Noopur Bajpai vs University Of Delhi & Ors
2013 Latest Caselaw 2334 Del

$~
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                             Judgment Reserved on : May 13, 2013
                                            Judgment Pronounced on : May 20, 2013

+                     CM No.5012/2013 in W.P.(C) 2649/2013
       NOOPUR BAJPAI                                           ..... Petitioner
                Through:                Mr.Mukesh K. Kher, Mr.Niraj Kumar Mishra
                                        and Mr.Priyank Kher, Advocates

                              versus


       UNIVERSITY OF DELHI & ORS                   ..... Respondent
                 Through:   Mr.M.J.S.Rupal and Ms.Priti Diwan,
                            Advocates for respondents 1, 4, 5 & 6

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI

G.S.SISTANI, J.

CM No.5012/2013

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the operation of the impugned letter dated 12.04.2013 be stayed. Counsel for the University has sought time to file reply to the CM and has vehemently opposed grant of stay of letter dated 12.04.2013.

By the present writ petition the petitioner seeks quashing of communication/letter dated 12.04.2013 bearing No.FMDS/247- PG/Complaint/2013/4135 issued by respondent No.5. Direction is also sought to the respondent No.3 to take a decision on the basis of letter dated 12.04.2013 and allow the petitioner to pursue her PG course from the respondent No.2 college without any hindrance. By the order of 12.04.2013 the petitioner has been rusticated for a period of 3 years with effect from the year 2013 in terms of Clause 4(b) read with Clause 5 of Ordinance XV-B of the Ordinances of the University, or until the outcome of the ongoing court case No.RC 219/2011 (E) and 219/2011 (E) 0007 in the matter of CBI v. Mahipal Singh & Ors.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioner cannot be made to suffer indefinitely as the final adjudication of the criminal case filed by the CBI is likely to take many years. It is further submitted that the original OMR sheet of the petitioner has not been produced and the signatures on the sheets so produced in Court today are doubtful. Counsel also contends that as a matter of precaution the students should be made to sign on the back of the OMR sheet as well which the respondents have failed to do. In these circumstances, the petitioner prays for ad-interim stay of the order of rustication.

Mr.Rupal, learned counsel for Delhi University who has entered appearance on an advance copy submits that the allegations against the petitioner are grave and serious. Petitioner has been accused of malpractice committed in the All India Post Graduate Entrance Exam and her admission itself is in dispute. She has been named in the charge- sheet which has been filed by the CBI. According to the respondent the petitioner had answered less than 100 questions during the examination. However, subsequently the OMR sheet was manipulated and more than 200 questions were answered and thus the admission of the petitioner is based on unfair means adopted. Attention of the Court is drawn by the counsel for the Delhi University to the statement made by the petitioner. It reads as follows:-

"PGAC Question 1:- Are you aware of charge sheet and FIR filed by CBI against you alleging use of unfair means? Dr.Noopur:- Yes.

PGAC Question 2:- How do you respond to the allegations? Dr.Noopur:- I haven‟t used unfair means.

PGAC Question 3:- Are you aware of the contents of FIR? Dr.Noopur:- Yes: my counsel only knows the details.

PGAC Question 4:- As per the CBI FIR, Dr.Noopur Bajpai attempted only 50 questions out of 300 in the OMR sheet of the AIPGMEE- 2011. How do you respond to that?

Dr.Noopur:- I attempted about 280 questions.

The PGAC handed a copy of the OMR sheet (copy prepared at the time of preparation of image files) to Dr.Noopur provided by the

CBI.

PGAC Question 5:- Is that your signature on this OMR Sheet? Dr.Noopur:- Not sure.

PGAC Question 6:- Is that your Roll No. on this OMR Sheet? Dr.Noopur:- Not sure.

PGAC Question 7:- How many questions have been attempted on this OMR sheet out of 300.

Dr.Noopur:- Less than 100.

PGAC Question 8:- If somebody attempts less than 100 questions out of 300, will they be eligible for admission to AIPGMEE-2011? Dr.Noopur:- No.

PGAC Question 9:- OMR Sheet (claimed by the CBI to have been manipulated) was shown to Dr.Noopur. Is that your Signature? Dr.Noopur:- I deny the manipulation. Yes, signature is mine.

PGAC Question 10:- On this OMR sheet, approximately how many questions have been attempted?

Dr.Noopur:- approximately more than 200.

PGAC Question 11:- Do you have any comments to make on two OMR sheets, both having your signature, but having different numbers of questions attempted?

Dr.Noopur:- The first OMR that you showed me is not mine. I have attempted about 280 questions.

PGAC Question 12:- Do you have any comments on the charge of having used unfair means?

Comments by Dr.Noopur:- I have not used any unfair means. I would like to submit a written response to the Show Cause Notice.

The Committee received the written response (14 Pages of response and 16 pages of Annexures)"

Counsel further submits that after the examination as per the procedure the OMR sheet of every candidate is scanned. The OMR sheet of the petitioner was also scanned, and for the sake of convenience it should be referred to as „the first OMR sheet‟. Thereafter, by adopting unfair means the same OMR sheet was filled up and further questions were answered and petitioner was declared successful. It is submitted that for the sake of identification the manipulated OMR sheet is referred to as „the second OMR sheet‟. A comparison of both the OMR sheets would show that the signatures are identically placed and the questions which

have been answered in the first OMR sheet and the manner in which i.e. the slant in the lines is identical which would show that the same OMR sheet has been manipulated. Counsel submits that no interim relief should be granted to the petitioner and only after the counter affidavit is filed should the stay application filed by the petitioner be considered by this Court.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. I have also examined the photocopies of the OMR sheets which have been produced by the counsel for the respondent as also the statement made by the petitioner which has been reproduced herein above. As per the statement, the petitioner has identified her signature on both the OMR sheets. She has also admitted the fact that in the first OMR sheet less than 100 questions were answered. Although she has admitted the signature on the second OMR sheet but she has denied any manipulation. She has admitted to the fact that in the second OMR sheet more than 200 questions have been answered. I have also examined the allegations which have been made against the petitioner and I am of the considered view that till pleadings are completed in the matter this is not a fit case for grant of any interim relief in favour of the petitioner.

Accordingly, I deem it appropriate to issue notice in the stay application as well.

Counsel for respondents No.1, 4, 5 and 6 accept notice and seeks time to file reply.

Let reply to the stay application be filed within six weeks. Rejoinder thereto be filed within six weeks thereafter. Petitioner will take steps to serve respondent No.2. List for hearing on the date fixed i.e. 14.08.2013.

G.S.SISTANI, J MAY 20, 2013 dk