ORDER
Per Alok Aradhe, J:
In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners have, inter alia, assailed the validity of the orders dated 24.4.2014, 03.5.2014, 06.5.2014, 07.5.2014, 08.5.2014 and 19.5.2014 by which the Professional Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) has cancelled the results of the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners had resorted to unfair means during the Pre Medical Tests held between years 2008 to 2012. The petitioners also seek consequential direction to the respondents to permit them to prosecute the studies in M.B.B.S Course. In order to appreciate the petitioners' challenge to the impugned orders, the relevant facts need mention, which are stated infra.
2. The Board was initially constituted by Notification dated 30.7.1983 and thereafter re-constituted by Notification dated 22.1.2004 in exercise of executive powers by the State Government for discharging its obligation of conducting free and fair pre-entrance examination for admission to professional courses. The Board has been conducting Pre Medical Tests every year for admission to M.B.B.S Course in respect of various Colleges in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The Board held the Pre Medical Tests between the period from 2008 to 2013. The Pre Medical Test, 2013 was scheduled to be held on 07.7.2013 A complaint regarding commission of gross irregularities and use of unfair means by the candidates in the examination was received by the Director General of Police on 06.7.2013 Acting on the said complaint and reports published in local newspapers about the conspiracy hatched for resorting to unfair means by a large number of candidates with the assistance of the candidates coming from other States, the Indore Crime Branch arrested about 20 suspects.
3. On 07.7.2013, First Information Report was lodged bearing Crime No. 539/2013 at Police Station, Rajendra Nagar, Indore mentioning about involvement of large number of candidates having indulged in unfair means during Pre Medical Test, 2013. After registration of First Information Report, the Crime Branch made enquries and sought certain information from the officials of the Board, which was furnished to the Crime Branch on 12.7.2013 The officials of the Board, namely, Nitin Mohindra, Principal System Analyst and Ajay Kumar Sen, Senior System Analyst were interrogated and were arrested by the Police on 16.7.2013 and were suspended by the Board on 17.7.2013 During the investigation, involvement of one C.K Mishra, Assistant Programmer of the Board was also found. The Board received a list of 317 candidates from Superintendent of Police, Indore who were named as beneficiaries of the conspiracy. The factum of involvement of one Jagdish Sagar in the conspiracy also came to the light. The Director of the Board submitted proposal to the Chairman on 30.8.2013 to permit constitution of Computer Experts Committee to examine the records and submit its opinion and recommendations. The Chairman accorded approval to the said proposal on 05.9.2013
4. The Director of the Board by communication dated 31.8.2013 required Nitin Mohindra and Ajay Kumar Sen to furnish the logic of allotment of roll numbers for facilitating the scrutiny by the Computer Experts Committee. The said officials by communication dated 03.9.2013 expressed their inability to disclose the logic in allocation of the roll numbers to the candidates. In the absence of information divulged by the aforesaid officials, the Computer Expert Committee had to evolve its own mechanism to find out the methodology adopted in the allocation of roll numbers to the concerned candidates by method other than the stipulated or specified randomization process. The Computer Experts Committee comprising of experts was constituted which convened its first meeting on 07.9.2013 The Committee submitted its report on 07.9.2013 in which, in the initial scrutiny, it found mismatch of roll numbers of 30195 out of 40086 candidates including the allocation of roll numbers of 49 candidates whose application forms were rejected by the Board in respect of Pre Medical Test, 2013. The Computer Experts Committee thereafter held its meetings on 30.9.2013 and 04.10.2013 The meeting of the Committee of the Joint Controllers was convened on 08.10.2013 From perusal of the report, the yardstick adopted by the Committee in identifying 345 candidates, who were involved in conspiracy of change of roll numbers after their generation, is evident. The relevant extract of the report reads as under:-
5. The reports and opinions of the Committee were placed before the Chairman of the Board with the recommendation to initiate action against 345 identified candidates. The Chairman agreed with the proposal submitted by the Director and issued directions to proceed in the matter, which is evident from the noting dated 08.10.2013 and the same is reproduced below for the facility of reference:-
6. In pursuance of direction issued by Chairman, the Director issued the impugned order dated 09.10.2013 by which the results of examination of 345 candidates, who had appeared in the Pre Medical Test, 2013 were cancelled on the ground that they had indulged in unfair means. The relevant extract of the order reads as under:-
7. Thereafter, on 22.11.2013, the Board received a list from Special Task Force in respect of another 92 candidates who had allegedly indulged in unfair means as a result of which First Information Report was lodged against them. On receipt of said information, a meeting of Joint Controllers was convened on 30.11.2013, in which, on due analysis of the material and after applying the same logic, as was applied for identifying 345 candidates, the committee opined that action must be taken against 70 additional candidates. The relevant extract of the evaluation Report dated 30.11.2013 reads as under:-
8. After receipt of the report, the Director placed the matter before the Chairman with the recommendation to take action against 70 additional candidates who were identified by the Committee of the Joint Controllers. The Chairman approved the proposal. In pursuance of approval accorded by the Chairman, the Director issued an order dated 06.12.2013 The relevant extract of which reads as under:-
9. The Board by communication dated 24.10.2013 informed the Assistant Inspector General of Police, Special Task Force that in Pre Medical Test, 2012 roll numbers of 701 candidates were found to be altered. During the course of investigation of Crime Number 12/2013, one Jagdish Sagar and Sanjeev Shilpkar informed the Investigating Officer of the Special Task Force that they in collusion with Nitin Mohindra and other officials of the Board had indulged in change of roll numbers to facilitate the candidates for indulging in use of unfair means in Pre Medical Test, 2012 as well. Accordingly, the Assistant Inspector General of Police, Special Task Force by communication dated 31.12.2013 addressed to the Controller of the Board requested to conduct an enquiry with regard to Pre Medical Tests held in the years 2009, 2010 and 2011 as well, and to submit a report so that suitable action in the matter can be taken.
10. Thereafter, by communication dated 28.1.2014 the Assistant Inspector General of Police, Special Task Force informed the Controller of the Board that while investigation of Crime No. 12/2013 it has been found that OMR sheets of certain candidates have been filled up by the Officials of the Board and, therefore, necessary action be taken against them.
11. In the meanwhile, the Board on 06.11.2013 constituted Technical Committee of following persons to examine the irregularities conducted in the Pre Medical Test, 2012:-
S. No.Name of Member of committeeDesignation1.Dr. Samar UpadhyayAssistant Professor and Head, Computer Applications2.Mrs. Juhi JainLecturer &I/c, HOD, IT3.Mr. D.K ChourishiLecturer, Computer Science & Engineering.4.Mr. Kuldeep Singh ChouhanSenior Software Engineering5.Mr. Ashish JainServer Administrator6.Mrs. Ajita SatheeshAssistant Professor
12. It is pertinent to mention here that Pre Medical Test, 2012 was held on 10.6.2012 in which 38, 671 candidates had appeared. The Committee, as stated supra, was constituted vide order dated 06.11.2013 which held it's meeting on 15.11.2013 and found that roll numbers of 701 candidates were altered after its' generation. Out of 701 candidates the Committee identified 345 suspected candidates and after scrutiny recommended for cancellation of result of 319 candidates vide recommendations dated 15.4.2014 and 05.5.2014 The Committee excluded cases of 26 candidates who on the basis of low marks could not qualify for admission to MBBS Course. The Committee also took into account the seating plan in the examination centres and found that roll numbers were tampered with the object to form pairs. In most of the pairs it was noticed that one of the candidates is out of State of Madhya Pradesh and there is similarity in the matching right answers and matching wrong answers to a large extent, which is possible only on account of copying. The recommendations of the committee were approved by the Chairman on 15.4.2014 and 06.5.2014 Consequently, the orders of cancellation of results of candidates who had indulged in use of unfair means in Pre Medical Test, 2012 were issued on 15.4.2014 and 06.5.2014 by which results of 272 and 47 candidates respectively were cancelled.
13. The Board vide order dated 26.4.2014 and 15.5.2014 directed constitution of the Committees to examine the irregularities committed in the Pre Medical Tests of the years 2009, 2010 and 2011 and 2008 respectively. The Pre-Medical Test, 2011 was held on 24.7.2011 in which 26,116 candidates had appeared. It is pertinent to mention here that Pre-Medical Test, 2011 was held off-line. The Committee found that roll numbers of 110 candidates were altered. The Computer Experts Committee in it's meeting held on 03.5.2014 evolved a formula and fixed bench mark score to ascertain use of unfair means in the examination at 127.40 i.e double the average of correct answers given by the candidates who were not involved in any irregularity i.e 63.55 marks. On the basis of aforesaid criteria and the records available with the Board, the Committee identified that roll numbers of 55 pairs were altered/tampered who were sitting next to each other in the examination hall. It was further found by the Committee that there is similarity in the matching right answers and matching wrong answers of aforesaid 55 pairs of candidates and certain candidates from State of Madhya Pradesh as well as the candidates from outside the State had chosen the particular examination centre and were sitting next to each other, whose roll numbers were tampered. The Committee excluded the cases of 10 candidates on the ground that they have secured low marks, therefore, could not seek admission to MBBS Course and cases of two candidates on the ground that on further verification, no proof with regard to tampering of their roll numbers was found. Accordingly, the Committee recommended for cancellation of the results of 98 candidates. The recommendation of the Committee was approved by the Chairman on 03.5.2014 as a consequence of which the order of cancellation of results of 98 candidates who had indulged in use of unfair means in Pre Medical Test, 2011 was issued by the Director of the Board.
14. The Pre-Medical Test, 2010 was held off-line on 20.6.2010 in which 26,711 candidates had appeared. The Committee identified 132 suspected candidates on the ground that their roll numbers were tampered. The Committee in its meeting held on 05.5.2014 evolved, a formula and fixed bench mark score to ascertain use of unfair means in the examination at 142.66 i.e double the number of average of correct answers given by the candidates who were not involved in any irregularity i.e 71.33 marks. On the basis of aforesaid criteria as well as the record available with the Board, the Committee identified that roll numbers of 68 pairs were altered/tampered who were sitting next to each other in the examination hall. It was further found by the Committee that there is similarity in the matching right answers and matching wrong answers of aforesaid 68 pairs of candidates. The Committee excluded 6 candidates on the ground that they had obtained low marks and did not qualify for admission to MBBS Course and on further scrutiny, it was found that there was no sufficient evidence with regard to tampering of roll numbers by 36 candidates. Accordingly, the Committee recommended for cancellation of the results of 90 candidates. The recommendation of the Committee was approved by the Chairman on 06.5.2014 as a consequence of which the order of cancellation of results of 90 candidates who had indulged in use of unfair means in Pre Medical Test, 2010 was issued by the Director of the Board.
15. The Pre-Medical Test, 2009 was held off-line as well as on-line on 5.7.2009 in which 29,162 candidates had appeared. The Committee identified 185 suspected candidates whose numbers were found to be tampered. The Experts Committee held its meeting on 07.5.2014, evolved a formula and fixed bench mark score to ascertain use of unfair means in the examination at 138.62 i.e double the number of average of correct answers given by the candidates who were not involved in any irregularity i.e 69.32 marks. On the basis of aforesaid criteria as well as the record available with the Board, the Committee identified that roll numbers of 95 pairs were altered/tampered who were sitting next to each other in the examination hall. It was further found by the Committee that there is similarity in the matching right answers and matching wrong answers of aforesaid 95 pairs of candidates. The Committee excluded 16 candidates on the ground that marks obtained by them were low and they were not entitled to seek admission in MBBS Course and on further scrutiny it also found that no sufficient material with regard to tampering of their roll numbers with regard to 84 candidates was found. Accordingly, the Committee recommended for cancellation of the results of 85 candidates. The recommendation of the Committee was approved by the Chairman on 08.5.2014 as a consequence of which the order of cancellation of results of 85 candidates who indulged in unfair means in Pre Medical Test, 2009 was issued by the Director of the Board.
16. The Pre-Medical Test, 2008 which was held off-line as well as online on 7.6.2008 in which 38,378 candidates had appeared. The Committee identified 110 suspected candidates. The Committee held its meeting on 16.5.2014, evolved formula and fixed bench mark score to ascertain use of unfair means in the examination at 138.74 i.e double the number of average of correct answers given by the candidates who were not involved in any irregularity i.e 69.37 marks. On the basis of aforesaid criteria as well as the record available with the Board, the Committee identified that roll numbers of 59 pairs were altered/tampered who were sitting next to each other in the examination hall. It was further found by the Committee that there is similarity in the matching right answers and matching wrong answers of 21 pairs of candidates who were sitting next to each other whose roll numbers were tampered. The Committee excluded 16 candidates on the ground that they secured low marks and could not secure admission to MBBS Course on further scrutiny it was found that no sufficient material was available with regard to tampering of roll numbers of 52 candidates. Accordingly, the Committee recommended for cancellation of the results of 42 candidates. The recommendation of the Committee was approved by the Chairman on 16.5.2014 as a consequence of which on 19.5.2014 an order of cancellation of results of 42 candidates who had indulged in use of unfair means in the examination in Pre Medical Test, 2008 was issued by the Director of the Board. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioners have approached this Court.
17. Mr. Rajendra Tiwari, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in W.P Nos. 7576/2014, 7602/2014, 7611/2014, 7694/2014, 8412/2014, 9598/2014, 10361/2014, 10362/2014, W.P No. 10365/2014 and W.P No. 13936/2014 submitted that from perusal of order dated 3.5.2014, no basis for ordering an enquiry in respect of the Pre Medical Tests held between the years 2009 to 2011 is discernible. The enquiry was directed to be conducted merely on the basis of ipse-dixit of the Chairman. Neither any report of the Centre Superintendent nor of the Invigilator of examination centre was obtained and no Centre Superintendent/Invigilator was examined to ascertain whether any material exists for ordering an enquiry into the alleged case of mass copying. Only on the basis of identification of certain groups, an enquiry was ordered in respect of the Pre Medical Tests held between the years 2009 to 2011. There was no material to order an enquiry in respect of the Pre Medical Tests of the years 2009 to 2011, before constitution of the Committees. It was also pointed out that the exclusion of candidates from enquiry on the ground that the marks obtained by them were low, is incorrect and no action has been taken against the candidates who were allotted roll numbers naturally. It was also urged that it was not possible for the candidates to manipulate the roll numbers. While inviting our attention to Annexure P/9 in W.P No. 7576/2014, it was pointed out that different pattern of marks obtained by the candidates is emerging, therefore, the same formula could not have been applied by the Board for identification of the candidates who were allegedly involved in mass copying.
It was also argued that there is no material on record to arrive at the conclusion that the petitioners were either involved in altering the roll numbers or had indulged in use of unfair means. It was also pointed out that report of the Committee is an opinion evidence and under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the same is required to be proved by the Board and, therefore, the District Judge should be directed to submit a report after due enquiry. It was also urged that the candidates participated in the competitive examination with all seriousness and none of them had raised any objection with regard to alleged mass copying, which took place in the Examination Centres, and no explanation has been furnished by the Board as to why there is difference of marks between alleged scorer and the marks obtained by the petitioners. It was also argued that no presumption can be raised merely on account of similarity in seating pattern and on account of obtaining similar marks with the candidates who were allegedly involved in copying. It was further submitted that opinion of experts is not beyond the pale of judicial review. In support of aforesaid submissions learned senior counsel has placed reliance on decisions of the Supreme Court in Competition Commission of India v. Steel Authority of India Limited, (2010) 10 SCC 744 and Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India v. Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, (2007) 12 SCC 210. It was also pointed out by learned senior counsel that the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 7694/2014 belongs to a poor family and has completed his studies and is undertaking internship. It was further pointed out that the petitioner was sitting during the examination in front of alleged scorer.
