MANU/SC/1046/2015

Equivalent Citation: 2015(3)SC T582(SC )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 5371 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15853 of 2015)
Decided On: 13.07.2015
Appellants: Sonal
Vs.
Respondent: Union of India (UOI) and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
A.K. Sikri and Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Adv., Vishwa Pal Singh and
Surjeet Singh, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: Pinky Anand, ASG., Karan Seth, Kiran Bhardwaj, B.V.
Balaram Das, Agnel Carneiro, Shikhil Suri, Shiv Kumar Suri and Saswat Patnaik, Advs.
Case Category:
ADMISSION/TRANSFER TO ENGINEERING AND MEDICAL COLLEGES
ORDER
1. Leave granted. Since the pleadings are complete and Learned Counsel for all the
parties are ready to argue the matter finally, we have heard the matter and are
disposing of the appeal by this order.
2 . To put the facts in brief, the Appellant herein had successfully completed her
MBBS degree examination from Government Medical College, Haldwani, Nainital,
Uttarakhand in the year 2009. Thereafter, she appeared in the All India Post-Graduate
Entrance Examination conducted by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences
(AIIMS) in January, 2011. In the said entrance examination, she obtained 81st rank
and on the basis of the aforesaid position in the merit list, she was allotted a seat for
the MD (Radio-Diagnosis) course in Respondent No. 4 Institution on 19.04.2011. In
between, the Appellant has also done Junior Residentship with Tata Memorial
Hospital.
3 . In or around July, 2011, a complaint was registered against one Mahipal Singh
and one Rajib Ghatak by Shri Manoj Kumar, Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI), New Delhi, alleging a criminal conspiracy to rig the results of the
aforesaid entrance examination which was conducted by the AIIMS in January, 2011.
The same was done to favour certain students and the Appellant was also named as
one of the beneficiaries. Insofar as the Appellant is concerned, the allegation was
that the aforesaid conspirators which included the Appellant manipulated the 'OMR'
sheets for financial consideration. On the basis of the said complaint, a case bearing
No. RC 2192011 E 0007 was registered by the CBI on 28.07.2011 against all the
aforesaid accused persons under the provisions of Section 120-B read with Sections
420, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The investigation was conducted and the
charge-sheet has been filed under the provisions of Section 120-B read with Sections
420, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused persons and the
commission of such offence.

28-02-2020 (Page 1 of 4) www.manupatra.com Ramesh Chandra Prusti

 (2) Notwithstanding Under Section 3 of Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act,
1999 (MCOCA) only against accused Mahipal Singh in the Court of Additional
Sessions Judge-01 (South) (MCOCA Courts), Saket District Courts, New Delhi. On a
petition, by co-accused Mahipal Singh, this Court held that the provisions of MCOCA
would not apply to the present case and therefore the charges the commission of
such offence.
(2) Notwithstanding Under Section 3 of MCOCA against accused Mahipal Singh were
dropped and accordingly, the trial of the criminal case was transferred from the court
of Additional Sessions Judge-01 (South) (MCOCA Courts), Saket District Courts, New
Delhi to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, Saket District Courts, New Delhi.
The matter is pending at the stage of framing of the charges.
4 . The Appellant in the meantime continued with her MD course. She has even
appeared in the final examination in the said course. However, on 22.05.2012, the
Appellant was served with a notice by Respondent No. 4-College asking her to show
cause as to why her admission to MD course should not be cancelled in the light of
the aforesaid criminal case pending against her. She replied to the said show cause
notice on 25.05.2012 pleading her innocence and stating that she has been falsely
impleaded in the aforesaid case. She was also given a personal hearing pursuant to
the said show cause notice by the Committee constituted by Respondent No. 4-
College. Thereafter, the Committee submitted a report recommending that the
Appellant's request for permission to continue the course and appear for the
examination may be examined and considered subject to her furnishing the
following:--
"(1) An attested copy of the charge-sheet;
(2) An undertaking in favour of TMC and HBNI to the effect that in the event
of her conviction in the criminal case, her studentship and her candidature to
the examination shall automatically stand cancelled."
5. On the basis of the said report, the Appellant was asked to file an affidavit to the
aforesaid effect. She submitted affidavit dated 28.07.2012 in this behalf.
6 . Notwithstanding the submission of the aforesaid affidavit, the result of the
Appellant for the final year has not been declared. It is for this reason, the Appellant
filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay seeking declaration of her results of
the final year of the MD course. In this writ petition being Writ Petition (Civil) No.
2498 of 2014, orders dated 23.12.2014 were passed by the High Court of Bombay
stating that the Appellant may resort to appropriate remedy as may be available in
law. The Appellant prayed for liberty to approach the court again after decision is
taken on the aforesaid application and this liberty was granted. Thereafter, the
Appellant made an application the commission of such offence.
(2) Notwithstanding Under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for
discharge from the aforesaid case pending with the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate's
Court, Saket District Courts, New Delhi. However, the said application has not been
decided till date. Only orders dated 13.01.2015 were passed in that application by
the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate observing that the aforesaid application
would be heard at the time of arguments on charge. As pointed out above, the
arguments on charge have yet to be heard.
7 . Since the matter was getting delayed and as per the Appellant, because of this
delay and withholding of her results, her future career is suffering, she approached
the Court again by filing Writ Petition No. 1056 of 2015 in the High Court of Bombay.

