WA 9/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. J. CHELAMESWAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. V. Hansaria, learned senior counsel appearing in Writ Appeal No.9/08 a nd Mr. B.C. Das, learned senior counsel in Writ Appeal No.21/08 representing the appellants/writ petitioners. Mr. H. Rahman, Asstt. Solicitor General of India, Mr. D. Saikia, learned standing counsel, Health Deptt and Mr. D.K. Das, learned standing counsel, CBI are also heard. Since both the Appeals raise common issues , they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The Writ Appeal No. 9/08 arises out of the Writ Petition No. 5790/07 fil ed by the appellant/writ petitioner whereby the writ petitioner Miss Mausumi Bar uah, who was a final year student of MBBS Course at Silchar Medical College put to challenge the Govt. order dated 6.6.07(Annexure - P/5) whereby the Govt. took the decision to hand over to the CBI the investigation of cases of some student s pursuing MBBS/PG course in the Medical Colleges of Assam on the basis of manip ulated documents without having legitimately qualified for such seats in the Med ical Course. The writ petitioner also sought a direction on the respondents for declaring the final year result of the MBBS Examination, as the writ petitioner had already completed the course. The said impugned order dated 6.6.07 came to be issued in pursuant to th e show cause notice dated 5.2.07 issued to the writ petitioner wherein it was al leged that although the name of the petitioner was found in the purported seat a llotment letter dated 23.12.02 issued by the Director General of Health Services (Medical Examination Cell), New Delhi under 15% All India Quota, 2002 against S ilchar Medical College for admission into the MBBS Course for the year 2002, on enquiry the said allotment letter dated 23.12.02 was found to be not genuine as it was gathered that the Director General of Health Services never recommended, inter alia, the writ petitioner for a MBBS seat and that the said allotment lett er dated 23.12.02 is a forged letter. The writ petitioner was asked to show cause as to why criminal proceedings not b e initiated and her seat not be cancelled and why she not be suspended from the course and her results be withheld. On finding the reply of the petitioner and o ther similarly show caused students to be unsatisfactory, the Govt. by the impug ned communication dated 6.6.07 handed over such cases to the CBI for investigati on. In the meantime the concerned candidates were permitted to appear in the exa mination but further direction was issued that result of the examination should be withheld till the investigation into the cases are completed. 3. The State respondents averred through counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No. 5790/07 that the fraud came to light during the admission for PG Course in the year 2006 when a forged allotment letter dated 28.6.06 in respect of seats u nder 15% All India PG seats for the Academic Session 2006 in the Medical College s of Assam were found to be forged and was found to be not actually written by t he Asstt. Director General (ME) of the Govt. of India or from his office. After this startling discovery, it was further found that an well organized racket wa s operating to provide admission by unscrupulous means under the 15% All India Q uota seats. Then the Govt. lodged an FIR and started criminal investigation and while checking up other cases found that not only in the year 2006 but in the ea rlier years also, seats appeared to have been secured by fraudulent means. Accor dingly, a report on the doubtful cases was sought from the Director General of H ealth Services (ME), New Delhi whereafter records were thoroughly checked since the year 2002-03 with regard to allotment of MBBS seats under the 15% All India Quota. It was further averred that during such enquiry it was revealed that the allotment letter dated 23.12.02 on the basis of which the writ petitioner Miss Mausumi Baruah had secured admission, was forged. Accordingly after show cause notices were issued to her and some other students who had obtained admission in MBBS/BDS Courses since the year 2002 and after considering their replies, a po licy decision was taken by the State Govt. to refer all such cases of doubtful m edical admission to the CBI for further investigation. It was also decided by t he Govt. to withhold the results of the examination of such candidates who appea red to have secured admission through fraudulent means. The Govt also indicated in the said counter affidavit that the writ petitioner had taken the benefit of a fake allotment order which may or may not have been procured through her conni vance but by this process, the petitioner had deprived a deserving student from admission in the said seat and such illegal action is detrimental to public inte rest. 4. The two appellants/writ petitioners Rahul Kumar and Aviral Watsa in Writ Appeal No.21/08 were also similarly aggrieved by the impugned direction dated 6 .6.07 whereby the Govt. had ordered that their results should not be declared ti ll their names are cleared by the CBI. The appellants/writ petitioners were also issued show cause notices dated 5.2.07 indicating that on the basis of the info rmation gathered it appears that the two writ petitioners had secured admission into the MBBS Course in the Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh by fraudulent mean s and they were asked to submit their reply as to why criminal action should not be initiated against them for committing fraud and deceit to get admission into MBBS Course and or why they should not be suspended from attending their course and or why the seats allotted to them in the Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh s hould not be cancelled and their result withheld. On the reply furnished by the writ petitioners being found unsatisfactory, the impugned direction dated 6.6.07 was issued directing , inter alia, that the examination results of the two writ petitioners should not be declared. 