18. Rejoinder reply has been given by learned senior counsel by way of written submissions. In the written submissions, it is stated that Anubhav Sharma and Shivani Sharma were alloted Roll Nos. 523828 and 523829 respectively, who are related to each other as brother and sister. They were sitting in the examination hall next to each other and scored identical marks namely 172. However, no action has been taken against them by the Board because there was no change in their roll numbers. Thus, suspected candidates have been given clean-chit. It has further been mentioned in the written submissions that the Board has failed to disclose the right answers in the mismatch answers, which goes to show that consideration was made with punctilious observation and no serious scrutiny was made. It is further submitted that though several candidates did not indulge in use of unfair means, yet their results were cancelled. The Board has taken action for cancellation of results of the candidates in selective manner. It is also mentioned that rule of law requires the Board to be more cautious and fair with the candidates and the burden to prove its action lies heavily on the Board. It is also mentioned that in cases where candidates have passed all examinations of M.B.B.S course in first attempt, the action of the Board in cancellation of their results cannot be said to be justified and the fate of such candidates should be made subject to ultimate decision by the criminal Court. Lastly and in the alternative, it has been mentioned that the petitioners be granted the liberty to resort to the remedy of civil suit. In support of aforesaid submissions, learned senior counsel has referred to decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Veer Pal Singh v. Secretary, Ministry of Defence, (2013) 8 SCC 83, Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, AIR 2000 SC 2587, Ashish Batham v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2002) 7 SCC 317, East Coast Railway v. Mahadev Appa Rao, (2010) 7 SCC 678, Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 16 SCC 276 and Natwar Singh v. Director of Enforcement, (2010) 13 SCC 255.
19. Mr. R.N Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in W.P No. 7772/2014 and W.P No. 8135/2014 has submitted that the petitioners had appeared in the Pre Medical Test, 2008. It is further submitted that taking into account the magnitude of the scam, another high level committee of experts ought to have been constituted by the Board to consider the report submitted by the Computer Experts Committee. It is also pointed out that the entire action against the petitioners has been taken in hot haste and the same suffers from the vice of non-application of mind and powers of judicial review are available in the context of the order. Lastly, it is urged that the Court should constitute another Committee to satisfy itself as to whether the conclusions arrived at by the Committee of the experts appointed by the Board are correct. In support of his submissions, learned senior counsel has referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Natwar Singh (supra), Mahadev Appa Rao (supra) and Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited (supra)
20. Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 9768/2014 and 9766/2014 has submitted that the petitioners had appeared in Pre Medical Test, 2012 from the Examination Centre at Shahdol. It is further submitted that out of 701 cases of mismatch, the cases of 510 candidates were examined, out of which, results of 272 candidates were cancelled and thereafter the results of 47 other candidates were cancelled on the recommendations of Special Task Force. It is also argued that the Enquiry Committee has not conducted the wholesome enquiry and in respect of Pre Medical Test, 2012 no forumula was evolved by the Committee of Experts to ascertain whether the particular case is a case of mass copying. It is also argued that in Pre Medical Test, 2012 candidates did not indulge in mass copying and the grounds which were available in respect of Pre Medical Test, 2013 for holding the same to be a case of mass copying are not in existence in the case of Pre Medical Test, 2012. It is also pointed out that there is no material on record to hold the that candidates have resorted to organized use of unfair means in the examination.
21. Mr. Amit Khatri, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P No. 7537/2014, W.P No. 7540/2014, W.P No. 7773/2014, W.P No. 8431/2014, W.P No. 8432/2014, W.P No. 7538/2014, W.P No. 7539/2014 and W.P No. 7541/2014, Mr. Kuldeep Bhargava, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 9342/2014, Mr. Atul Nema, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 9981/2014, Mr. C.S Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 8462/2014 and Mr. Pushpendra Yadav, learned counsel for petitioners in the Writ Petitions No. 9963/2014, 9150/2014 and 9880/2014, Mr. Anup Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P No. 10623/2014 and Mr. Himanshu Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petitions No. 14059/2014 and 14062/2014 respectively have adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. Rajendra Tiwari and Mr. R.N Singh, learned Senior Counsel.
22. Mr. Nikhil Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petitions No. 14059/2014 and 14062/2014 while adopting the submissions made on behalf of learned senior counsel for petitioners in other writ petitions has submitted that petitioners' case does not fall within the purview of “unfair means” as defined in clause 3.8 of Madhya Pradesh Medical and Dental Under Graduate Entrance Examination Rules, 2010. It is further submitted that formula evolved by Board has been applied in an erroneous manner, and since only two candidates were found copying in one room the same cannot be treated to be a case of mass-copying. In rejoinder reply, it is submitted that jumbling report in Pre Medical Test, 2011 has been made the basis for taking action in respect of all the examinations.
23. Mr. R.B Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 9105/2014 submitted that the Board has cancelled the result of 98 candidates who had appeared from thirteen different centres in the State, therefore, the instant case cannot be said to be a case of mass copying. It is further submitted that prior to issuance of impugned order, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. While inviting our attention to roll number-wise list of candidates at page 174 of the return as well as para 5 of the rejoinder, it has been contended that in respect of roll numbers mentioned in para 5 of the rejoinder, no irregularity was found, therefore, the stand taken by respondents that the petitioner tampered with the roll number, is incorrect. It is also pointed out that documents mentioned in I.A No. 9566/2014 were not supplied to the petitioner and some time limit should be prescribed for taking action for cancellation of admission. It is further submitted that there is no material on record to show that the candidates were aware about the jumbling report, therefore, it is not possible to infer that the candidates had indulged in mass copying. It is also argued that an independent expert ought to have been appointed.
24. Mr. N.S Ruprah, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 8028/2014 submitted that impugned order has been passed on the basis of surmises and conjectures. It is argued that it is impossible for a candidate to indulge in copying as sequence of questions in all four sets was different and OMR sheet of the petitioner has not been produced. It is also argued that impugned order has been passed in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in cases of TVS Finance and Services Limited v. H. Shivakumar (2010) 15 SCC 295, Oryx Fisheries Private Limited v. Union of India, (2010) 13 SCC 427 and Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited (supra).
25. Mr. Deep Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 9589/2014 has submitted that petitioner has secured 159 marks whereas alleged scorer has secured 142 marks. It is pointed out that academic record of the petitioner is good and he has secured more than 85% marks in High School and Higher Secondary School examinations and the petitioner, in fact, was sitting in the examination in front of the alleged scorer. While referring to orders dated 24.4.2014 and 7.5.2014, it is urged that though the trend emerging with regard to cancellation of admissions in both the orders is different, yet the same logic has been applied while cancelling admissions.
26. Mr. Vivek Rusia, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6883/2014 has submitted that father of the petitioner is a low paid employee and the petitioner has good academic record. It is also urged that initially the committee did not find petitioner's involvement in the use of unfair means in the examination and it is not possible for a candidate to indulge in copying in the presence of invigilator. Our attention has also been invited to communication dated 30.1.2014 sent by the Director, Professional Examination Board to the Director, Medical Education, to contend that since examination was conducted by the Board in the year 2012 and students are prosecuting their studies in various Medical Colleges, therefore, Board has no authority to cancel the results of such students.
27. Mr. Arpan J. Pawar, learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ Petitions No. 7523/2014, 7525/2014, 7526/2014, 7860/2014 and 8137/2014 has submitted that no notice was issued to the petitioners before passing the impugned order and the same was passed in hot haste without properly examining the records. It is also submitted that impugned order has been passed on surmises and conjectures and there is no material available with the respondents for inculpating the petitioners in the case of unfair means. It is pointed out that petitioners have good academic profile and the statistical data prepared by respondent No. 3 cannot form the basis for any punitive action against the petitioners. It is also urged that the petitioners No. 2 and 3 have also cleared D-MAT Examination, 2011. It is further urged that marks obtained by the petitioners are nowhere similar to alleged scorers. While referring to return filed by respondents, it is pointed out that there is a change in scan numbers of 248 candidates, yet results of only 133 candidates have been cancelled. It is also argued that there is change in date of birth of as many as 161 candidates, but change in scan number in respect of aforesaid candidates in the report has not been indicated.
It is also argued that out of 26,115 roll numbers selected by the Board, only 1036 roll numbers were chosen for scrutiny and in many other cases where candidates have secured more or less same marks, no action has been taken. In this connection, our attention is invited to averments made in para 4 of the rejoinder. It is also urged that there was neither any report of use of unfair means by the petitioners from the invigilators, nor any report of illegal change of seating pattern. The Board has failed to place the OMR sheets of petitioners and the alleged scorers on record. While referring to page 153 of the return filed by respondents, it was pointed out that petitioner No. 2 was sitting in front row and not at the rear of the row and the Board is deliberately withholding the information sought for by the petitioners under the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is also argued that document Nos. P-1321.c and P-1325.c, in which, the cases of the petitioners were shown to have been considered, have not been placed on record and there is no averment in the return that OMR sheets of all 26,115 candidates have been examined. It is also submitted that petitioners in W.P No. 7126/14 and W.P No. 8137/14 were female candidates who had appeared in the examination for the first time and, therefore, the allegation of the respondents that they acted as scorers, is incorrect. In support of aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in cases of Veer Pal Singh (supra) and Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of India (supra). Learned counsel has also referred to paragraph 55 of the judgment referred by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ku. Pratibha Singh v. State of M.P (W.P No. 20342/2013).
28. Mr. Ritwik Parashar, learned counsel for petitioners in W.P No. 7542/2014 and W.P No. 14458/2014 has submitted that the petitioners were sitting in the front row and, therefore, their involvement in copying is ruled out. It is also submitted that the case of the petitioners does not fall within the formula prescribed by the Board for ascertaining whether or not a candidate has indulged in use of unfair means. Mr. Anubhav Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P No. 9444/2014 has submitted that there is difference in the marks obtained by the petitioner and that of the scorer.
29. Mr. R.K Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P No. 9322/2014 has submitted that there was no sufficient time during the examiantion and, therefore, it was not possible for the candidates to indulge in copying. It is further submitted that scan number of the petitioner was not changed whereas, the scan number of the beneficiary in W.P No. 7527/2014 was changed. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been appearing in the Pre Medical Tests since year 2005 and has succeeded in the year 2010. It is also pointed out that the beneficiary as well as the scorer took admission in M.B.B.S Course and both of them belong to State of Madhya Pradesh. It is also pointed out that the petitioner is ready to face the NARCO test. It is also argued that individuals have been charged with copying, therefore, the instant case is not a case of mass copying. In support of aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in the case of Tushar Ranjan Sahu v. Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa, AIR 1997 Orissa 194. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to Broom's Legal Maxims Tenth Edition and has referred to the maxims “DE NON APPARENTIBUS ET NON EXISTENTIBUS EADEM EST RATIO' and ‘POTEST ADDUCI EXCEPTIO EJUSDEM REI CUJUS PETITUR DISSOLUTIO”. Learned counsel in support of his submissions has also referred to the First Edition of the “Discipline of Law” by Lord Denning and to ‘Due Process of Law’ First Edition by Abhinav Chandrachud.
30. Mr. Nishant Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P No. 7527/2014 has adopted the submissions made by Mr. R.K Sanghi, Advocate. Mr. A.T Faridi, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P No. 10851/2014 has submitted that in the facts of the case, the Board ought to have conducted fresh examination.
31. Mr. A.K Bajpai, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P No. 8273/2014 has submitted that Pre-Medical Test, 2009 was not a case of mass-copying, as out of around 20,000 candidates, the results of only 0.29% of the candidates have been cancelled and, therefore, the Board ought to have followed the principles of natural justice. It is also submitted that formula evolved by the Board for ascertaining whether or not a candidate has indulged in mass-copying has to be static and cannot be different for different years.
32. Mr. H.K Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P Nos. 10189/2014, 7800/2014, 8640/2014 and 8095/2014 has submitted that the petitioners are not involved in the tampering of roll numbers and while inviting our attention to page 160 of the return, it is contended that roll numbers of 161 candidates were tampered yet, no action has been taken against them. It is further submitted that percentage of cancellation of the results in the Pre Medical Tests of 2010 and 2011 are respectively 0.33% and 0.37% and, therefore, no inference can be drawn that candidates had indulged in mass copying in the said examinations. In rejoinder reply, it is highlighted that there is distinction between correlation and causation, and correlation does not imply causation. It is also submitted that the Board while taking action against the students has acted on probability. However, the data of match answers applied by the Board do not behave in normal probability distribution as the value of mean, median and mode is not equal. In support of his submissions, Mr. Upadhyay has referred to the extracts taken out from the websites, namely, www.purplemath.com and en.wikipedia.org
33. Mr. Aditiya Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P No. 7619/14 has submitted that in order dated 7.5.2014 the petitioner has been treated to be a scorer who had allegedly helped one Rajesh Yadav and Mohd. Ashfaq in copying. However, in order dated 24.4.2014 Mohd. Ashfaq has been shown as scorer who had helped one Raksha Maladhari in copying. It was also pointed out that the case of the petitioner does not fall within the formula prescribed by the respondent to ascertain whether the candidates had indulged in use of unfair means. It is pointed out that the entire case against the petitioner is based on suspicion and the fact that the petitioner had indulged in copying, is proved.
34. Learned counsel while advancing arguments in W.P No. 10414/2014 has submitted that the petitioner was sitting in front row facing the wall and therefore, it was not possible for him to indulge in copying. It is also submitted that it is alleged that the petitioner was a scorer who had helped Anshuman Singh as well as Sant Kumar Maurya whereas, in order dated 24.4.2014, said Anshuman Singh has been shown to be a scorer. Learned counsel while canvassing his submissions in W.P Nos. 8108/2014 and 8094/2014 has submitted that petitioner in W.P No. 8108/2014 has completed the M.B.B.S course and is working as Intern whereas, petitioner in W.P No. 8094/2014 is a student of Final Year of MBBS course. The case of the petitioners does not fall within the scope and ambit of formula prescribed by the respondents to ascertain whether the candidates had indulged in use of unfair means. Learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P No. 7619/2014, 8094/2014, 8108/2014, 10414/2014, 10415/2014 and 10422/2014 has adopted the submissions of Shri Rajendra Tiwari, learned senior counsel.
In W.P No. 8371/2014, learned counsel has submitted that petitioner is alleged to be a scorer in respect of the Pre-Medical Test, 2008 and his case does not fall within the purview of formula prescribed by respondents. In W.P No. 10420/2014, it is submitted that the petitioner had taken admission in Private Medical College in the year 2012 against the Government seat.