28-02-2020 (Page 2 of 4) www.manupatra.com Ramesh Chandra Prusti

 This writ petition has been dismissed by the impugned orders dated 06.05.2015 with
the following observations:--
"We have perused the record placed before us and the affidavit filed by
Respondent No. 4. It is submitted that the Petitioner has filed application for
discharge. The charge-sheet has been filed against the Petitioner by the
Respondent. In view of the allegations made and in the fact that charge-
sheet is filed, we are not inclined to entertain this petition. We have already
heard this plea while disposing of Writ Petition (Ldg.) No. 2498/2014. All
issues on merits are kept open."
8 . In the aforesaid circumstances, the only question for determination is as to
whether the result of the Appellant should be kept in abeyance and in a sealed cover
or there should be declaration of the said results during the pendency of the
aforesaid criminal case against the Appellant.
9 . After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the
aforesaid approach taken by the High Court may not be entirely correct. At this stage,
only the charge-sheet is filed and even the application of the Appellant for discharge
is yet to be examined. Further, the charges have also not been framed so far. If the
charges are framed, ultimately it may lead to trial which would take quite some time.
If the result of the Appellant is not declared in the meantime and ultimately she is
acquitted in the criminal case against her, the loss which the Appellant shall suffer
would be irreparable as the said loss suffered by her would not be compensated. On
the other hand, if the result is declared now and the same is made subject to the
outcome of the criminal case, that is a more equitable solution to the issue at hand.
We feel that the Committee which was constituted by Respondent No. 4-College itself
had given suggestion almost to the same effect by allowing the Appellant to go ahead
with the course and at the same time asking her to file an affidavit, which direction of
the Respondent No. 4-College was duly complied with. In these circumstances, we
allow this appeal with the following directions:--
"(1) The result of the Appellant shall be declared forthwith.
We may point out at this stage that the result was brought to this Court in a
sealed cover and after perusing the result, we found that the Appellant has
passed in the final year examination as well. Therefore, as a consequence
thereof, she would be entitled for grant of MD degree also. However, at
present, she would be given only provisional MD degree.
(2) The aforesaid degree shall be subject to the outcome of the criminal case
pending against the Appellant. If the Appellant is convicted in the criminal
case and/or findings are arrived at in the said matter to the effect that the
Appellant could get the admission in the MD course by practising the foul
means as alleged in the charge-sheet, the effect thereof would be that the
admission of the Appellant to the MD course shall stand cancelled. As a
consequence, it would be permissible for the Respondent-authorities to
nullify the MD course undertaken by her and cancel the provisional MD
degree granted to her.
(3) In case, the Appellant is discharged and/or acquitted in the aforesaid
criminal proceedings, the Appellant shall be given final degree of the MD
course."
No costs.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

28-02-2020 (Page 3 of 4) www.manupatra.com Ramesh Chandra Prusti

 © Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

28-02-2020 (Page 4 of 4) www.manupatra.com Ramesh Chandra Prusti