature and finger print obtained from each selected candidate at the time of counselling. 17. Perusal of the police complaint made by the Dean of the second respondent-Institution shows that the above mentioned experts have compared the documents Q1, Q2 and Q3 of all the 77 students admitted to the Ist year MBBS course till 25.07.2009 and that they have reported significant contradictions in the signatures and finger prints and as per their reports, the following contradictions have been noticed. SlNo Appln. No. Roll No. Centre Name Signature difference Finger print not identical 1 24066 12991 Puducherry Dhivagar Yes Yes 2 34769 52658 Kolkata Sourav Kumar Yes Smudged 3 37040 65987 New Delhi Manoj K Rajak Yes Yes 4 34948 67237 New Delhi Dheebika Yes Yes 18. Based on the information and verification of the data by the experts, the college administration was of the prima facie opinion that there was a foul play in the entrance examination and cheating/impersonation have taken place in the examination hall and therefore, came to the conclusion that the matter requires further investigation and action to be initiated, if confirmed. As rightly contended by the learned Additional Solicitor General, verification of the signatures, finger prints require careful scrutiny and during the process, the petitioners have undergone their education, in the 2nd respondent institution. 19. Perusal of the complaint dated 31.08.2009 of the Dean, JIPMER, Puducherry further shows that while lodging a complaint with the Sub Inspector of Police D'Nagar Police station, Puducherry, the Dean of the said college has enclosed the following documents. (1) Xerox copies of Application forms of candidates Sl. No.1-4. (2) Xerox copies of Hall Tickets of candidates for the Entrance Examination Sl. No1-4 (3) Xerox copies of Attendance sheets of candidates Sl.No.1-4. (4) Xerox copies of Signatures and finger prints of candidates at the time of counselling Sl. No.1-4 (5) A copy of pseudonymous Fax received on 15th July 2009 about S.No.2. (6) Detailed report of Handwriting expert of all candidates (77)  Sl No.1-4. highlighted. (7) Detailed report of finger print expert of all candidates (77)  Sl No.1-4. highlighted. (8) JIPMER MBBS Prospectus dated 22.02.2009 vide page 18 which includes provision regarding place of cognizance. 20. Though there was a high degree of suspicion that cheating/impersonation had taken place, having regard to the education of the petitioners, the 2nd respondent has not come to any hasty conclusion, but has thought it fit, that the matter requires investigation and criminal action, if it is confirmed. The College administration has not resorted to suspension of the petitioners, at this juncture. 21. Perusal of the letter of the Inspector of Police D'Nagar Circle, Puducherry, addressed to the Dean, JIPMER, Puducherry, shows that on receipt of the complaint, a case in Crime No.274/2009 under Sections 419, 420 IPC read with 34 IPC, has been registered on 31.08.2009 and during the course of investigation, witnesses were examined and that the police has also recorded their statements. On 01.09.2009, the original application forms of the suspected persons, their Hall tickets, attendance sheet, finger prints and signatures and a copy of the pseudonymous Fax received on 15.07.2009, reports of the Handwriting expert and the finger print expert, of all the 77 candidates and the prospectus have been seized by the Police for the purpose of investigation and