35. Mr. Amitabh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P Nos. 7121/2014 and W.P No. 7825/2014 has invited our attention to page 7 of the compilation filed on behalf of the Board and has submitted that the formula adopted by the Board for ascertaining whether the candidates have resorted to unfair means is obsolete and certain more data are required to verify whether it is authentic. It is further submitted that the petitioner in W.P No. 7121/2014 had sought opinion of the experts orally and the experts have opined that there is no logic of adopting the criteria evolved by the Experts Committee of the Board to ascertain whether a candidate had indulged in use of unfair means. It is also submitted that the software as well the documents mentioned in I.A No. 9932/2014 and I.A No. 9060/2014 in W.P No. 7121/2014 ought to have been supplied to the petitioner as the basis of the formula is not discernible to the petitioner. It is also submitted that though an inquisitorial enquiry was undertaken by the Board to ascertain the facts, yet the final order was passed by the Board on 3.5.2014 While inviting our attention to page 3 of the return, it is contended that 300 students from Government Kasturba Higher Secondary School have appeared, out of which 16 students have been named, either as beneficiary or as scorer. It is further submitted that since the examination was of objective type, therefore possibility of candidates either answering the correct answers or the probable correct answers was very high and, therefore, the per centage of mis-match is on higher side. It is also submitted that non-supply of data as required by the petitioner vide I.A No. 9932/2014 and I.A No. 9060/2014 has prejudiced the petitioner. It is further submitted that there are seven well settled grounds for exclusion of principles of natural justice, namely, statutory exclusion, legislative Act, necessity, undisputed facts, confidentiality, preventive action, emergency and where nothing unfair can be presumed. However, none of the grounds are available in the instant case, so as to warrant exclusion of principles of natural justice. The impugned action has been taken by the respondents in hot haste and no explanation has been offered for exclusion of principles of natural justice. In support of aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Competition Commission of India (supra). It is also urged that even though in a case of enquiry pertaining to mass copying, provisions of the India Evidence Act, 1872 may not apply, however, the documents produced in the enquiry, which are relied upon, had to be proved and if the party wants inspection of the documents, the same should be granted. It is also submitted that in a proceeding before the quasi-judicial authority, the principles of natural justice would apply and no ground is available for exclusion of principles of natural justice in the fact situation of the present case. In support of aforesaid submissions, reference has been made to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Bareilly Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. v. The Workmen, (1971) 2 SCC 617 and Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P Allahabad v. Ghanshyam Das Gupta, AIR 1962 SC 1110.
36. It is further submitted that the officials of the Board were biased and the action against the petitioners has been taken in premediated manner, which is evident from the order. In support of aforesaid submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Radhey Shyam Gupta v. U.P State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd., (1999) 2 SCC 21. It is also argued that even if the documents were not required by the candidate, then too such documents ought to have been supplied to the candidate. In support of aforesaid contention, reference has been made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited (supra). It is also pointed out that the petitioner has a good academic record. While referring to page 31 of the second compilation filed on behalf of the respondents, it is pointed out that the formula for ascertaining the fact of copying, has not been explained by the respondents. It is also submitted that the petitioner in W.P No. 7121/2014 is a student of IInd Year of M.B.B.S course, whereas the petitioner in W.P No. 7825/2014 has completed his M.B.B.S course and is undertaking internship. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners has sought leave of this Court to produce certain additional facts. Thereupon, following order was passed on 10.9.2014:-
“10.09.2014
I.A No. 11946/2014 & I.A No. 11944/2014:
Not on Board: these matters have been mentioned by Mr. Amitabh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners with a request to take up the same along with the group of cases, which are presently being heard by the Court as overnight part heard cases.
In these matters, the petitioners invited order of the Court on interlocutory applications (I.A No. 9060/2014, I.A No. 9932/2014 in W.P No. 7121/2014; I.A Nos. 9933/2014, I.A No. 9073/2014 in W.P No. 7418/2014, I.A No. 9074/2014, I.A No. 9936/2014 in W.P No. 7825/2014 and I.A No. 9075/2014 and 9934/2014 in W.P No. 8056/2014), for issuing direction to the respondents to supply stated documents as a precondition for proceeding with the hearing of the main writ petitions. That request was, however, negatived vide order dated 3.9.2014 with liberty, as the petitioners intended to challenge the said decision before the Supreme Court. The petitioners are, however, now advised to pursue their main petitions before this Court without challenging the said decision before the Supreme Court, but, with liberty to the petitioners to agitate the points urged and referred to in the order dated 3.9.2014 at the appropriate stage.
Above mentioned formal applications have been filed on behalf of these petitioners for preponing the date of hearing of the writ petitions and to hear the same along with the overnight part heard companion cases, which are already listed before the Court today. The application, however, is not supported by any affidavit of the petitioners.
Learned counsel submits that due to paucity of time, he was not able to obtain affidavit of the petitioners but he has received clear instructions on telephone from concerned petitioner(s) to proceed with the hearing of these writ petitions. Further, it is noticed that the application as presented, is very vague and does not specifically state that the petitioners are interested in proceeding with the hearing of these matters inspite of the order dated 3.9.2014 passed by the Division Bench in these petitions. Learned counsel for the petitioners/applicants submits that the subject applications presented by him in the Court this morning be ignored and instead, he may be permitted to file a formal application incorporating all aspects, as are necessary for entertaining the request for preponing the date of hearing of these writ petitions. He undertakes to file such application with appropriate reliefs including to dispense with the filing of affidavit of the petitioners for the reasons to be recorded in the application and to treat the proposed application as having been made by the Advocate himself. He further prays that until such formal application is filed, the request, which he proposes to make in the said application, be treated as oral request made by him across the Bar and proceed on that basis. This request is made because the arguments of the petitioners in companion cases, which are listed as overnight part heard cases, are already concluded and the reply of the State will begin from today. Before that, he intends to make his submission on behalf of the aforesaid two petitioners on condition stated hitherto.
We show indulgence to these petitioners and permit the Advocate for the petitioners to address us on merits of the writ petitions with liberty to the petitioners to challenge the opinion recorded in the decision dated 3.9.2014 if and when occasion arises at the appropriate stage.
The undertaking given by Mr. Amitabh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners that formal application regarding the abovesaid position will be filed in the course of the day made across the Bar, is accepted as the petitioners should not suffer, as the matter would become fate accompli for them if adverse judgment is rendered in the companion cases.
We further place on record the statement made by Mr. Amitabh Gupta, Advocate that although he is appearing as Advocate in about 75 cases, which have been deferred on his request to 6th October, 2014, only two petitioners have agreed to abide by his advice to pursue the writ petitions before this Court and the rest of the petitioners may decide to withdraw the respective petitions filed by them with liberty to file civil suit for appropriate reliefs against the orders passed by the Competent Authority, which decision will be taken by them very shortly. Hence, formal application for preponing the hearing of those matters is not made on their behalf, though Mr. Gupta is common Advocate for the petitioners in all those cases.
I.A No. 11946/2014 and I.A No. 11944/2014 are accordingly disposed of on the above terms.
Shri Amitabh Gupta is called upon to proceed with his argument in the main writ petitions forthwith, so that the Advocate for the respondents can give a consolidated reply (argument) in respect of all the petitioners together thereafter. Accordingly, Shri Amitabh Gupta commenced his oral arguments in the main above-numbered writ petitions.
(A.M Khanwilkar) (Alok Aradhe)
Chief Justice Judge
Later on:
At 12:40 P.M
At this stage, when one more than one hour has been spent on hearing Shri Amitabh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, he submits that the petitioners would like to rely on new facts including academic performance of the petitioners in other examinations conducted during the same time. No such pleading is found in the writ petition. Question of permitting the petitioners to amend the pleadings at this belated stage and more so keeping in mind the indulgence shown by allowing preponement of hearing of the writ petitions on the request and assurance given by the Advocate across the Bar as recorded in the earlier part of the order, cannot be countenanced. Entertaining such request would inevitably result in deferring the hearing of all the matters, which ought to be eschewed. For, hearing in other connected matters is already continuing for more than four full days (i.e 4.9.2014, 5.9.2014, 8.9.2014 and 9.9.2014).
Therefore, we must record our disapproval about the manner in which the matter is being presented by Shri Amitabh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners. For, if his request is to be accepted, it would result in protracting the hearing of all the cases. Hence, this prayer is rejected.”
37. In rejoinder reply, it is submitted that there is irrationality on the part of the Board in conducting the examination and the same is being imputed to the petitioners. It is also submitted that the cases of all the candidates were not subjected to scrutiny on the basis of the formula of Unfair Score evolved by the Board and the averments made in paragraph 6.4 in Writ Petition No. 7121/2014 have not been rebutted by the Board. It is contended that the possibility of several candidates having secured similar marks has also not been explained, as possibility of answering probable answers is high. It is also urged that the Board should have taken into consideration the cases of all the selected candidates while undertaking the process of cancellation of examination results of all the candidates who have allegedly indulged in unfair means and by not doing so, unequals have been treated as equals and the action of the Board suffers from irrationality. It is also pointed out that Brochure issued by the Board should have contained a stipulation that if candidates secure similar marks, their results were likely to be cancelled. It is submitted that this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has the jurisdiction to determine the disputed questions of fact. In support of the aforesaid submissions, our attention has been invited to relief clauses 7.3 and 7.4 in Writ Petition No. 7825/2014 and reliance has been placed on the decisions in Babubhai Muljibhai Patel v. Nandlal Khodidas Barot, AIR 1974 SC 2105 and Om Prakash v. State of Haryana, (1971) 3 SCC 792.
38. Lastly, it is urged that no complaint has been made by anybody immediately after the examination. It is also urged that the rules of game cannot be changed after examination, as formula to ascertain the fact whether or not a candidate had indulged in use of unfair means was evolved after the examination was held, which amounts to change of rules of game. In support of aforesaid submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions in Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner, Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation, AIR 2000 SC 2272 and Ramesh Kumar v. High Court of Delhi, AIR 2010 SC 3714. Learned counsel has also referred to the decision in Tata Cellular v. Union Of India., AIR 1996 SC 11 to invite our attention to scope of judicial review.
39. Mr. K.C Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 7295/2014 submitted that by an order dated 27.3.2014, the admission of the petitioner of Pre-Medical Test, 2013 has been cancelled. It is further submitted that the impugned order is wholly illegal, arbitrary and without any justification. It is also urged that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner before passing the impugned order.
40. In Writ Petition Nos. 1918/2014, 7529/2014, 7530/2014, 7682/2014, 7776/2014, 7856/2014, 7861/2014, 7876/2014, 7881/2014, 7891/2014, 7926/2014, 7982/2014, 8023/2014, 8024/2014, 8030/2014, 8048/2014, 8049/2014, 8050/2014, 8051/2014, 8052/2014, 8068/2014, 8069/2014, 8083/2014, 8144/2014, 8167/2014, 8488/2014, 8985/2014, 8990/2014, 8993/2014, 9318/2014, 9321/2014, 9326/2014, 9327/2014, 9340/2014, 9413/2014, 9415/2014, 9466/2014, 9475/2014, 9577/2014, 9583/2014, 9584/2014, 9585/2014, 9588/2014, 9595/2014, 9596/2014, 9624/2014, 9798/2014, 10149/2014, 10151/2014, 10153/2014, 10155/2014, 10156/2014, 10158/2014, 10159/2014, 10160/2014, 10161/2014, 10162/2014, 10163/2014, 10164/2014, 10165/2014, 10221/2014, 10390/2014, 10391/2014, 10418/2014, 10503/2014, 10507/2014, No. 11097/2014, 11099/2014, 11106/2014, 11112/2014, 11119/2014, 11153/2014, 11491/2014, 11493/2014, 11496/2014, 11510/2014 9690/2014 and 8817/2014 no counsel has addressed us separately, therefore, we presume that they have adopted the arguments already made on behalf of the petitioners in other matters.
41. Mr. P.K Kaurav, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has invited our attention to various paragraphs of the order dated 11.4.2014 passed in W.P No. 20342/2013 (Ku. Pratibha Singh v. State of M.P) and has submitted that the issues raised in the instant writ petition are covered by the decision rendered by Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid writ petition. It is further submitted that the common elements, namely tampering/mass copying of roll numbers, involvement of some technical professional racketeers, tampering/mass copying only in selected cities and selected centres and high percentage of matching of correct and incorrect answers in selected cities and centres and the opinion furnished by the Special Task Force in respect of Pre Medical Tests, 2008 to 2012 as well as 2013 exist and, therefore, it can safely be held that candidates even in the Pre Medical Tests of 2008 to 2012 have indulged in mass copying. It is further submitted that on account of revealation made in the course of investigation, a decision was taken to scrutinize the cases of the candidates who had appeared in the Pre Medical Tests between the years 2008 to 2012. The formula evolved by the Computer Experts Committee for ascertaining whether or not the candidates had indulged in use of unfair means, is logical.
42. Learned counsel for the respondents has invited our attention to various pages of the compilation filed by him and has pointed out the seating plan as well as the documents on record to contend that most of the candidates who had indulged in copying were sitting at the back of the row, in certain centres and in selected cities. It was further submitted that the candidates whose matching answers were low and who did not qualify in the examination were excluded from the purview of scrutiny and, therefore, no action was taken against them. However, an undertaking has been given by learned counsel for the respondent before us that action against all the candidates who had indulged in the case of mass copying would be taken as was done in respect of Pre Medical Test, 2013.
It is also submitted that action for cancellation of results of the candidates has been taken on the basis of data which were available with the Board as well as the record, seating plan and the information which was supplied by the Special Task Force. It is also urged that material on record leads to inevitable conclusion that identified candidates had indulged in use of unfair means. It is submitted as under:
(a) The roll numbers were allotted to concerned candidates in a particular pattern and in deviation of prescribed method/norm.
(b) The roll numbers are clearly mis-matching as they have been realigned to facilitate the concerned candidates to indulge in copying.
(c) The same officers who had manipulated the data and had realigned the roll number of the year 2013 namely Nitin Mohindra, Senior System Analyst, Ajay Kumar Sen, System Analyst and C.K Mishra, Assistant Programmer were Incharge and responsible for the activity and the same pattern has been adopted for the year 2008 to 2012.
(d) There is high percentage of matching of correct as well as wrong answers given by Scorer and the concerned candidate as has been noticed from the respective answer-sheets.
(e) Many candidates despite scoring very high marks in 2011 and 2012 did not take admission in the MBBS course which indicates that they appeared in the examination only as Scorers to help the candidates sitting behind or in front of them, as the case may be. Many candidates who appeared in 2008, 2009 and 2010 examinations and whose results have been cancelled by the Board, have taken admissions but they had appeared in PMT examinations in the previous years also and performed poorly. The marks scored by these candidates in their previous attempts have been mentioned in Annexure-R/8.
(f) The irregularities have been found to be in increasing manner from 2008 to 2013 which also goes to show a gradual increasing trend of commission of irregularities in MBBS Examination for facilitating commission of unfair means by selected candidates.
(g) The graphical chart clearly shows unusual trend of average matching and mismatching of answers in comparison of candidates whose results are cancelled and all students.
(h) Mass copying has taken place at particular centres and in particular cities where the candidates outside from the State of Madhya Pradesh alongwith the candidates from Madhya Pradesh have appeared, at times concentrated number in one room of the Centre. The candidates who have acted as scorers, even though secured higher marks, have neither taken admission in the M.B.B.S Course nor have filed writ petitions before this Court challenging the cancellation of the results.