5. By filing counter affidavit in W.P.(C) No. 5062/07, it was averred by th e Govt. that the purported allotment order dated 20.9.03 on the basis of which t he two appellants had secured admission was a forged allotment order and since t he decision was taken to hand over the investigation of the case to the CBI, pen ding finalisation of the investigation, a decision has been taken to withhold t he results of the appellants’ examination. 6. By the impugned orders dated 11.12.07 in W.P.(C) No. 5790/07 and W.P.(C) No. 5062/07 the learned Single Judge took the view that there cannot be any dir ection for declaration of the MBBS result so long as the seat allotment letters on the basis of which the writ petitioners secured admission into the MBBS Cours e are not found to be genuine. The resultant dismissal of the writ petitions led to filing of the present Writ Appeals. 7. In pursuant to the direction of this Court, an affidavit dated 26.2.08 s worn by the Prof. B.L. Sherwal, the former Asstt. Director General, has been fil ed on behalf of the Director General of Health Services (Medical Admission Cell) , New Delhi, wherein it is averred that no MBBS seat has been allotted to the ap pellant/writ petitioner Ms. Mausumi Baruah and her name does not figure in the m erit lists/wait lists of candidates forwarded for making allotment of seats in M BBS/BDS Courses for the year 2002. The affidavit also states that the allotment letter dated 23.12.02, on the basis of which Mausumi Baruah secured admission in to the MBBS Course, has not been issued by the Director General of Health Servic es. It is further averred that the allotment letter dated 23.12.02 purported to be under the signature of Dr. B.L. Sherwal, Asstt. Director General (ME) is fake . It may be specifically noticed that the affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 6 has been filed by B.L. Sherwal himself who was supposed to be the signatory o f the allotment letter dated 23.12.02. With regard to the two appellants/writ petitioners Mr. Rahul Kumar and A viral Watsa it was averred in the said affidavit dated 26.2.08 that no seat allo tment order to the two appellants were issued . Therefore it is apparent that th e said two appellants secured admission into Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh th rough fake allotment letters and fraudulent means. 8. Faced with the categorical stand taken in the above affidavit it is subm itted on behalf of the appellants that none of them have so far been found guilt y of having a hand in creation/procurement of the fake medical seat allotment le tters and at best the appellants can be described only as beneficiaries of such fake allotment letters. Under such circumstances it is submitted that when CBI i s yet to reach a definite conclusion on the culpability of the appellants, not t o declare the results of the examination in which the appellants had already app eared would be unjust and inequitable. With regard to the appellant Ms. Mausumi Baruah, it is contended by Mr. V. Hansaria, learned senior counsel that she has already completed her course of study and has appeared in the final examination and not declaring the result of the MBBS final examination, would not benefit anyone and even if the appellant is assumed to have secured a wrongful admission, the benefit of the said MBBS se at cannot now be offered to anyone and the appellant ought to be permitted to ge t her result and proceed to do her housemanship, which is a pre condition for g etting an MBBS degree. Reference to the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Prot ection of Children) Act, 2000 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act ) has also been made by Mr. Hansaria to contend that at the relevant point of time the appe llant was below 18 years of age and since the said Act seeks to provide protecti on to Juveniles in conflict with law, no adverse action having an impact on the career of the appellants should be permitted since such action will defeat the o bjective of the act, namely, rehabilitation of Juveniles, who might have commit ted an offence when they were below 18 years of age. To persuade this Court to permit the appellants to continue with their M BBS Course, despite serious allegation of fraudulent means adopted by them to se cure seats in MBBS Course, Mr. Hansaria refers to the Supreme Court decision rep orted in (1995) 6SCC 531 (Anil Baipadithaya vs. State of Karnataka). A Division Bench decision of this Court by order dt. 21.6.2000 in Writ A ppeal No. 566/97 (Neelofar Hussain) and other connected cases has also been cite d to contend that the appellants ought to be permitted to complete their course and secure the fruits of their labour by having their results declared. 9. Mr. B.C. Das, learned senior counsel representing the two appellants in Writ Appeal No. 21/08 additionally submits that the two appellants have so far c ompleted only 2nd year of MBBS study and even if declaration of their results ar e ordered, all that they will be entitled to is to proceed with their third year MBBS Course and no harm will be caused to anyone if such privilege is granted t o the two appellants. 