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

2. The appellant, Aditya Kumar Singh, passed the B.Sc., Part I examination of the Bhagalpur University from the I.N.B. Collage in 1964 with Chemistry, Botany and Zoology as principal subjects and Physics as an extra subject. In 1967 he passed the B.Sc., examination of the Magadh University with Honours in Zoology. Thereafter he applied for admission to the Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi. Along with his application he attached at of the B.Sc., Part I examination of the Bhagalpur University purporting to have been issued to him by that University as also the marks sheet of B.Sc., (Hons) examination of the Magadh University. In March, 1968 he was admitted to the First Year of the M.B.B.S. Course of that College. On January 21, 1969 the appellant was served with a notice dated January 20, 1969 from the Principal of Rajendra Medical Collage, Ranchi calling upon him to show cause why his made should not be struck off the College rolls on the ground that thet of B.Sc., Part I examination submitted by him along with his application for admission to the collage was not genuine and that he had gained admission to the College by fraudulent means. The reply to this notice was required to be submitted latest by January 27, 1969. The appellant sent his reply on February 1, 1969. This reply was not considered satisfactory and on February 4, 1969 the Principal of the College informed him accordingly, adding that from the record of marks received from the University of Bhagalpur it had been found that the appellant had not passed in Physics which he had offered as an extra subject in the B.Sc., Part I examination and as such he did not satisfy the minimum qualification laid down for admission to the College, with the result that he could not be allowed to continue his studies in the College, with the result that he could not be allowed to continue his studies in the College. If the appellant had any further representation to make he was asked to do so by 11 a.m. on February 12, 1969. The Principal of the College passed an order on February 27, 1969 striking off the appellants name from the College roll. On March 11, 1969 the appellant filed in the Patna High Court an application under Article 226 of the Constitution [Writ Petition 219 1969, decided on December 8, 1969 (Pat)] for a writ of certiorari praying for quashing the order of the Principal dated February 27, 1969 and for a writ of mandamus commanding the Principal not be enforce the said order and also not to interfere with the appellants right to prosecute his studies in the Rajendra Medical College. The appellant impleaded in this writ petition the Principal of Rajendra Medical College as respondent No. 1 and the State of Bihar through Secretary, Department of Health as respondent No. 2 Neither respondent filed anyt and respondent No. 1 was not even represented by a counsel. The facts stated in the writ petition were accordingly taken by the High Court as correct. This writ petition was allowed by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court on December 8, 1969. The final conclusions of the Court were expressed by Wasiuddin, in J., in these word :"On a consideration of all these facts, it is abundantly clear that there was a violation of the principle of natural justice and the petitioner had not been given full opportunity of placing his case and the petitioner must have also found himself bewildered by the receipt of the order dated the 27th February, 1969 when the Second show cause notice showed that action was being taken only on account of the petitioner not satisfying the minimum qualification for admission into the Rajendra Medical College. There can be no doubt that action could have been taken against the petitioner if it had been found that the petitioner was responsible for the inflation and interpolation of the marksheet, but for this there should have been due and proper inquiry in which the petitioner should have been given full opportunity of being heard. But it appears that no such opportunity was given and there was thus a violation of the principal of natural justice. In this connection, I may also refer here to two decisions, one of which is of Supreme Court reported in the case of Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. Allahabad v. Ghanshyam Das Gupta and Other (AIR 1962 SC 1110  ) where the petitioner of that case had been debarred from appearing at the examination and it was held that the authorities had violated the principle of natural justice. There is also a Division Bench decision of our High Court (AIR 1964 Par 291). Ajit Singh and Other v. Ranchi University and Others in this connection which no doubt is also in respect of examination, but there also the same principle as laid down in the Supreme Court decision has been followed"

Reasoning:
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