43. It is also urged that aforesaid indisputable facts emerging from the official record placed before the Court, are sufficient to justify the decision taken by the authorities and to arrive at the conclusion that identified candidates against whom action has been taken were involved in organized mass-copying and had resorted to unfair means during examination. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has relied on the decisions of Supreme Court in the cases of Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhash Chandra Sinha, AIR 1970 SC 1269, Maharashtra State Board v. K.S Gandhi, (1991) 2 SCC 716, Union of India v. Anand Kumar, (1994) 5 SCC 663, Biswa Ranjan Sahu v. Sushanta Kumar, (1996) 5 SCC 365, M.C Mehta v. Union of India, (1999) 6 SCC 237, Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali Khan, AIR 2000 SC 2783, Ram Preeti Yadav v. U.P Board of High School and Intermediate Education, (2003) 8 SCC 311, State of Maharashtra v. Jalgaon Municipal Corporation, (2003) 9 SCC 731, Secretary, AP Social Welfare Residential Educational Institute v. Pindiga, (2007) 13 SCC 352, Chief General Manager, BSNL v. Surendranath Pandey, 2012 (1) SLJ 73, Tushar Ranjan Sahu (supra), M.P Board of Secondary Education v. Shahi Tomar, 2004 (1) MPLJ 455, Chairman JNK State Board v. Faiyaz Ahmad, (2000) 3 SCC 59, B. Ramanjini v. State of A.P, (2002) 5 SCC 533, All India Railway Recruitment Board v. K. Shyam Kumar, (2010) 6 SCC 614, Board of High School and Intermediate Education v. Bagleshwar Prasad, AIR 1966 SC 875, Prem Prakash Kaluniya v. Punjab University, (1973) 3 SCC 424, Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal v. Abhilash Shiksha Prasar Samiti, (1998) 9 SCC 236, UPSC v. Jagannath Mishra, (2003) 9 SCC 237, Director, Students Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Hotel Management Nutrition and Catering Technology Chandigarh, (2009) 1 SCC 59 and Pravamayee Nayak v. Council of Higher Secondary Education, AIR 2003 Orissa 47.
44. In respect of Writ Petition No. 7295/2014, learned counsel for the Board, while referring to the return, has submitted that the controversy involved in the petition is covered by the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Pratibha Singh (supra). While referring to paragraph 5 of the return it is pointed out that a candidate having roll number 545059 who was sitting in front of the petitioner in the examination hall was from New Delhi who had opted Shahdol as examination centre and the petitioner who had roll number 545060 and sitting behind the aforesaid candidate from New Delhi belongs to Balaghat, had chosen Shahdol as examination centre. It is further submitted that in the order it has been mentioned that seventy questions were answered in similar manner by the scorer as well as the petitioner and as per information furnished by the Special Task Force the candidate bearing roll number 545059 and the petitioner were in contact with the middleman and their roll numbers were tampered and they had deliberately opted for examination centre, Shahdol whereas for the candidate from New Delhi, Gwalior was the nearest examination centre. Accordingly, it has been held that the petitioner had indulged in use of unfair means and her examination result has rightly been cancelled.
45. We have considered the rival submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. Before proceeding to deal with the issues involved in the instant writ petitions, we deem it appropriate to deal with Interlocutory Applications No. 9932/2014 and 9060/2014 filed in Writ Petition No. 7121/2014. By means of I.A No. 9060/2014, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 7121/2014 has sought for the production of documents/software/information. In I.A No. 9932/2014 the petitioner has, inter alia, submitted that the Board had supplied the written programming of the Software, namely, CMP 200 -the programme used by Joint Controller (Computer) for analyzing the answer-sheets of the candidates. However, information, as to said programme, is deficient in following respects:-
(a) Details of the operating system on which the given program CMP 200. PRG was compiled/executed.
(b) Soft copy of the software/compiler/platform which was used for the given program CMP 200.PRG
(c) Algorithm/flow-chart/state-machine used to construct/write the program named CMP 200. PRG.
(d) Input and output files used to get the result as mentioned in the order impugned.”
The aforesaid information is being sought by the petitioners on the basis of opinion given by Assistant Professors of Pt. Dwarka Prasad Mishra, IIIT-DM, Jabalpur.
46. During the course of submissions when a query was put to learned counsel for the petitioners, whether the petitioners had sought the opinion of the experts in writing, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submitted that he had sought opinion of the experts orally.
47. We have carefully gone through the opinion given by the experts. In the opinion relied upon by the petitioners the experts have stated that the formula does not seem to be based on any scientific background and impugned orders by which the results of the candidates have been cancelled are silent as to any statistical analysis is available in relation to the question paper with respect to the nature/pattern of answers of the questions contained in it. The experts have further stated that the impugned orders of cancellation of results of the candidates are silent as to whether any expert opinion has been taken with respect to answers and question in order to know the relevancy of four options to the question, as many a times, two options are easily recognized as irrelevant, thereby increasing the probability of opting same correct or incorrect options out of remaining two because of seeming proximity/similarity between them. The experts have also stated that the impugned orders do not mention the contents stated in para 4 of the opinion. The background in which the experts have given their opinion is not discernible to us, as the opinion from them was sought orally.
48. An opinion of an expert has to be understood in the context of query put to him. It is pertinent to note that neither the opinion has been given by the experts on the letter head nor any affidavit in support of the opinion, has been filed. Besides that, we are afraid that while criticising the impugned orders, the experts have travelled beyond the scope of opinion, as experts cannot be permitted to adjudge the validity of the orders passed by the Board which the Court alone is empowered to examine. The experts have not given any opinion that the formula evolved by the committee of experts of the Board is either impermissible or replete with palpable error or by using the formula, the cases of the candidates who had resorted to unfair means, cannot be identified. Therefore, on the basis of aforesaid expert opinion, the petitioners cannot be permitted to seek production of documents/software/information as prayed by them in I.A No. 9932/2014. It is well settled in law that all the grounds for passing order by an administrative authority need not be mentioned in the order itself, but can be relied upon contemporaneous material later on, in which larger public interest is involved. [See: K. Shyam Kumar (supra)] Therefore, there is no need of mentioning the basis of formula in the impugned orders of cancellation of results of the candidates. All the material information which has been taken into account by the Board in decision making process while passing the impugned orders and which has been taken into consideration by this Court has been supplied to the petitioners and, therefore, question of prejudice on account of non-supply of the documents, as demanded, does not arise.
49. Now we may deal with the core issue of the case i.e whether candidates had indulged in use of unfair means i.e mass copying in Pre Medical Tests 2008 to 2012. The expression ‘mass copying’ has not been defined in the Rules governing the Pre Medical Test. It has, therefore, to be understood in its common parlance. In Tushar Ranjan Sahu (supra), it has been held that what could be considered mass copying cannot be laid down with mathematical precision and has to be decided in the facts of each case. Now, we may refer to the facts year-wise to ascertain whether the candidates had indulged in mass-copying. The Committee constituted to identify the candidates who had indulged in use of unfair means in Pre Medical Test, 2012 in its report, inter alia, found that:-
(i) Roll numbers of 701 candidates were tampered after their generation and there was departure from settled norms for allotment of roll numbers in respect of aforesaid candidates.
(ii) In Bhopal, in examination centres, namely, Raja Bhoj Higher Secondary School, Bhopal; Government Kamla Nehru Higher Secondary School, Bhopal; and Government Kasturba Higher Secondary School, Bhopal, 12, 18, 22 candidates respectively were sitting in pairs at the end of the row whose roll numbers were tampered and their right match answers and wrong match answers are similar.
(iii) Similarly, in Indore in examination centres, namely, Shri K.B Patel Gujrati Girls Higher Secondary School, Indore; PMB Gujarati Science College, Indore; and RRMB Gujarati Higher Secondary School, Indore, 46, 44 and 116 candidates respectively were sitting in pairs, whose roll numbers were tampered and their right match answers and wrong match answers are identical.
(iv) In Government India Gandhi Girls College, Shahdol, 14 candidates were sitting in pairs and their right match answers and wrong match answers are identical.
(v) The candidates whose roll numbers were altered and who were sitting in pairs, one of the candidate from the pair was from outside the State and the other candidate in most of the cases did not belong to the city where the examination centre was located.
For the facility of reference relevant extract of the chart annexed with the Compilation-I at Page 165 as well as seating plan of the candidates is reproduced below which shows that candidates sitting in pairs in selected cities and in selected examination centres have secured same marks and one of the candidates of the pair was from outside the State of Madhya Pradesh, and other candidates in most of the cases did not belong to the city where examianation centre was located.
Pre-Medical Test -2012
Examination City - Bhopal
Examination Centre - Govt. Raja Bhoj Higher Secondary School
S. No.Candidate's name and permanent residenceRoll No.Marks obtainedMatch answerRight match answerWrong match answer2.Anand Kumar, Patna (Bihar)
Samrudhi Dixit, Balaghat412035
412036163
162199151484.Sonu Kumar, Patna (Bihar)
Farukh Shah, Ujjain412095
412096155
15519514253
Examination City - Bhopal
Examination Centre - Govt. Kamla Nehru Girls Higher Secondary School
S. No.Candidate's name and permanent residenceRoll No.Marks obtainedMatch answerRight match answerWrong match answer12.Richhapal Galwa, Kota (Rajasthan)
Avijeet Prasad, Gwalior413103
413104172
1671951603513.Ashok Kumar, Indore
Ashish Swami, Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan)413109
413110165
16519615244
Examination City - Bhopal
Examination Centre - Govt. Kasturba Higher Secondary School
S. No.Candidate's name and permanent residenceRoll No.Marks obtainedMatch answerRight match answerWrong match answer18.Shakir Seekar (Rajasthan)
Raghuveer Yadav, Morena413567
413568163
1651821483421.Pradeep Kumar Verma, Narsinghpur
Jaikaran Yadav, Bhopal413597
413598165
16319815246
Examination City - Indore
Examination Centre - Shri K.B Patel Gujrati Girls Higher Secondary School
S. No.Candidate's name and permanent residenceRoll No.Marks obtainedMatch answerRight match answerWrong match answer28.Brajesh Mishra, Katni
Natasha Cam, Dewas433007
433008163
1591881454331.Vinayak Chandra Diwakar, Patna (Bihar)
Deepak Chouhan, Dhar433025
433026141
1421941296535.Prakhar Garg, Bulundshahar (U.P)
Rahul Chouhan, Badwani433037
433038122
116170997137.Vivek Kumar, Patna (Bihar)
Ashish Dawar, Dhar433066
433067149
1461911345746.Mohammad Daidan, Hamirpur (U.P)
Anil Dabar, Indore433125
433126168
17319315637
Examination City - Indore
Examination Centre - P.M.B Gujrati Science College
S. No.Candidate's name and permanent residenceRoll No.Marks obtainedMatch answerRight match answerWrong match answer51.Pradeep Kumar Bharadwaj, Indore
Jitendra Akhdiya, Jhabua433417
433418139
139197
1286954.Darvesh Singh, Bareli (U.P)
Vinod Mehta, Khargone433435
433436139
1371901246657.Alok Agrahari, Sultanpur (U.P)
Gaurav Solanki, Khargone433453
433454158
1551921425060.Anil Singh, Kanpur (U.P)
Rajkumar Kanash, Dhar433471
433472170
1691931553865.Anuj Kumar. Maurya, Kanpur (U.P)
Pushplata Solanki, Dahi433513
433514165
1611951494670.Juber Ahmad, Bareli (U.P)
Sonal Saryam, Seoni433533
433534165
16619915346
S. No. Candidate's name and permanent Roll No. Marks Match Right Wrong match residence obtained answer match answer answer
Examination City - Indore
Examination Centre - R.R.M.B Gujrati Higher Secondary School
S. No.Candidate's name and permanent residenceRoll No.Marks obtainedMatch answerRight match answerWrong match answer72.Mohammad Feroz, Bareli (U.P)
Anoop Kumar Sharma, Nagda433903
433904147
1561821344875.Vivek Patel, Indore
Vivek Chourasiya, Tikamgarh433917
433918151
1491931375680.Anil Kumar, Rampur (U.P)
Parak Nayak, Chhattarpur433929
433930172
1691971574083.Laxman Gupta, Satna
Shruti Saxena, Bhopal433939
433940133
1371911226987.Muktadeer Ahmad Pilibheet (U.P)
Chitranshi Garg, Indore433953
433954143
1521861325491.Rahul Gurjar, Bhind
Neeraj Pathak, Indore433970
433971163167
1971524595.Devendra Kumar, Indore
Rohit Hada, Jhabua433981
433982145
1621811354698.Kamal Akhtar, Kanpur
Arpit Patidar, Khargone433989
433990162
16119815048105.Priyanka Chhapre, Durg
Shradda Gupta, Badwani434019
434020163
15819214646108.Mohammad Afroz, Kanpur
Manisha Kanare, Mandleshwar434031
434032126
12418511273113.Hemant Sevriya, Gwalior
Budhvilas Singh, Satna434054
434055155
16218214339129.Sohaib Aajam, Kanpur
Umashankar Gahlot, Jhabua434101
434102145
14418612858130.Vijay Kumar Singh, Jabalpur
Chetan Chouhan, Indore434113
434114165
16319615145131.Madhvi Singh, Indore
Deepshika Damor, Jhabua434128
434129140
14318812959
Examination City - Shahdol
Examination Centre - Govt. Indira Gandhi Girls College
S. No.Candidate's name and permanent residenceRoll No.Marks obtainedMatch answerRight match answerWrong match answer132.Rupesh Kumar Shrivastava, Patna
Ankit Tiwari, Katni453635
453636169
16819915643133.Nitesh Kumar Singh, Patna
Anshul Ochhani, Shahdol453665
453666166
16819115338135.Mithlesh Kumar, Patna
Abhay Surana, Balaghat453725
453726165
15718314538136.Vijay Kumar Singh, Patna
Ruchika Kurvey, Umariya453755
453756163
16818514936137.Ravishankar Kumar, Patna
Dipika Bakshi, Betul453815
453816161
16617714334138.Satish Chandra, Kota (Raj.)
Shailesh Kumar Raghuwanshi, Sarni453845
453846171
16819515540
PMT 2012-(701) Candidates -Seating Plan
S.NoCity NameName of Examinati on Center/Name of Invigilato rsRoom No.Column 1Column 2Column 3Column 4Column 5Column 61BhopalRaja Bhoj H.S School, Bhopal
Smt. Madhuri Singh
Smt. Pushpa Thapak12412001
412002
412003
412004
412005/
195
412006/1
95412007
412008
412009
412010
412011
412012412013
412014
412015
412016
412017
412018412019
412020
412021
412022
412023
412024412025
412026
412027
412028
412029
4120302BhopalRaja Bhoj H.S School, Bhopal
Smt. Sushma Smt. Sunit13412031
412032
412033
412034
412035/
199
412036/
199412037
412038
412039
412040
412041
412042412043
412044
412045
412046
412047
412048412049
412050
412051
412052
412053
412054412055
412056
412057
412058
412059
4120607BhopalGovt. Kamla Nehru Girls H.S.S
Smt. Nasr at Khan Smt. Arch ana Sharma1413051
413052
413053
413054
413055.A
413056/10
5413057/105
413058
413059
413060
413061/197
413062/197413063
413064
413065
413066
413067/
190
413068/
190413069
413070
413071
413072
413073/
196
413074/
196413075
413076
413077
413078
413079/
184
41380/
1849BhopalGovt. Kamla Nehru Girls H.S.S
Bhavana Sharma Bharat Khare3413111
413112
413113
413114
413115/
53
413116/
53413117
413118
413119
413120
413121/55
413133/55413123
413124
413125
413126
413127/
200
413128/
200413129
413130
413131
413132
413133/
195
413134/
195413135
413136
413137
413138
413139/
161
413140/
16111BhopalGovt. Kasturba Girls H.S.S
Smt. Kiran Verma Smt. Rajni Gupta1413551
413552
413553
413554
413555/
186
413556/
186413557
413558
413559
413560
413561/
195
413562/
195413563
413564
413565
413566
413567/
182
413568/
182413569
413570
413571
413572
413573/
167
413574/
167413575
413576
413577
413578
413579/
173
413580/
17313.BhopalGovt. Kasturba Girls H.S.S
Smt. Vibha
Shrivastava
Smt. Ruk mani Choubey3413611
413612
413613
413614
413615/
197
413616/
197413592.NA
413617
413618
413619
413620
413621/
200
413622/
200413623
413624
413625
413626
413627/
186
413628/
186413629
413630
413631
413632
413633
413634413635
413636
413637
413638
413639
41364017IndoreMata Jijabai Govt. P.G Girls College, Indore
Dr. Nisha Modi
Babita Jain25429601
429602
429603
429604
429605
429606
429607
429608
429609
429610429611
429612
429613
429614
429615
429616
429617
429618
429619
429620429621
429622
429623
429624
429625
429626
429627
429628
429629
429630429631
429632
429633
429634
429635
429636.A
429637/
53
429638/
53
429639
429640429641
429642
429643
429644
429645
429646
429647
429648
429649
429650429651
429652
429653
429654
429655
429656
429657
429658
429659
42966018IndoreShri Atal
Bihari
Bajpai
Govt.
