Aviraj Singh Madhan vs University Of Jamia Millia ...
2002 Latest Caselaw 693 Del

JUDGMENT

Anil Dev Singh, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated January 30, 2002. By that order the learned Single Judge rejected the writ petition of the appellant challenging the order of the first respondent dated March 3, 2001 cancelling his admission to three years LL.B. Course as well as cancellation of his result of the first and the second year LL.B. Examinations on the ground that the admission to the course was secured by the appellant on the basis of false statement and forged marks sheet. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows:-

2. The appellant applied for admission to the three years LL.B. Course of the first respondent, University of Jamia Millia Islamia, for the session 1997-98 by submitting an application form and other papers including marks sheet of B.Com. (Pass) Part III (Third Year) Examination, 1997 conducted by the University of Delhi. On the basis of the statement made in the application form and the marks sheet, the appellant was granted admission in the first year of the three year LL.B. Course by the first respondent.

3. The appellant successfully completed the first year and the second year of the three year LL.B. Course of the aforesaid university. In April/May 2000 he appeared in the final examination of law. However, his result was withheld. The appellant on October 30, 2002 wrote a letter to the first respondent requesting it to declare his result. However, this did not have the desired effect. Thereafter, the appellant gave several reminders to the first respondent.

4. On August 1, 2001, a show cause notice was issued by the first respondent to the appellant which inter alia stated that the appellant fraudulently manipulated his admission to the LL.B. Course in Jamia Millia Islamia for the academic year 1997-98 by submitting a forged statement of marks purportedly issued by the University of Delhi. It was pointed out that the University of Delhi expressly communicated to the first respondent that the appellant had not passed the B.Com (Pass) Examination in 1997 under Roll No. 546738 and resultantly marks sheet supplied was fake. The appellant was asked to show cause why his admission in the LL.B. Course be not declared null and void and all the examinations accredited in his favor in the said course be not cancelled. The appellant was required to furnish his reply within seven days. On August 7, 2001, the appellant by his reply controverter the allegations. On March 26, 2001, the first respondent cancelled the result of the appellant of Part I, Part II and Part III of the LL.B. Examination. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the first respondent, the appellant filed a writ petition on April 17, 2001. On September 24, 2001, the writ petition of the appellant was rejected. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the appellant had failed to establish that his admission to the LL.B. Course was according to the rules, or the respondent had manipulated the documents with a view to give him admission. The learned Single Judge was also of the view that the appellant himself had made a mis-statement in his admission form regarding the course he had pursued and the correct marks obtained by him. The learned Single Judge also found that the marks sheet produced by the appellant was false, forged and fabricated.

5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant has filed the instant letters patent appeal. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. We find from the record which was produced before us that the appellant had passed his B.Com. (Hons) Examination in the year 1996 securing 381 marks out of 900. Since the appellant had secured 42.33% marks, consequently he was placed in the third division. His roll number in the B.Com. (Hons) Examination was 351046. We also find that the admission form, which bears the signature of the appellant, records that the appellant secured second division with 52% marks in B.Com. (Hons) Examination. The form is accompanied by a photo copy of the marks sheet which bears the name of Aviraj Singh Madhan, Roll No. 546736. According to the marks sheet, the candidate secured 619 marks out of 1200 in the B.Com. (Pass) Examination held in the year 1997. It also appears that the University of Delhi has confirmed vide its letter dated May 29, 2000 that the appellant had not passed B.Com. (Pass) Examination in the year 1997 under Roll No. 546738. It also confirmed that the aforesaid photo copy of the marks sheet was fake and had not been issued by the University of Delhi. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant had submitted the correct marks sheet to the first respondent and on the advice of a member of the staff of the first respondent dealing with his admission had handed over virtually a blank form of admission to him at the asking of the latter though earlier he had already submitted a form of admission duly filled up by him. According to the appellant, except the appellant's signature the entire form was filled up by the said staff member of the institution. Since the appellant was a sportsman the first respondent was keen to give admission to him and for this reason if any manipulation was done in connection with the admission of the appellant, it was done by the university itself of which the appellant was not aware.

7. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, but we regret our inability to accept the same. The appellant was only having 42.33% marks in the B.Com (Hons) Examination. Candidate with 42.33% marks is not eligible for being admitted to the three year LL.B. Course in Jamia Millia Islamia University. A perusal of the form shows that the appellant had not applied under the sportsman category. He had applied in the general category and, therefore, he was not even entitled to weightage of 5% marks which is admissible to candidates selected under the sportsman category. In any event, even a candidate under the sportsman category is required to have minimum 45% marks for admission to three year LL.B. Curse. The minimum requirement of 45% marks, we are told, is essential. The theory that the manipulation, if any, was done by a member of the staff of the first respondent is absolutely unconvincing. Who else except the appellant would be interested in seeking admission in the institution. In case the appellant had filled up the admission form earlier why did he have to sign another blank admission form to be filled up by some one else who was not even known to him. The story put forth by the appellant does not stand to reason and lacks credibility. For all these reasons the learned Single Judge was right in rejecting the writ petition of the appellant.

8. In the circumstances, we decline to interfere with order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.