10. It is seen from the facts narrated above that the appellants had not sec ured admission into the coveted MBBS Course on their own merit or through bonafi de means. In fact, the appellants failed to secure admission despite appearing i n the entrance test. However, by securing fake letters of allotment purported to have been issued by the competent authority located at New Delhi, the appellant s secured admission into the MBBS Course in Silchar Medical College and the Assa m Medical College, Dibrugarh respectively.. It is revealed through enquiry made that the said seat allotment letters on the basis of which the appellants had se cured admission were fake and it is averred on behalf of the Union of India by D r. B.L. Sherwal himself, who is purported to have signed the allotment letter da ted 23.12.02 that he had never issued or signed such letter in favour of the app ellant Ms Mausumi Baruah and the said allotment letter under the signature of Dr . Sherwal is a fake letter. It is also categorically averred that no MBBS seats against 15 % All India Quota were allotted in favour of the appellants Rahul Kum ar and Aviral Watsa. 11. It is thus obvious that the appellants or the persons acting in their in terest produced/secured such fake allotment letters and on the basis of such fak e letters, all the three appellants had not only secured admission in the Medica l Colleges but have also proceeded to study in the MBBS Course. The appellants had not secured their seats on merit and by a fraudulent and illegal process the y have deprived genuine and deserving students from getting these seats. Under s uch circumstances even if the CBI does not find the appellants to be personally involved in creation/securing of the fake allotment letters, it would be totally unjustified to permit the appellants to continue to enjoy the benefits secured on the basis of fake letters. If such benefits are permitted to be perpetuated, the entire process of medical admission, which is to be given on the basis of me rit and for which there are keen competition amongst thousands of candidates wou ld be put to jeopardy, by unscrupulous persons who may go to any extent as is r evealed in the present case, to secure a coveted medical seat. If Courts were t o condone such acts by permitting the beneficiaries to complete the medical cour se and obtain their medical degrees, serious injustice and illegality would resu lt and public interest would be harmed. 12. As regards the decision in Anil Baipadithaya (supra), we find that in that case the Supreme Court only because the State Authorities were not prepared to proceed against the members of the Selection Scrutiny Committee who had coll uded in securing MBBS admission, permitted the students to continue with their c ourse. But that is not the scenario in the cases in hand. In the present case the State respondents have initiated action and have also entrusted the CBI for investigation and for taking consequential action. Under such circumstances, the ratio of the Supreme Court in Anil Baipadi thaya (supra) cannot be accepted by us for granting relief to the appellants, wh o unlike in that case, have deprived three deserving students from getting admis sion into the MBBS Course in the seats, which they have undeservedly usurped for themselves by fraudulent means. 13. The reliance by the appellant on the Division Bench decision dated 21.6 .00 in Neelofar (supra) of this Court is also of no help since it was clearly in dicated that the said judgment was rendered in the peculiar facts and circumstan ces of the case and should not be treated as a precedent for future. 14. With regard to the contention raised on the basis of Juvenile Justice (C are & Protection of Children) Act, 2000, to the effect that effort should be mad e for rehabilitation of juveniles in conflict with law, we are of the opinion th at the said Act or the Rules framed thereunder do not provide that the juvenile s who had secured an undeserved benefit of medical admission through fraudulent means should be protected or that direction should be given to permit them to co ntinue to enjoy the benefit secured through such fraudulent means. Therefore, th e contentions raised to the contrary are rejected. 15. Insofar as the submissions made for relief to the appellants on the basi s of equitable consideration, we are of the view that when the appellants had fa iled to secure medical admission on merit and had secured medical admission by t aking recourse to fraudulent means, it would be totally unjustified to balance the equity in favour of such appellants, who not only secured undeserved benefi ts for themselves but have also deprived other deserving candidates of the medic al seats, which were usurped by the appellants through fraudulent means. Equitab le considerations are not meant to protect and perpetuate undeserved benefits fo r the undeserving and merely because the appellants have been pursuing their MB BS Course, results cannot be ordered to be declared when it is clearly revealed that they secured admission by producing purported allotment letters which have been declared to be fake by the issuing authority. 16. In view of above, we find no good reason to interfere with the impugned decision of the learned Single Judge and accordingly the appeals are dismissed.