Arts
&Comme
rce
College
Dr. Kavita Rawat
Dr. S.P Pandey40431841
431842/
85
431843/
85
431844
431845
431846
431847
431848
431849
431850431851
431852
431853
431854
431855
431856
431857
431858
431859
431860431861
431862
431863
431864
431865
431866
431867
431868
431869
431870431871
431872
431873
431874
431875
431876
431877
431878
431879
43188028IndoreP., M.B
Gujrati
Science
College,
Indore
Smt. Rajesh Dubey
Shri
B. Chawd
eCB-0
7433449
433450
433451
433452
433453/
192
433454/
192433455
433456
433457
433458
433459/
190
433454/
190433461
433462
433463
433464
433465/
196
433466/
196433467
433468
433469
433470
433471/
193
433472/
19332IndoreRRMB Gujrati School, Indore
KU. Sonal Soni
Ku. Rinku Sharma2433933/
197
433934/
197/15
433935/
152/19
433936/
197
433937
433938
433939/
191
433940/
191/12433941/126
/
180
433942/180
433943
433944
433945/48
433946/48/
152
433947/
152/
197
433948/
197433949
433950
433951/
195
433952/
195/143
433953/
143/186
433955
433956433957/
197
433958/
197/106
433959/
106/167
433960/
167
433961
433962
433963/
192
433964/
192/4337IndoreRRMB Gujrati School, Indore
Dr. Rekha
Jain
Smt.
Jyotsana
Sisangiya7434093
434094
434095/
197
434096/
197/15
434097/
150/19
434098/
198
434099
434100434101/186
434102/186
/434103
434104
434105
434106
434107.A
434108/133434109/13
3
434110
434111
434112
434113/
196
434114/
196/32
434115/32
/
26
434116/26434117
434118
434119
434120
434121.A
434122/
NA
434123
43412442IndoreGovt. Nutan H.S School
Smt.
Neeta
Vaishnav
Vinod Joshi11436591
436592
436593
436594
436595
436596
436597436598
436599
436600/50
436601/50
436602
436603
436604436605
436606
436607
436608
436609
436610
436611436612
436613
436614
436615
436616
436617
436618436619
436620
436621
436622
436623
436624436625
436626
436627
436628
436629
43663044IndoreSikka S.S School
Manoj Parasar
Swati Sarvate21437809
437810
437811
437812
437813
437814437815
437816
437817/73
437818/73
437819
437820437821
437822
437823
437824
437825
437826437827
437828
437829
437830
437831
437832437833
437834
437835
437836
437837
437838437839
437840
437841
437842
437843
43784447ShahdolGovt. IG
Girls
College
Dr. M.S
Shrivasta
va
Dr. Rajend ra Gupta2453601
453602
453603
453604
453605/
165
453606/
165453607
453608
453609
453610
453611
453612453613
453614
453615
453616
453617
453618453619
453620
453621
453622
453623
453624453625
453626
453627
453628
453629
453630453631
453632
453633
453634
453635/19
9
453636/19
949ShahdolGovt. IG Girls
College
Dr. Pratibha Shrivastava
R.C Gutpa4453673
453674
453675
453676
453677
453678453679
453680
453681
453682
453683
453684453685
453686
453687
453688
453689453690
453691
453692
453693
453694
453695/
191
453696/
191453697
453698
453699
453700
453701
453702453703
453704
453705
453706
453707
453708
50. Thus, from perusal of the report of the Computer Experts Committee it is apparent that Roll Numbers of 701 candidates were altered in deviation from the settled norms for allotment of roll numbers i.e according to date of birth and month of birth and the aforesaid candidates were made to sit in pairs in selected examination centres in selected cities and the marks obtained by them are also nearly identical. There is striking similarity in the right match answers and wrong match answers which cannot be a coincidence. It is also pertinent to mention here that the candidates who acted as scorers i.e who facilitated copying, were mostly from out of State and had chosen the particular examination centres sitaute far away from their home town. Similarly, most of the candidates who indulged in copying also chose that very particular centres chosen by the scorers which are situate away from their places of residence, even though examination centre was available at their place of residence or nearby their places of residence and they were sitting in pairs with the scorers. This again cannot be a coincidence. It is also noteworthy that, scorers who were mostly from outside the State of Madhya Pradesh and had secured good marks have neither taken admission nor have filed writ petitions against the orders by which their examination results have been cancelled by the Board. We may also take note of the statement made by Mr. P.K Kaurav, learned counsel for respondents, that 131 candidates whose roll numbers were tampered and opted for Indore as examination centre were outside the State of Madhya Pradesh or were not from Indore as per address furnished by them.
51. The Committee constituted to identify the candidates who had indulged in use of unfair means in Pre Medical Test, 2011 in its report, inter alia, found as under:-
(i) In examination centres, namely, Government Kasturba Higher Secondary School, Government Kamla Nehru Girls Higher Secondary School and Government Nutan Subhash Higher Secondary School in Bhopal 16, 24 and 3 candidates respectively were sitting in pairs at the end of the row and their right match answers and wrong match answers are similar.
(ii) In examination centres, namely, Government Maharani Laxmi Bai P.G Girls College, Mata Jija Bai Government Girls P.G College Moti Tabela, Government Bal Vinay Mandir Excellence Higher Secondary School, Swami Vivekanand Government Model Higher Secondary School, Government Ahilyashram Higher Secondary School, Government Maharaj Shivajirao Higher Secondary School, P.M.B Gujrati Science College, R.R.M.B Gujrati Higher Secondary School and Shri K.V Patel Gujrati Middle School in Indore 4, 6, 10, 2, 10, 10, 4, 4 & 2 candidates respectively were sitting in pairs in the end of the row and their right match answers and wrong match answers are similar.
(iii) In Government P.G College, Khargone 04 candidates were sitting in pairs at the end of the row and their right match answers and wrong match answers are identical.
(iv) The candidates whose roll numbers were altered and out of the candidates who were sitting in pair, one of the candidate of the pair was from outside the State and the other candidate in most of the cases did not belong to the city where the examination centre was located.
For the facility of reference, relevant extracts of the chart annexed with the Compilation-I is at Pages 131 & 161 as well as seating plan of the candidates and relevant of right match and wrong match answers of the candidates, are reproduced below which shows that candidates appearing in selected cities and in selected examination centres have secured same marks and their right match answers and wrong match answers are similar. From such candidates sitting in pairs, one of the candidate was from outside the State of Madhya Pradesh and the another candidate had chosen the examination centre situated away from his place of residence even though examination centre was available either at his place of residence or nearby or was a local candidate residing nearby the examination centre.
Pre Medical Test, 2011
Examination City-Bhopal
Exam Centre-Government Kasturba Higher Secondary School
Group No.Name of Candidate and city of permanent residenceRoll NumberMarks ObtainedMatch answerRight match answerWrong match answer01Mahendra Kumar Yadav, Jaipur
Yusuf Saifi, Mandleshwar206205
206206165
1651881543402Harlal Singh, Sikar, Rajasthan
Rakshand Khantal, Tikamgarh206223
206224154
1421801374303Bhavna Aharwal, Jabalpur
Pawan Kumar Maida, Ratlam206247
206248131
12417111556
Examination City- Bhopal
Exam Centre- Govt. Kamla Nehru Girls Higher Secondary School
Group No.Name of Candidate and city of permanent residenceRoll NumberMarks ObtainedMatch answerRight match answerWrong match answer01Ramaram Choudhary, Ubermer
Rahil P. Veera, Jabalpur207161
207162153
1551751433202Pradeep Kumar, Ajmer,
Shantanu Vyas, Dewas207173
207174164
1611841523203Deepak Pandey, Kanpur
Jitendra Malviya, Dhar207215
207216166
16818315627
P.M.T, 2011
Roll No.-Wise List of 26116 Candidates
S. No.Roll No.Scan No.Form No.BirthCandidate's NameActual DD/MM327620620320546216010404/12/1993Aishwaraya MB Sagar327720620420409015508305/01/1988Abhishek Gupta327820620520751113712215/02/1988Mahendra Kumar Yadav05/01327920620620558115173510/08/1992Yusuf Saify05/01328020620720641015777405/01/1990Saddam Abrar328120620820498615428105/01/1990Raju Rawat328220620920628716066205/01/1992Divya Bajpai328320621020444515714905/01/1992Monika Yadav
PMT-2011 (Tentative) Seating Plan
S.NoCity NameName of Examination center/Invigilator's NameRoom No.Column 1Column 2Column 3Column 4Column 51BhopalGovt. K.N.G.H.S.S TT Nagar Bhopal
Smt. Archana M
Smt. Sunita Bhatnagar1207151
207152
207153
207154
207155/15
207156/15207157
207158
207159
207160
207161/175
207162/175207163
207164
207165
207166
207167/196
207168/196207169
207170
207171
207172
207173/184
207174/184207175
207176
207177
207178
207179/161
207180/1612BhopalGovt. K.N.G.H.S.S TT Nagar Bhopal
Smt. Bhavana Sharma
Smt. Sunita Premchandani2207181
207182
207183
207184
207185/185
207186/185207187
207188
207189
207190
207191/151
207192/151207193
207194
207195
207196
207197/183
207198/183207199
207200
207201
207202
207203/176
207204/176207205
207206
207207
207208
207209
2072103.BhopalGovt. Kasturba Girls H.S School, Bhopal
Shahina Khan
Shaila Chourasia1206201
206202
206203
206204
206205/188
206206/188206207
206208
206209
206210
206211/152
206212/152206213
206214
206215
206216
206217/195
206218/195206219
206220
206221
206222
206223/180
206224/180206225
206226
206227
206228
206229
2062304.BhopalGovt. Kasturba Girls H.S School, Bhopal
Dr. Smt. Uma Tiwari
Smt. Manjulata Shourti2206231
206232
206233
206234
206235/194
206236/194206237
206238
206239
206240
206241/34
206242/34206243
206244
206245
206246
206247/171
206248/171206249
206250
206251
206252
206253
206254206255
206256
206257
206258
206259/85
206260/85
Chart showing striking similarity in right match answers and wrong match answers
Group No.Name of Candidate and city of permanent residenceRoll NumberMarks Obtain ed in PMT, 2011Match answerRight match answerWrong match answerAdditional answer other than match answerName of College of Admission03Satish Kumar, Alwar, Raj.
Tausif Ahmad, Basti, U.P206217
206218150
1501951445156Chirayu Medical College, Bhopal10Manoj Soni, Jaipur, Rajasthan
Shreyansh Soni, Raipur207167
207168165
1611961554145N.S.C Bose Medical College, Jabalpur19Sharad Yadav, Kanpur
Nikhil Jain, Sagar207227
207228171
1661761542246S.S Medical College, Rewa27Brajendra Pratap Singh, Pratapgarh, U.P
Dharmendra Prajapati, Anuppur225207
225208148
1191611154685M.G Medical College, Indore39Vinod Kumar, Indore
Hariram Hatila, Jhabua226639
226640127
1491551213479M.G Medical College, Indore41Tahir Hussain, Indore
Avinash Dodiyar, Ratlam226719
226720121
1181521054795Gajraja Medical College, Gwalior48Daiyan Mohd. Khargone
Gorelal Bamne, Badwani234579
234580147
1281701234777Gandhi Med. College, Bhopal
52. The Committee constituted to identify the candidates who had indulged in use of unfair means in Pre Medical Test, 2010 in its report, inter alia, found as under:-
“(i) In examination centres, namely, Government Kasturba Higher Secondary School, Government, Bhopal; Government P.G College, Dhar; Government Holkar Science College, Indore and Government Malav Girls Higher 4Secondary School, Indore and Government Excellent Bal Vinay Mandir, Indore and Government P.G College, Khargone, 2, 4, 50, 2, 14, 18 candidates respectively were seated in pairs at the end of the row and their right match answers and wrong match answers are identical.
(ii) All the aforesaid candidates who were seated in pairs have received similar marks.”
