1 W.P.No.1801.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1801 OF 2009 Parinita D/o Vikram Shinde, Age 28 Years,Occup.Education, R/o C/o: R.N.Patil,Plot No.21, Parijat Colony,Devpur, Tq.and District Dhule. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS The North Maharashtra University, Jalgaon Through its Registrar, Ta.and District Dhule. And others. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri. V.D.Sapkal,Advocate for Petitioner. Shri. A.B.Girase,Advocate for Respondent No.1 and 2. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 17TH JUNE, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Vice Chancellor, North Maharashtra University Jalgaon, which was communicated by the Controller 2 W.P.No.1801.09 of examination, on 01.12.2008. The petitioner was student of Medical College of M.B.B.S Course. She was studying in Government College and Hospital, Dhule. The said college is affiliated to the North Maharashtra University, Jalgaon. 3. The petitioner alongwith other students was prosecuted for the offence punishable under sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, under crime No. 47 of 2003. The petitioner was charge-sheeted and also tried. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Parola, in Criminal case No.118 of 2006 (State of Maharashtra Vs. Sanjay and others) convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under sections 465, 471 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of 2 ½ years with fine of Rs.1000/-. . The University also initiated an action against the petitioner, as it was found by the 3 W.P.No.1801.09 University that during the period from 07.04.2003 to 16.04.2003 malpractices were committed at the examination Centre Jaihind College Dhule. Considering the seriousness of misconduct and malpractice committed during examination, the Vice Chancellor of North Maharashtra University, Jalgaon had debarred the petitioner from appearing the examination till August,2007. 4. It is contended that the petitioner had applied for permission to appear for the examination, after completion of five years period, from 2003. By the Communication dated 01.12.2008 the Controller of Examination, communicated to the petitioner that in view of serious allegations of misconduct and malpractice, in which petitioner was involved, the Vice Chancellor has taken decision under Ordinance NO. 157(2)(iii)(4)(XXV) and it was held that the petitioner was involved herself in serious misconduct and discipline, therefore, under Ordinance NO.157 sub-rule 5(iv), the petitioner’s 4 W.P.No.1801.09 admission was cancelled. she was not permitted to take admission to any course or examination, in any of the colleges affiliated to the North Maharashtra University, Jalgaon. 5. Mr. Sapkal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in view of provision of Section 95 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, the Vice Chancellor is not empowered to debar the petitioner from examination for more than five years period. The petitioner had preferred an appeal against the Judgment and order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Parola, in respect of conviction and sentence. The petitioner was released on bail. The counsel submits that, in the light of the provision of the Maharashtra Universities Act,1994, the petitioner would be entitled for appearing examination. 6. Mr. Girase, the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that Vice Chancellor had exercised the powers under 5 W.P.No.1801.09 Ordinance NO. 157 sub-rule 5(iv) and cancelled the admission of the petitioner from the college, affiliated to the North Maharashtra University, Jalgaon. This Ordinance is framed under the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994. The Counsel submits that other two students, who had committed mal-practice alongwith the petitioner, preferred Writ Petition No.190 of 2009. By an order dated 26th March,2009, the Division Bench of of this Court (Coram : Smt Nishita Mhatre and B.R.Gavai JJ,) rejected the petition. Mr. Girase, the counsel, therefore, submits that this petition on the same facts requires to be rejected. 7. We have called for the proceedings of Writ Petition No. 190 of 2009 and perused the same. We find that challenge in this petition is identical one in Writ Petition No. 190 of 2009, which was rejected by this Court. We independently considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. We find that the Vice Chancellor has ample powers under Ordinance NO.157, which 6 W.P.No.1801.09 empowers the Vice chancellor to cancel the admission of the student in any of the affiliated colleges to the North Maharashtra University. Considering the seriousness of the Malpractice committed by the students of M.B.B.S Course, the Vice Chancellor resorted to this power and passed the order accordingly. 8. We find that the petitioner had involved herself in serious Mal practices being student of M.B.B.S. Course. The act of the petitioner, as reflected from the record, required serious deterrent action by the Vice Chancellor. It is necessary in the present scenario that the students not only have respect for law but have fear of law too. 9. In the facts of the case, we are not inclined to accept the submission of the petitioner. Even otherwise, we find that it is not fit case to exercise our extraordinary Writ Jurisdiction under 7 W.P.No.1801.09 Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ petition is rejected with costs. Sd/- Sd/- [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] MTK