Case: Aditya Kumar Singh Vs. Principal, Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi &amp; Others

the certificate as directed by the High Court in the previous decision and the Counsel added that if that had been done the appellant would not have found it necessary to have found it necessary to have resort to the present writ proceedings. 6. This submission ignores the fact that the Principal had actually complied with the order of the High Court in the earlier case. He, however, also in addition disclosed all the other relevant facts which he was, in our view, entitled to do. Besides, the question directly raised in the previous case was confined to the grievance relating to violation of the principle of natural justice as the appellant had not been given adequate opportunity of placing his case before the authorities. He was accordingly held entitled to an opportunity to show cause against the action sought to be taken against him so as to satisfy the requirements of the rule of natural justice. The appellant, as the facts noted earlier in this judgment show, was given notice to show that he had actually passed in physics as claimed by him. The previous decision is thus of no assistance to the appellant in the present case. 7. The point of res judicata was also urged in the High Court and indeed it was in the forefront of the arguments addressed in that Court on behalf of the appellant. After noting the fact that in spite of the instructions from the Principal to the Health Department of the Bihar State Government to forward the Principals version of the Advocate-Generals Office neither counter-affidavit was filed nor were any arguments addressed in the High Court on his behalf in the earlier case. The High Court in the present case observed that the decision in the earlier writ petition would nevertheless be binding on the Principal but it could not bind the Ranchi University. The law laid down in the earlier case was, however, held to constitute a binding precedent for the Court to follow in the present case. The previous decision was held to be confined only to the question of removal of the appellants name from the roll of the Collage in violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as proper opportunity was not afforded to him to meet the charge that he was responsible for submitting the inflated marks-sheet. After adverting to the facts to the facts of the case the High Court observed; "We do not want to make any observation in this case in regard to the case of the respondents at some of the stages that really the figure I before the figure 5 in figure 15 was an interpolation in different ink. Because that matter was not finally investigated as the previous judgment shows, by following the principles of natural justice. But this much is clear now that the petitioner had not passed B.Sc., Part I Examination in Physics as he had got only twenty eight marks in Physics (five in Practical and twenty-three in theoretical) and had submitted a marks-sheet along with his admission application form which, to say the least, was not correct. Whoever may have been responsible for showing the inflated mark but surely the user of this marks-sheet was the petitioner and to his advantage."When confronted with this position the learned Counsel, after making a faint but unsuccessful attempt to persuade us to go into the facts and come to our own conclusions, confined his submission to a very narrow point. He submitted that since the appellant has attended the College regularly and has also been permitted, though provisionally, to sit at the University Examination he should be given an opportunity of showing to the University authorities that he had in fact passed in Physics at the 4 B.Sc., part I Examination from Bhagalpur University. According to his submission the High Court should not have given a final decision on this point when the question of interpolation of figure 1 in the marks-sheet has been left open. 8. The High Court has undoubtedly observed in the impugned order that the appellant had neither in the earlier writ petition nor in the present writ petition nor in any of his affidavit in reply stated that he had as a matter of fact passed in Physics at B.Sc., Part I Examination from Bhagalpur University. On the other hand the appellant throughout insisted on basing his claim on the marks-sheet which he had attached with the admission form and which had been held not to be genuine. The High Court, while dealing with the question of equitable estoppel, again observed : "It will bear repetition to say that the petitioner who had not undisputedly now passed B.Sc., Part I Examination with Physics but by making use of wrong mark sheet had led the Principal to admit him, is not entitled to invoke the principal of estoppel against the University." The learned Counsel for the appellant was not able to point out any material on the record from which it could be shown that that High Court is wrong in making these observations and that the appellant had at any stage asserted that as a matter of fact he had passed in Physics as contended. We are, therefore, unable to find any error in the impugned order. 9. In the High Court it was not the appellants case that he should be allowed an opportunity to show that he had actually passed in Physics as is now prayed by his Counsel. Indeed, all along he was being asked to furnish proof of his having so passed in Physics. Since no such plea was raised in the High Court we are unable to make any order in the terms suggested by Shri Desai. In case, however, he is in a position to furnish proof of this fact he may approach the authorities concerned. It was the appellant himself who had without furnishing any such proof rushed to the Court with a misconceived prayer. 10.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]This submission is unacceptable.To begin with in the earlier petition only the Principal of the Rajendra Medical College and the State of Bihar were impleaded as parties. It is unfortunate that in those proceedings the respondents did not file anyt and the Principal of the College was not even represented by a counsel with the result that no arguments were addressed on his behalf. The fact, however, remains that nothing said in that decision can bind the University and now it is the University which is primarily objecting to the appellants eligibility to take the First M.B.B.S., Examination on the ground that he has not complied with Regulation 5 of Chapter XVIII of the University Regulations. It was contended by Shri Desai that the Principal should have given the certificate as directed by the High Court in the previous decision and the Counsel added that if that had been done the appellant would not have found it necessary to have found it necessary to have resort to the present writ proceedings6. This submission ignores the fact that the Principal had actually complied with the order of the High Court in the earlier case. He, however, also in addition disclosed all the other relevant facts which he was, in our view, entitled to do. Besides, the question directly raised in the previous case was confined to the grievance relating to violation of the principle of natural justice as the appellant had not been given adequate opportunity of placing his case before the authorities. He was accordingly held entitled to an opportunity to show cause against the action sought to be taken against him so as to satisfy the requirements of the rule of natural justice. The appellant, as the facts noted earlier in this judgment show, was given notice to show that he had actually passed in physics as claimed by him. The previous decision is thus of no assistance to the appellant in the present case8. The High Court has undoubtedly observed in the impugned order that the appellant had neither in the earlier writ petition nor in the present writ petition nor in any of his affidavit in reply stated that he had as a matter of fact passed in Physics at B.Sc., Part I Examination from Bhagalpur University. On the other hand the appellant throughout insisted on basing his claim on thet which he had attached with the admission form and which had been held not to be genuineThe learned Counsel for the appellant was not able to point out any material on the record from which it could be shown that that High Court is wrong in making these observations and that the appellant had at any stage asserted that as a matter of fact he had passed in Physics as contended. We are, therefore, unable to find any error in the impugned order9. In the High Court it was not the appellants case that he should be allowed an opportunity to show that he had actually passed in Physics as is now prayed by his Counsel. Indeed, all along he was being asked to furnish proof of his having so passed in Physics. Since no such plea was raised in the High Court we are unable to make any order in the terms suggested by Shri Desai. In case, however, he is in a position to furnish proof of this fact he may approach the authorities concerned. It was the appellant himself who had without furnishing any such proof rushed to the Court with a misconceived prayer