For the facility of reference relevant extracts of the charts annexed with the Compilation-I at Pages 27 & 124 and relevant extracts of roll number-wise chart tampering in roll numbers and relevant extract of chart showing similarity in right match answers and wrong match answers of such candidates who were sitting in pairs are reproduced below. The aforesaid relevant extract establishes the fact that the scan numbers of the candidates were tampered so as to change their roll numbers to enable them to sit in pair and there is striking similarity in right match and wrong match answers of such candidates. The same reads as under:-
Pre Medical Test-2010
Exam City-Bhopal
Exam Centre-Govt. Kamla Nehru Girls Higher Secondary School
Group No.Name of Candidate and city of permanent residenceRoll No.Marks ObtainedMatch AnswersRight Match AnswersWrong Match answers01Subi Singh Bhadoriya, Bhind
Sonu Pachori, Bhopal504963
504964167
16316114021
P.M.T: 2010
Roll No.-Wise List of 26711 Candidate's
S. No.Roll No.Scan No.Form No.BirthCandidate's NameActual Scan No.314250496210444341488329/10/1991Neetu Sahu314350496310679141883212/08/1991Subi Singh Bhadoriya104445314450496410712242029922/10/1987Sonu Pachori104447314550496510444942426018/06/1991Pankaj Malviya314650496610445142421922/02/1988Rajendra Kumar Baghel
P.M.T: 2010
Comparison of 68 Pairing Report From 26711 Candidates (Total Match A/S + Wrong Match A/S-Mismatch A/S) = 142.66
Centre Name: Govt. Geetanjali Girls College P.G.B.T College Campus Bairasia Road Bhopal
Roll No. 1Roll No. 2Match AnswerMismatch AnswerBlank AnswerTotalRight Match AnswerWrong Match AnswerNew FLD5035595035601594102009762180
Centre Name: Govt. Science & Commerce College, Benazir, Gokhale Hostel Bhawan, Jahangirabad, Bhopal
50483150483216931020013831169
Centre Name: Laxmi Narayan College of Technology, Kalchuri Nagar, Raisen Road, Bhopal
50594650594719820200146522485062275062281693102001393016850638950639018823020014136190
Centre Name: Govt. Science & Commerce College, Bhanwar Kuan, A-B Road, Indore
5194535194541683202001482015651948651948715347020010152158
Centre Name: Govt. Excellent Bal Vinay Mandir, Nehru Park Road, Indore
51771651771717723020013047201
Centre Name: Shri Guru Tech Bahadur Khalsa College, Mahanada, Jabalpur
52071552071615941020012138156
Centre Name: Shri Guru Tech Bahadur Khalsa College, Mahanada, Jabalpur
52382852382917129020015021163
Centre Name: Rewa Engineering College, Rewa
529010529011148520200589018652939152939216634020014323155
Centre Name: Govt. Autonomous Girls PG. Excellence College, Sagar
53203153203218713020015730204
Centre Name: Govt. Arts & Commerce, Tilisagar
5325525325531376302006671145
Group No.Name of candidate and city of permanent residenceRoll No.Marks Obtained in PMT, 2010Match answersRight match answersWrong match answersAdditional answers than match answers01Subi Singh Bhadoriya, Bhind (Unreserved)
Sonu Pachori, Bhopal (Unreserved)504963
504964167
163161140216003Rakesh Kumar Mishra, Dhar
Balram Kanel, Indore509102
509103145
167161131306909Amarnath Verma, Indore
Shailesh K. Barua, Indore517069
517070156
152190142485815Govind Kumar Indore
Amit Kumar Pipaliya, Badwani517198
517199170
161190151394918.Puneet Kumar Mishra, Indore
Nidhi Jain, Sagar517249
517250159
154184144405622Vijay Kumar Yadav, Indore
Akshay Shandilya, Khargone517349
517350170
172195158374226Jahiruddin Ansari, Indore
Nirmal Choudhary, Jhabua517419
517420171
166192155374530Namrata Damor, Jhabua (ST)
Bhavesh Bhamaniya, Bhopal520715
520716144
144159121387933Mahima Singh Chandel, Indore
Suntil Atal, Gwalior520795
520796161
156172139336135Gopal Patidar, Indore
Rajesh Singh Argal, Indore520891
520892165
160162138246239Arvind Kumar Yadav, Khargone
Natasha Sheikh, Khargone526014
526015159
154188142465842Rakesh Kumar Khargone
Neha Verma, Sendhwa (ST)526046
526047138
141192127657345Krishna Dev Ojha, Khargone
Arun Kirade, Khargone526062
526063159
139176129477147Ajay Nishad, Khargone
Ravikumar Dewade, Badwaha526095
526096152
1661631342966
53. The Committee constituted to identify the candidates who had indulged in use of unfair means in Pre Medical Test, 2009 in its report, inter alia, found as under:-
“(i) In examination centres, namely, Government M.L.B Girls School, Guna; M.B Khalsa College, Indore; Maharaja Ranjeet Singh College of Professional Science, Indore; Central India Institute of Technology, Indore; Trilok Chand Jain Higher Secondary School, Indore; Government Malav Girls Higher Secondary School, Indore; and Government Holkar Science College, Indore the roll numbers of the candidates were altered and they were sitting in pairs in the aforesaid examination. It was found by the Committee that such candidates were sitting at the end of the row and their right match answers and wrong match answers are identical.
(ii) It was found by the Committee that 2, 5, 4, 3, 3, 30, 3, 4 and 31 candidates were sitting in pairs in the aforesaid examination centre respectively whose roll numbers were tampered and whose right match answers and wrong match answers are identical.”
For the facility of reference relevant extracts of the chart annexed with the Compilation-I at Page 22 are reproduced below which show that candidates appearing in selected cities and in selected examination centres have secured same marks:
Pre-Medical Test-2009
Examination City - Guna
Examination Centre - Government M.L.B Kanya Vidyalaya.
S. No.Candidate's name and permanent residenceRoll No.Marks obtainedMatch answersRight match answersWrong match answers01Abhay Singh Yadav, Ujjain
Hitesh Patidar, Indore843023
843024151.31
164.1216413727
Examination City - Indore
Examination Centre - M.B Khalsa College
S. No.Candidate's name and permanent residenceRoll No.Marks obtainedMatch answersRight match answersWrong match answers02Radheshyam Bamaniya, Badwani
Nitin Kumar Balke, Rajpur853005
853006132.34
131.301801186203Rakesh Kumar Garg, Indore
Pooja Arya, Pansemal853028
853029134.53
133.461971267104Pooja Arya, Pansemal
Ravindra Baghel, Kukshi853029
853030133.46
130.3019712473
Examination City - Indore
Examination Centre - Maharaja Ranjeet Singh College of Professional
Science.
S. No.Candidate's name and permanent residenceRoll No.Marks obtainedMatch answersRight match answersWrong match answers07Mahendra Singh Rana, Gwalior
Deepak Bundela, Manawar854654
854655126.86
125.801911207108Deepak Bundela, Manawar
Sunil Dabar, Indore854655
854656125.80
122.6819011773
Examination City - Indore
Examination Centre - Trilokchand Jain Higher Secondary School.
S. No.Candidate's name and permanent residenceRoll No.Marks obtainedMatch answersRight match answersWrong match answers12Neelam Kumari, Indore
Nisha Chauhan, Manawar855660
855661154.79
154.791971465113Nisha Chauhan, Manawar
Vaishali Bariya, Alirajpur855661
855662154.79
152.681941445018Achal Kumar Mandhare, Indore
Praveen Kumar Harode, Multai855691
855692157.71
159.791941494522Priyanka Bharke, Indore
Vikrant Mandloi, Alirajpur855739
855740163.03
161.9919815444
Examination City - Indore
Examination Centre - Government Post Graduate Girls College Moti Tabela.
S. No.Candidate's name and permanent residenceRoll No.Marks obtainedMatch answersRight match answersWrong match answers27Manoj Kumar Chandra, Indore
Shalini Khatri, Gwalior856078
856079157.78
160.951911484328Shalini Khatri, Gwalior
Amit Kumar Pipliya, Badwani856079
856080160.95
157.7819114843
Examination City - Indore
Examination Centre - Government Malaw Girls Higher Secondary School.
S. No.Candidate's name and permanent residenceRoll No.Marks obtainedMatch answersRight match answersWrong match answers29Nitin Arya, Pansemal
Mukesh Deol, Jhabau856555
856556153.53
151.4019414351
Examination City - Indore
Examination Centre - Government Holkar Science College.
S. No.Candidate's name and permanent residenceRoll No.Marks obtainedMatch answersRight match answersWrong match answers35Rushabh Momaya, Sendhwa
Amit Choudhary, Indore857629
857630133.72
132.671921246837Vishal Man, Indore
Deovrath Pandey, Shivpuri857678
857679150.45
145.131771334438Deovrath Pandey, Shivpuri
Arbaz Ali Sheikh, Dewas857679
857680145.13
149.311611273439Akhil Arora, Indore
Akshay Kumar Trivedi, Jabalpur857689
857690139.92
151.461581233546Arvind Kumar Pipaliya, Anjad
Vasudeo Pawak, Indore857769
857770145.26
142.0718113150
P.M.T 2009
Comparison of 96 Pairing report from 29162 candidates (Total Match A/s. + Wrong Match A/s - Mismatch A/s) = 138.62
Centre Name: Bhabha Engineering & Research College, Back of Vrindavan Garden, Jatkhedi, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal
Roll No. 1Roll. No. 2Match AnswerMismatch AnswerBlank AnswerTotalRight Match AnswerWrong Match Answe rNew Fld.832534832535175250200133421928327888327891920020012666250
Centre Name: Govt. MLB Girls School, Infront of City Kotwali, Guna
Roll No. 1Roll. No. 2Match AnswerMismatch AnswerBlank AnswerTotalRight Match AnswerWrong Match Answe rNew Fld.84302384302416436020013727155
Centre Name: Govt. Girls Gajra Raja H.S School, Bada, Lashkar, Gwalior
Roll No. 1Roll. No. 2Match AnswerMismatch AnswerBlank AnswerTotalRight Match AnswerWrong Match Answe rNew Fld.845096845097193702001464723384509784509817723020014037191
Centre Name: Shrimant Madhav Rao Scindia Govt. Model Science College, Jhansi Road, Gwalior
Roll No. 1Roll. No. 2Match AnswerMismatch AnswerBlank AnswerTotalRight Match AnswerWrong Match Answe rNew Fld.8456618456621722802005511726184589684589716634020013234166
Centre Name: Govt. Kamala Raja Girls College, Kampoo, Gwalior
Roll No. 1Roll. No. 2Match AnswerMismatch AnswerBlank AnswerTotalRight Match AnswerWrong Match Answe rNew Fld.8473588473591693102001353417284747584747616931020014920158
Centre Name: M.B Khalsa College, Raj Mohalla Chouraha, Near Gangwal Bus Stand, Indore
Roll No. 1Roll. No. 2Match AnswerMismatch AnswerBlank AnswerTotalRight Match AnswerWrong Match Answe rNew Fld.853005853006180200200118622228530288530291973020012671265
Centre Name: Govt. Arts & Commerce College, A.B Road, Indore
Roll No. 1Roll. No. 2Match AnswerMismatch AnswerBlank AnswerTotalRight Match AnswerWrong Match Answe rNew Fld.8536388536391623802001471513985392485392516238020014517141
Centre Name: Institute of Engineering & Technology, D.A.V.V Khandwa
Roll No. 1Roll. No. 2Match AnswerMismatch AnswerBlank AnswerTotalRight Match AnswerWrong Match Answe rNew Fld.8541558541561563014200111451718541788541791445602008757145
Centre Name: Central India Institute of Technology, Dewas Bypass Road, Ardia Indore
Roll No. 1Roll. No. 2Match AnswerMismatch AnswerBlank AnswerTotalRight Match AnswerWrong Match AnswerNew Fld.8551548551551891102001345523385515585515617424220012648198
Centre Name: Tirlok Chand Jain H.S School, In front of Chhatripura Thana, Indore
Roll No. 1Roll. No. 2Match AnswerMismatch AnswerBlank AnswerTotalRight Match AnswerWrong Match AnswerNew Fld.855655855656190100200142482288556608556611973020014651245
Centre Name: Govt. P.G Girls College, Moti Tabela, Indore
85607885607919190200148432258560798560801919020014843225
Centre Name: Govt. Malav Girls H.S School, Moti Tabela, Indore
856555856556191602001435123985657985658016733020012245179
Centre Name: Govt. Holkar Science College, Indore
8575798575801772302001255220685758985759017030020012347187
Centre Name: Govt. Mankunwar Bai Arts & Commerce Womens College, Napier Town, Jabalpur
86121186121216238020013428152
Centre Name: Govt. Model Science College, Pachpedi, Jabalpur
Centre Name: Govt. Engineering College, Ranjhi, Jabalpur
8628318628321693102001165319186350886350918812020015533209
Centre Name: Bappa Shri Narayan Vocational P.G College (K.K.V) Station Road, Charbag, Lucknow
8732558732561554502001203514587334387334415446020011143151
Centre Name: Kendriya Vidhyalaya, Near Dilkusha Garden, Lucknow Cantt., Lucknow
8735088735091653502001452015087389887389918416020015331199
Centre Name: Govt. Girls College, Mhow Neemuch Road, Mandsaur
87503387503416040020013624144
Centre Name: Rajeev Gandhi Govt. P.G College, Mhow Neemuch Road, Mandsaur
8753288753291287202004484140
Centre Name: Kendriya Vidhyalaya, Sector - 4, R.K Puram, New Delhi
878171878172141590200766514787831387831416436020013925153
Centre Name: Govt. T.R.S College, Rewa
8814758814761505002006288188
Centre Name: Govt. Model Science College, Rewa
8818058818061782202009880236
Centre Name: Rewa Engineering College, Rewa
882332882333175250200809524588236988237015050020043107207
Centre Name: Govt. M.L.B Girls H.S School No. 1, Sagar
8850058850061653502001263916988512888512918515020014243213
Centre Name: Govt. Autonomous Excellence Girls P.G College, Sagar
88579788579816139020013625147
Centre Name: Govt. P.G College, Naveen Bhawan, Gahra Nala, Satna
887235887236164360200138261548872718872721445602008361149
Centre Name: Pt. Shambunath Shukla P.G College, Shahdol
88910188910216337020014617143
54. The Committee constituted to identify the candidates who had indulged in use of unfair means in Pre Medical Test, 2008 in its report, inter alia, found as under:-
“(i) In examination centres, namely, Government Holkar Science College, Indore; Trilokchand Jain Higher Secondary School, Indore; Government Arts & Commerce College, Indore; Government Madhav Science College, Ujjain the candidates whose roll numbers were altered were sitting in pairs in the aforesaid examination.
(ii) The Committee further found that right match answers and wrong match answers of the aforesaid candidates who were sitting in pairs were identical.
(iii) It was found by the Committee that 20, 7, 12 and 3 candidates were sitting next to each other in the aforesaid examination centres.
(iv) The committee further found that the marks secured by such candidates in Pre Medical Test, 2008 are identical.”
For the facility of reference relevant extracts of the chart annexed with the Compilation-I at Page 19 are reproduced below which show that candidates appearing in selected cities and in selected examination centres have secured same marks.
P.M.T 2008
Comparison of 59 Pairing report from 38378 candidates (Total Match A/s. + Wrong Match A/s - Mismatch A/s) = 138.74
Centre Name: Govt. Motilal Vigyan Mahavidyalaya, Near Old Vidhan Sabha, Bhopal
Roll No. 1Roll. No. 2Match AnswerMismatch AnswerBlank AnswerTotalRight Match AnswerWrong Match AnswerNew Fld.20508820508916634020015881402054712054721792102009980238
Centre Name: Govt. Jiwaji Rao H.S School, Lashkar, Gwalior
Roll No. 1Roll. No. 2Match AnswerMismatch AnswerBlank AnswerTotalRight Match AnswerWrong Match AnswerNew Fld.2224388224389164360200907420222449822449916139020014417139
Centre Name: Govt. Kamla Raja Girls, P.G Autonomous College, Kampoo, Gwalior
Roll No. 1Roll. No. 2Match AnswerMismatch AnswerBlank AnswerTotalRight Match AnswerWrong Match AnswerNew Fld.224576224577128502220059691472246692246701693102001609147
Centre Name: Madhav College, Nai Sadak, Lashkar, Gwalior
Roll No. 1Roll. No. 2Match AnswerMismatch AnswerBlank AnswerTotalRight Match AnswerWrong Match AnswerNew Fld.226104226105196312001168027322621582261591643602001531139
Centre Name: J.C Mill Girls College, Birla Nagar, Gwalior
Roll No. 1Roll. No. 2Match AnswerMismatch AnswerBlank AnswerTotalRight Match AnswerWrong Match AnswerNew Fld.226663226664180200200117632232267422267431505002007674174
Centre Name: Trilokchand Jain H.S School, Chhatripura, In front of Police Station Biyabani, Indore
Roll No. 1Roll. No. 2Match AnswerMismatch AnswerBlank AnswerTotalRight Match AnswerWrong Match AnswerNew Fld.2365052365061891102001494021822651123651217525020013342192
Centre Name: Govt. Arts & Commerce College, A.B Road, Bhanwarkuan Main Road, Indore
Roll No. 1Roll. No. 2Match AnswerMismatch AnswerBlank AnswerTotalRight Match AnswerWrong Match AnswerNew Fld.2369052369061861402001275923123690623690718317020012756222
Centre Name: Govt. Mankunwar Bai Arts & Commerce Women's College, Napier Town, Jabalpur
Roll No. 1Roll. No. 2Match AnswerMismatch AnswerBlank AnswerTotalRight Match AnswerWrong Match AnswerNew Fld.24193724193818416020012955223
Centre Name: Gyanganga Institute of Technology & Science, Tilwaraghat Road, Jabalpur
Roll No. 1Roll. No. 2Match AnswerMismatch AnswerBlank AnswerTotalRight Match AnswerWrong Match AnswerNew Fld.2431042431051425802007864148
Centre Name: Navyug Arts & Commerce College, Civil Lines, Jabalpur
Roll No. 1Roll. No. 2Match AnswerMismatch AnswerBlank AnswerTotalRight Match AnswerWrong Match AnswerNew Fld.24397624397715545020012629139
Centre Name: Govt. Science College, Rewa
Roll No. 1Roll. No. 2Match AnswerMismatch AnswerBlank AnswerTotalRight Match AnswerWrong Match AnswerNew Fld.257129257130147521200717617125731825731914951020010544142
Centre Name: College of Agriculture, Rewa
Roll No. 1Roll. No. 2Match AnswerMismatch AnswerBlank AnswerTotalRight Match AnswerWrong Match AnswerNew Fld.25764125764217921020015227185
Centre Name: Govt. M.L.B Girls H.S School No. 1, Sagar
Roll No. 1Roll. No. 2Match AnswerMismatch AnswerBlank AnswerTotalRight Match AnswerWrong Match AnswerNew Fld.26125626125716337020014914140
Centre Name: Govt. Madhav Science College, Ujjain
Roll No. 1Roll. No. 2Match AnswerMismatch AnswerBlank AnswerTotalRight Match AnswerWrong Match AnswerNew Fld.269415269416165350200151141442694162694171919020015734216
Centre Name: S.A.T.I (Degree) Vidisha
Roll No. 1Roll. No. 2Match AnswerMismatch AnswerBlank AnswerTotalRight Match AnswerWrong Match AnswerNew Fld.2710752710761821802001503219627124227124316139020014120142
Pre-Medical Test -2008
Examination City - Indore Examination Centre - Govt. Holkar Science College
S. No.Candidate's name and permanent residenceRoll No.Marks obtainedMatch answerRight match answerWrong match answer1.Vikram Raj Sable, Betul
Soundrya Bodh, Sanawad232019
232020161.62
139.88158129293.Rashmi Tiwari, Rewa
Parag Panthi, Indore232037
232038100.40
107.6814782667.Anil Katara, Indore
Sunil Barua, Indore232098
232099177.21
166.8817715819
Examination City - Indore
Examination Centre - Trilokchand Jain, H.S School
S. No.Candidate's name and permanent residenceRoll No.Marks obtainedMatch answerRight match answerWrong match answer12.Lallan Pratap Singh, Indore
Jitendra Garg, Indore236505
236506160.51
155.341891494013.Varun Nahale, Manawar
Sameer Sonkar, Indore236511
236512150.13
150.1417513342
Examination City - Indore
Examination Centre - Govt. Arts & Commerce College
S. No.Candidate's name and permanent residenceRoll No.Marks obtainedMatch answerRight match answerWrong match answer16.Amand Kumar Mandare, Dewas
Manish Kushwaha, Indore236905
236906137.69
134.551861275919.Jitendra Gupta, Indore
Priya Bharke, Indore236962
236963118.01
122.181771077020.Priya Bharke, Indore
Abhishek Verma, Dewas236963
236964122.18
150.251501094122.Chandrashekhar Pal, Dhar
Nisha Kanash, Indore236988
236994151.27
166.801851513423.Nisha Kanash, Indore
Pinky Kannoj, Manawar236995
236996159.58
150.2818514342
The fact that the candidates have indulged in use of unfair means in Pre-Medical Tests of 2008 to 2012 is also evident from the following chart mentioned at page 182 of Compilation 1, which shows that in cases where the results of the examinations have been cancelled, the average of wrong match answers as compared to the general average of wrong match answers given by the candidates who were not involved in use of unfair means, is much higher:
Examination NameAverage Match AnswerAverage Mismatch AnswerAverage Right Match AnswerAverage of Wrong Match Answer/(Total Attempted-Right Match Answer)P.M.T 201360.95138.9425.970.20P.M.T 2013 Candidature Cancelled148.3650.5496.990.59P.M.T 201269.51130.4539.980.19P.M.T 2012 Candidature Cancelled169.0530.88129.380.65P.M.T 201163.55136.2933.980.18P.M.T 2011 Candidature Cancelled176.0223.61131.120.67P.M.T 201071.33128.6144.800.17P.M.T 2010 Candidature Cancelled177.3422.64137.790.65P.M.T 200969.32130.6439.030.19P.M.T 2009 Candidature Cancelled178.4721.02131.410.71P.M.T 200869.37130.5941.840.17P.M.T 2008 Candidature Cancelled172.3627.60127.800.62
55. Another aspect of the matter which is worth noticing is that though large number of candidates who were qualified for admission in medical colleges yet they did not take admission in the medical colleges whose results were subsequently cancelled on account of their involvement in mass-copying, reinforces the facts inferred by the authorities that they acted as scorers and this fact is evident from the following chart:
Summary report of cancelled cases due to roll number tampering and admitted in various medical colleges.
Year 2008 to 2012.
S. No.P.M.T YearCancelled cases due to roll number tamperingAdmitted in various medical collegesCandidates who did not take admission1.20084210322.20098545403.2010905337420119839595.2012319121198
56. No explanation has been offered on behalf of the petitioners as to why the roll numbers allotted to the petitioners were not in conformity with the norm prescribed by the Board for allotment of roll numbers and why in case of the petitioners and the candidates who have acted as Scorers, there is similarity in the right match answers as well as wrong match answers. We may also state that in an enquiry such as in the present case, the Board was justified in proceeding on the basis of indisputable circumstances pointing finger towards involvement of the concerned candidates and record its subjective satisfaction in that behalf. The Committee has arrived at the conclusion that candidates had indulged in mass copying in Pre Medical Tests, 2008 to 2012, on the basis of data and records available with Board, report of the Computer Experts committee and information furnished by the Special Task Force. Thus, the facts narrated supra leads to inevitable conclusion that the candidates whose results have been cancelled have indulged in mass-copying in Pre Medical Tests, 2008 to 2012.
57. Before proceeding to deal with the common contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners it is noteworthy to mention here that the results of 439 candidates who had indulged in unfair means in Pre Medical Test, 2013 were cancelled. The candidates approached this Court by filing several writ petitions which were decided by the common order dated 11.4.2014 passed in a batch of Writ Petitions headed by Writ Petition No. 20342/2013 [Pratibha Singh v. State Of M.P.]. The Division Bench of this Court by a detailed and judgment dealt with the contentions raised by the petitioners therein, most of which have again been raised in some form or the other in this Batch of writ petitions. It is pertinent to mention here that the order dated 11.4.2014 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid writ petitions has attained finality as the Special Leave Petition preferred against the said order (dated 11.4.2014 passed in batch of writ petitions) has been dismissed by Supreme Court vide order dated 8.8.2014 passed in Special Leave Petitions No. 18791-18792. In order to appreciate the fact that some of the issues raised in these writ petitions have already been examined in detail and extensively by the Division Bench of this Court in said writ petitions, it would be apposite to refer to the following chart:-
Contention of the Petitioners raised in present batch of writ petitionsContentions dealt with in the order dated 11.4.2014 passed by Division Bench of this Court in W.P No. 20342/2013 and other connected writ petitions(i) Sequence of question paper in four different sets was different, therefore, it is not possible for a candidate to indulge in copyingThe Division Bench for the reasons assigned in paragraph 84 of the order and in view of paragraphs 11 & 12 of decision of Supreme Court in Bagleshwar Prasad (supra) has rejected this contention.(ii) Neither any Centre Superintendent was examined nor any report of Invigilator of the Examination Centre was obtained to ascertain the factum of mass-copying.This contention has been dealt with in paragraph 114 of the order and it has been held as follows:-
“As the theory propounded by the respondent-Board that all this has happened as a large scale conspiracy, is plausible one, even the involvement of concerned Supervisor or Invigilator or officials at the concerned examination centres cannot be ruled out. Suffice it to observe that the existence of other clinching circumstances regarding organised unfair means during the examination were sufficient for the Board to proceed in the matter. Nay, it was the bounden duty of the Board to do so in public interest even in absence of any report from the Supervisors or Invigilators.(iii) The Board had no authority to cancel examination results of the candidates who had taken admission in M.B.B.S Course.This argument was dealt with by Division Bench in paragraphs 39 to 42 of the order and has been rejected.(iv) The impugned action against the petitioners is vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice.For the reasons assigned in paragraphs 91 to 106 and taking note of several decisions of Supreme Court it has been held that principles of natural justice do not have any application in case of mass copying.(v) The petitioners have brilliant past academic record and, therefore, no inference with regard to their involvement in unfair means can be drawn.For the reasons assigned in paragraph 107 of the order this contention has been rejected.
58. Since the aforesaid issues have already been dealt with in extenso in the order passed in the case of Pratibha Singh (supra) which has been upheld by the Supreme Court, therefore, it is not necessary for us to further deal with those contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner in this regard. Therefore, we proceed to deal with other issues.
59. The petitioners have taken a stand that the formula applied for ascertaining the unfair means score is required to be explained and the expert opinion is not beyond the scope of judicial review and same can be examined by this Court. In this connection, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Natwar Singh (supra), East Coast Railway (supra) and Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited (supra). In view of the stand taken by the petitioners with regard to the basis of the formula evolved by the Board, we called upon the Board to explain the same to reassure ourselves and not to sit over the opinion by the experts as Court of appeal, in pursuance of which Mr. A.P Shrivastava, the then Chairman of the Board and Dr. Santosh Kumar Gandhi, Joint Controller of the Board appeared before us. The qualification of Mr. A.P Shrivastava is B.Sc in Mathematics, Physics & Statistics and M.Sc in Mathematics from Allahabad University. He has also qualified I.A.S examination with the subjects-Mathematics and Physics. Mr. A.P Shrivastava had an excellent academic record and he has been awarded National Science Talent Research Scholarship from HCERC. Similarly, Mr. Santosh Kumar Gandhi holds the Bachelor degree in Electronics and Master degree and Ph.D in Computer Applications from Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology, Bhopal. Mr. A.P Shrivastava has stated before us as follows:
“1. Average or Mean of a set of measurements indicates the value around which the values of the measurement are centered. The Standard Deviation of a set of measurements indicates the variability or dispersion around the average.
A large number of random variables observed in nature possess a frequency distribution that is approximately mound-shaped which is known as Normal Probability Distribution.
2. If σ is the mean and s is the Standard Deviation of a distribution of measurements that is approximately mound-shaped or Normal, then the following Empirical Rules applies:
(i) The interval (μ±σ) contains approximately 68.27% of the measurements.
(ii) The interval (μ±2σ) contains approximately 95.45% of the measurements.
(iii) The interval (μ±3σ) contains approximately 99.73% of the measurements.
The above empirical rule is also called the three-sigma rule. This empirical rule is often used to quickly get a rough probability estimate of something given its standard deviation, if the population is assumed normal, thus also a simple test for outliers (if the population is assumed normal).
3. For each question, there was only one correct answer but three incorrect answers in the objective type examination of PMT. Therefore, the number of incorrect matching answers indicates the higher likelihood of the candidates having helped each other in answering questions. On the other hand, the number of mismatch answers for a pair of candidates indicates the independent application of mind of the candidates. If the mismatch number is relatively large, the likelihood of the candidates having helped each other in answering questions is low.
The inference about collusive copying of answers by a pair of candidates sitting next to each other cannot be based solely on the number of matching answers. The inference must take into account the number of mismatches and the number of incorrect matches also.
4. Therefore, the formula for filtering out the suspects for PMT-2011 was first modified by assigning weight of three to the number of incorrect matching answers. But, with this modification the filtered list contained candidates who had performed badly as the number of incorrect answers was very large for them.
The difference between the number of incorrect matches and mismatches indicates the likelihood of answering in collusion or copying the answers. Therefore, the number of matching answers has been adjusted for this factor to arrive at a better indicator. This indicator has been called Unfair Means Score. This indicator can also be seen as a weighted score of matching answers in which the weight of one has been assigned to number of correct matches, weight of two to number of incorrect matches and weight of minus one to number of mismatches. The list of suspects based on this formula was then examined by the Enquiry Committee constituted for this purpose. Each candidate's case was individually examined keeping in mind the number of incorrect matches, mismatches and correct matches.
5. A relatively high cut-off value has been chosen for filtering out the list of suspects. This cut-off value two times the Average of number of matching answers. Ideally, the cut-off value shoud have been Average plus 3 times Standard Deviation as hardly 0.3% measurements are expected to exceed this value in case of Normal Distribution. Because of the Higher cut-off value, it was easy to finally identify the candidates who had indulged in unfair means in answering questions.”
60. The formula has been applied in Pre-Medical Tests of 2008 to 2011 in a reasonable and fair manner as the candidates have been subjected to process of filteration at various stages, which is evident from the following charts:
Professional Examination Board, Bhopal Statistical Analysis of PMT 2008
PMT-2008MatchMismatchBlankTotalRight MatchWrong MatchUFM ScoreEntirePopulationAverage6913102004228-34Population size33682Std Deviation171710211033For Match >103Average1227802001061660Population size1491Std Deviation161610181137For Match >120Average1376302001211690Population size641Std Deviation151520161438For Match >137Average15248020013220123Population size239Std Deviation141420182143For UFM score >138Average16831120012147185Population size59Std Deviation171550322842CancellationsAverage17228020012744188Population size21Std Deviation141400221432
Professional Examination Board, Bhopal Statistical Analysis of PMT 2009
PMT-2009MatchMismatchBlankTotalRight MatchWrong MatchUFM ScoreEntirePopulationAverage7013002003931-31Population size23754Std Deviation191910231038For Match >108Average1307002001082181Population size1102Std Deviation191910171143For Match >127Average14555020012223114Population size494Std Deviation171710141545For Match >146Average16535020013333163Population size158Std Deviation161610162047For UFM score >140Average17426020013441194Population size94Std Deviation131400201338CancellationsAverage18119020013447209Population size42Std Deviation151420151134
Professional Examination Board, Bhopal Statistical Analysis of PMT 2010
PMT-2010MatchMismatchBlankTotalRight MatchWrong MatchUFM ScoreEntirePopulationAverage7112902004527-31Population size21415Std Deviation202020231040For Match >111Average1307002001101978Population size998Std Deviation17171016939For Match >131Average14951020012821119Population size339Std Deviation161610131240For Match >151Average16832020013830167Population size104Std Deviation131300111438For UFM score >142Average17426020013441189Population size64Std Deviation131400201328CancellationsAverage17723020013839193Population size45Std Deviation121200121029
Professional Examination Board, Bhopal Statistical Analysis of PMT 2011
PMT-2011MatchMismatchBlankTotalRight MatchWrong MatchUFM ScoreEntirePopulationAverage6413602003430-43Population size22121Std Deviation171730191036For Match >98Average117830200962156Population size750Std Deviation202010181246For Match >115Average1366402001132394Population size290Std Deviation212120171654For Match >132Average15644020012432145Population size114Std Deviation212110192156For UFM score >128Average17426020012549197Population size108Std Deviation171610261734CancellationsAverage17525020013145195Population size49Std Deviation161610181237
61. It is well settled in law that the academic issues must be left to be decided by the Expert Body which deserves great respect. The Court cannot act as an appellate authority in such matters. When two views are possible and if the Expert Body has taken a possible view the same deserves acceptance. It is equally settled legal proposition that an opinion of expert body deserves higher degree of acceptance. [See: Ganpat Singh Gangaram Singh Rajput v. Gulbarga University, (2014) 3 SCC 767]. Notably, in the instant case, no effort was made to substantiate that the formula evolved by the Board is impermissible. Further, the formula is not the only means to identity the candidates who had indulged in the use of unfair means. The aforesaid enquiry has been made on the basis of other circumstances noted in the preceding paragraphs year-wise. Therefore, the formula is not the only factor to ascertain whether a candidate had indulged in use of unfair means. In view of the facts stated supra, we are unable to hold that there is no logical basis in respect of the formula evolved by the Board for ascertaining the unfair means score. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the formula evolved by the Board is either arbitrary or irrational or by applying the formula it is not possible to ascertain whether the candidate has indulged in use of unfair means in the examination. It could also not be pointed out on behalf of the petitioners that formula evolved by the Board cannot be applied at all to detect the cases of the candidates who had indulged in use of unfair means. The extracts, referred to from websites, namely, www.purplemath.com and en.wikipedia.org on behalf of the petitioners, are of no assistance to the petitioners as on the basis of the aforesaid documents no inference can be drawn that the formula evolved by the Board cannot be applied at all for ascertaining the cases of the candidates who had indulged in use of unfair means. Therefore, it is not necessary for us to appoint any other expert committee or to permit the petitioners to keep the experts present before us. We may reiterate that in the opinion of the experts relied on behalf of the petitioners, the experts have not stated the formula applied by the Board is unworkable or by applying the formula it is not possible to ascertain whether a candidate had indulged in use of unfair means in the examination. The Expert Body of the Board has taken plausible view and has applied the formula with great circumspection. The formula was adopted by the Board after the same was evolved by Expert Body and in such matters the Court cannot sit in judgment and interfere with the same, unless it is proved that it was an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power. [See: Subhash Chandra Dixit (supra)]. Therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that there is no logical basis for evolving the formula is hereby repelled.
62. In Council of Civil Service Unions (CCSU) v. Minister for the Civil Service (1984) 3 All ER 935 it has been held that any administrative action is subject to control by judicial review only on three grounds namely illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. The aforesaid principle has been accepted by the Supreme Court in several decisions. Reference in this connection be made to the decisions in the cases of Tata Cellular (supra) and Heinz India Private Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 5 SCC 443. In the case of S.R Tewari v. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 602, it has been held that the scope of judicial review is limited to the decision making process and not against the decision itself, and in such a situation the court cannot arrive at on its own independent finding. In Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd., (2000) 2 SCC 617 it has been held that Court must act with great caution and should exercise power of the judicial review only in furtherance of public interest, and not merely on making out of a legal point.
63. In the background of aforesaid well settled legal principles, we may examine whether the action of the Board in canceling the results of the candidates is amenable to judicial review in the facts of the case. Undoubtedly, it is the responsibility of the Board to ensure that free and fair entrance examination is held for admission to professional courses. The Board on receipt of information by the Special Tasks Force has constituted the expert committee, which after due diligence, submitted it's report. In the report, the expert committee has opined that there is sufficient material on record to indicate that candidates have indulged in use of mass scale unfair means in an organized manner. The reports of the expert committee have duly been considered by the competent authority of the Board and thereafter, the orders of cancellation of results of the candidates who had indulged in unfair means have been passed. Thus, the decision making process in the instant cases cannot be said to be illegal, irrational or suffering from any procedural impropriety.
64. So far as the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that the action against the petitioners was taken in hot haste is concerned, it is necessary to notice few relevant facts before answering the same, which are as under:
“1. Computer expert committee was constituted on 30.8.2013 to check allotment of roll numbers in PMT 2013.
2. On 27.9.2013, expert committee found mismatch in 876 candidates.
3. On 9.10.2013 order of cancellation of 345 candidates was issued.
4. On 23.10.2013, STF wrote a letter to Vyapam informing that there has been tampering of roll numbers in 2012.
5. On 24.10.2013, Vyapam wrote a letter to STF stating that there is mismatch of roll numbers of about 700 candidates and requesting the STF to investigate the matter.
6. On 6.12.2013 order passed to cancel eligibility of 70 candidates.
7. On 31.12.2013 letter sent by AIG, STF requesting Vyapam to examine the PMT exam 2009-2010 and 2011 in light of the scam done in PMT 2012 and PMT 2013.
8. On 1.2.2014 order passed to blacklist 6 centres and Invigilators and Observers have been restricted from allotment of duties in examinations.
9. On 11.4.2014 order passed by Hon'ble High Court in the case of W.P No. 20342/14 - Pratibha Singh v. State.
10. On 24.4.2014 order passed by Vyapam cancelling examination of 272 candidates in PMT 2012.
11. On 26.4.2014, order passed by Vyapam constituting internal expert committee to examine roll number tampering in PMT 2009, PMT 2010 and PMT 2011.
12. On 3.5.2014, the internal committee examined possibility of roll number tampering in PMT 2011.
13. On 3.5.2014, order passed by Vyapam further cancelling examination of 42 candidates of PMT 2012.
14. On 3.5.2014, order passed by Vyapam cancelling examination of 98 candidates in PMT 2011, therefore, from 26.4.2014 to 3.5.2014 the exercise was done.
15. Internal committee of Vyapam examined the case of roll number tampering in 2010 from 26.4.2014 and recommended cancellation of examination of 90 candidates.
16. On 6.5.2014, order passed by Vyapam cancelling examination of 90 candidates in PMT 2010 after examining the matter from 26.4.2014 till 6.5.2014
17. On 7.5.2014, the internal committee examined the documents in relation to PMT 2009 and recommended cancellation of 85 candidates.
18. On 8.5.2014, order passed by Vyapam cancelling examination of 85 candidates in PMT 2009 after the exercise was done from 7.5.2014
19. On 15.5.2014, order passed by Vyapam to create an internal committee to examine the case of those students who appeared in PMT 2008 in pairs.
20. On 16.5.2014, committee examined PMT 2008 and recommended cancellation of 42 candidates.
21. On 19.5.2014, order passed by Vyapam cancelling examination of 42 candidates in PMT 2008 after exercise was done from 15.5.2014”
Thus, from perusal of the aforesaid facts, it is crystal clear that the contention of the petitioners that action for cancellation of results has been taken in hot haste, cannot be accepted.
65. So far as the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that action for cancellation of results taken against the candidates selectively is concerned, the same deserves only to be stated to be rejected, in view of the undertaking given by learned counsel for the respondents that Board is reexamining the possibility of use of unfair means in relation to the candidates who have taken admission in the college but have been left out and action would be taken against such candidates. For yet another reason, the aforesaid submission does not deserve acceptance as even if action has not been taken against some of the candidates inadvertently, the same does not confer the right on the petitioners who have been found guilty of using unfair means during Pre-Medical Tests. It is trite law that Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not envisage negative equality. [State of U.P v. Rajkumar Sharma, (2006) 3 SCC 330]
66. Now, we may deal case of the petitioner in W.P No. 7619/2014 (Puneet Patel v. State of M.P). From perusal of page 43 of the reply, it is evident that at S. No. 99, one Mohammad Ashfaq of Indore has been shown to be the Scorer and Raksha Maladhari of Dhar has been shown to be the beneficiary, who has filed writ petition No. 8069/2014. From perusal of S. Nos. 25 and 26, at page No. 52 of the return, the following position emerges:-
Examination City - Indore
Examination Centre - R.R.M.B Gujrati H.S School
S.NoCandidate's name and permanent residenceRoll No.Marks obtainedMatch answerRight match answerWrong match answer25.Rajesh Yadav, Indore
Puneet Patel, Mandla433993
433994135
1701471222526.Puneet Patel, Mandla
Mohammad Ashfaq, Indore433994
433995170
16315613818
67. It is pertinent to mention here that roll numbers of Rajesh Yadav, Puneet Patel, Mohammad Ashfaq, Raksha Maladhari are 433993, 433994, 433995, and 433996, respectively. The aforesaid candidates were sitting behind each other. Mohammad Ashfaq has acted as Scorer for Puneet Patel as well as Raksha Maladhari. The aforesaid aspect has been taken into account in order dated 7.5.2014 It is clearly stated that certain candidates whose roll numbers have been mentioned, assisted in copying to those candidates, who were sitting in front of and behind them. The roll number of petitioner in W.P No. 7619/2014 has also been mentioned in the order dated 7.5.2014 In W.P No. 10414/2014, which has been filed by one Gunjeet Nayak, the roll numbers of the candidates who were sitting in front of and behind him, are as follows:-
1.Sant Kumar MaruyaRoll No. 4330862.Gunjeet NayakRoll No. 4330873.Anshuman SinghRoll No. 4330884.Meena SihoreRoll No. 433089
It is pertinent to mention that Anshuman Singh has been shown as Scorer for Gunjeet Nayak and Meena Sihore, who had filed writ petitions No. 10414/2014 and 4711/2014. It is relevant to mention here that Anshuman Singh did not take admission in the MBBS course. The fact that the candidate sitting as Scorer has helped the candidates sitting in front of him as well as the candidates sitting behind him in copying, has specifically been taken into account in the order dated 7.5.2014 In the said order, the roll number of the petitioner in W.P No. 10414/2014 has also been mentioned. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to show from the aforesaid order, which has been passed after due consideration of the report, that at one place he has been treated as beneficiary and at another place he has been treated as Scorer. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that some where he has been treated as Scorer and some where as beneficiary, cannot be accepted.
68. So far as Writ Petition No. 7295/2014 is concerned, the same relates to Pre-Medical Test-2013 in which the result of the petitioner has been canelled vide order dated 27.3.2014 The controversy involved in the aforesaid writ petition is covered by the decision rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Pratibha Singh (supra). Therefore, for the reasons assigned by Division Bench of this Court in Pratibha Singh (supra) and the stand taken by the Board in its return, the inevitable conclusion is that the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition had indulged in use of unfair means and, therefore, her result has rightly been cancelled.
69. While referring to the documents from the compilation as well as return, it has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that if the right match answers and wrong match answers are added, their score crosses 200 marks which is not possible and, therefore, the formula is erroneous and illogical. The aforesaid submission is noted only to be rejected, as on the basis of the formula, the Board has only ascertained the volume of unfair means score and not the actual marks.
70. Now, we may deal with the contention of the petitioners that there was no material to order inquiry in respect of Pre-Medical Tests, 2009 to 2011 and for constitution of the Committee. If the impugned orders are read carefully, it is evident that the Special Task Force who was investigating the criminal cases from time to time apprised the Board with regard to irregularities committed in previous Pre-Medical Tests on the basis of information furnished by the Special Task Force, the Board constituted the Committee of the experts and after consideration of the report by the Expert Committee, the impugned orders have been issued, therefore, the contention of the petitioners that there was no material to order enquiry does not deserve acceptance. Similarly, the contention that there is no material on record to arrive at the conclusion that candidates were involved in use of unfair means needs only to be rejected as we have already indicated the material available on record against the candidates who had indulged in use of unfair means in preceding paragraphs. Even otherwise, it is not open for this Court to go into the sufficiency of material and the instant cases are not the cases where no subjective satisfaction has been recorded by the authority with regard to use of unfair means or that it is recorded without there being any material on record.
71. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that since formula to identify the candidates was evolved by the Board after examination was held, the same amounts to changing the rules of the game, is misconceived. The candidates had indulged in mass copying in an organised manner by tampering their roll numbers in collusion with officials of the Board and racketeers. The candidates had secured admissions in MBBS course by playing fraud. Therefore, such candidates cannot be permitted to retain an advantage obtained by fraud and mere delay in detection of fraud would not create any equities in favour of such candidates. [See: Ram Preeti Yadav, (supra)]
72. We have already held that the candidates had indulged in mass copying in Pre-Medical Tests, 2008 to 2012 therefore, for the reasons assigned by Division Bench in paras 91 to 106 of the decision in the case of Pratibha Singh, (supra) the principles of natural justice would have no application in the peculiar fact situation of these cases. In order to examine the contention of the petitioners who had appeared in Pre Medical Test, 2010 that their cases do not fall within the purview of Rule 3.8 of Madhya Pradesh Medical and Dental Under Graduate Entrance Examination Rules, 2010, it is necessary to reproduce the aforesaid rule, which reads as under:-
“Rule 3.8 UNFAIR MEANS (UFM)
If any candidate is found using unfair means during the examination, which includes, referring to a book/note book/loose sheets, talking, giving assistance or seeking/receiving help from any source, indulging in any malpractice or misbehavior in any manner in the test hall, harassing or doing harm to other candidates or invigilation or supervisory staff or if any action of the candidate is interpreted by the Observer/Centre Superintendent/Invigilator as amounting to adopting unfair means, a case will be registered under unfair means and shall be legally dealt with accordingly. The answer sheet of the candidate booked under UFM shall not be valued and his/her candidature shall be cancelled. Additionally, any case of use of unfair means on the part of the candidate may be handed over to the police. Criminal proceedings shall be initiated against such candidates.”
Thus, it is evident that definition of ‘unfair means’ is inclusive and provides that additionally in any case of use of unfair means, enumerated in the rule which would include the case of ‘mass copying’ as well, under the aforesaid rule and action can be taken against the petitioners. Besides that, in any case, if the Board has power to conduct the examination, it has implicit power to cancel the results of the candidates as well. It has been held by the Division Bench in the case of Pratibha Singh (supra) that Board alone has the authority to take action against the candidates for cancellation of results. Therefore, the aforesaid contention cannot be accepted.
73. Now, we may deal with the submission made in the rejoinder reply by way of written submissions in W.P No. 7576/2014 and 7121/2014 - that in case this Court does not agree to exercise power of judicial review in favour of the petitioners, this Court may permit the petitioners to resort to the remedy of civil suit. Notably, the petitioners elected the remedy of writ jurisdiction. Not only that, they chose to argue the matter in extenso on all aspects including on the issue of scope of judicial review and also the duty of the Court to interfere with the impugned action of the Authorities on the ground that the same was irrational, unjust, arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal and untenable. It was also argued with vehemence that there was no basis for the formula evolved by the Board, for identifying the erring candidates. Rather, the approach of the Authorities was illogical and unscientific. Each of these argument has been addressed and answered by us hitherto. After having undertaken that exercise, the question of granting liberty to the petitioners to now approach the Civil Court by way of a civil suit would be nothing short of encouraging multiplicity of proceedings. No tangible contention, which has been left out from consideration in this judgment, and needs to be adjudicated by way of a civil suit in the context of challenge to the impugned action, has been brought to our notice. Moreover, as the alternative relief for permission to resort to remedy of civil suit being afterthought and taken at a belated stage after exhausting the marathon arguments by the counsel for the concerned petitioners by engaging the Court for couple of days; coupled with the fact that the petitioners have not pointed out any tangible ground or plea on which the petitioners should be permitted to resort to remedy of civil suit after the decision of this Court on the points dealt with in this judgment (which obviously will be binding on the Civil Court), the question of acceding to the request under consideration does not arise. Suffice it to observe that the alternative plea taken by the petitioners is an argument of desperation and without any legal basis. As a result, the same will have to be negatived.
74. In view of the preceding analysis, we do not find any merit in the writ petitions. The same fail and are hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Similarly, all the Interlocutory Applications in the respective writ petitions, are also disposed of.