Tumiki Mani Deepika, v. Dr. N.T.R University Of Health Sciences,
fTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE ANIS WRIT PETITION Nos. 24167 and 24207 of 2016 COMMON ORDER: (Per VRS,J) The petitioners in both these cases appear to be the unfortunate victims of the mad rush of the parents to have their wards admitted to medical courses, somehow or the other.
2. The petitioners appeared for A.P. EAMCET-2015 and got selected for admission to the 1st year of M.B.B.S. course, on the basis of the claim allegedly made by them that they belonged to Sri Venkateswara University (SVU) area.
3. After receipt of a lot of complaints that many students produced forged and fabricated documents at the time of counselling to change their local status and eventually gained admission, the 1st respondentUniversity constituted a Committee to make enquiries. The Committee made preliminary enquiries and the study certificates produced by the candidates were referred to
the Department of School Education. The District Educational Officers of the concerned Districts submitted their enquiry reports, pointing out that the study certificates allegedly furnished by the petitioners, as though they studied in the schools within SVU local area, were fabricated documents.
4. On the basis of the said reports, the 1st respondentUniversity lodged police complaints and also suspended the petitioners, by orders, dated 19.02.2016 and 15.03.2016 respectively, from pursuing their course of study.
5. Thereafter, the petitioners abandoned their course of study and appeared for A.P. EAMCET-2016 and secured sufficiently high ranks. But, the 1st respondentUniversity has not returned their original certificates, on account of the pendency of investigation into the criminal complaints. Therefore, the petitioners have come up with the above writ petitions seeking a Mandamus to direct the 1st respondent-University to return their original certificates.
6. We have heard Mr. O. Manoher Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Taddi Nageswara
Rao, learned standing counsel for the 1st respondentUniversity.
7. Though the medical colleges, in which the petitioners were prosecuting their courses of study during 2015-16, are impleaded as 2nd respondent in both the writ petitions, notices to them are dispensed with, in view of the fact that the relief sought in these writ petitions is only against the 1st respondent-University. The 3rd respondent in both the writ petitions is a formal party and, hence, notices to it are also dispensed with.
8. The only question that arises for consideration in these writ petitions is as to whether the petitioners are entitled to get back their certificates relating to educational qualifications, community status, etc. from the 1st respondent-University, or not.
9. It is an admitted fact that both the petitioners gained admission to medical colleges within SVU local area, on the ground that both of them belonged to SVU local area. The allegation of the 1st respondent-University is that both the petitioners produced fabricated study certificates from the schools
within SVU local area and got their actual local status in OU area changed to SVU area. As a consequence, criminal prosecution has been launched and the course of study of the petitioners has also been suspended in February and March, 2016.
10. In the light of the above, the contention of the 1st respondent-University is that the original certificates cannot be returned to the petitioners, as they may use them for gaining admission for the current year, and that those certificates may also be necessary for prosecuting the petitioners before the criminal Court. In other words, the contention of the University is that the return of original certificates to the petitioners would destroy the case of the prosecution.
11. We have carefully considered the above submissions.
12. The prosecution launched by the 1st respondentUniversity is only in relation to the study certificates allegedly produced by the petitioners from the schools within the SVU local area. These study certificates, during the pendency of the investigation, cannot be returned to the petitioners. These are the only certificates, on the
basis of which, the entire prosecution may have to rest. The Secondary School Leaving Certificate, the marks sheet relating to 10+2, caste certificate, etc., are not necessary for the investigation into the criminal complaints. Therefore, no prejudice will be caused to the prosecution in the matter of investigation into the criminal complaints that are pending against the petitioners, by directing the 1st respondent-University to return all the certificates, except the study certificate, which gave rise to the criminal complaints.
13. Out of several students, who have been suspended on the very same ground, a few of them have chosen to challenge the order of suspension and have even come up with writ petitions seeking permission to continue the course of study and to write the examinations. But, a few others, like the petitioners, have now chosen a path (perhaps, the dharmic path) by abandoning the course of study to which they were admitted last year and taking EAMCET-2016 as a fresh candidate.
14. To deprive the petitioners of the benefit of seeking admission for the current year, on the basis of EAMCET2016, would tantamount to punishing them twice, first by
suspending them from the course of study, to which they were admitted in 2015-2016 and next by denying admission even for the current year as fresh candidates. To inflict these two punishments, even at the stage of pendency of the investigation into the criminal complaints, may not be appropriate.
15. As we have started the discussion, the petitioners are the products of avarice on the part of the parents. The real culprits, if the allegations of the 1st respondent-University are true, are the parents of the petitioners. It is the mad mind set on the part of the parents to see their wards as doctors somehow or the other, that land up the children in police stations rather than in hospitals as doctors. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the petitioners, who were just out of school last year, cannot be deprived of their entire future, even if their past conduct is unpardonable.
16. Hence, both the Writ Petitions are allowed, directing the 1st respondent-University to return all the original certificates, except the study certificates, which is the subject matter of the investigation, within a week. While
returning the originals, the 1st respondent-University shall take photostat copies of the same and get them attested with counter signatures of the petitioners, so that the same could prove to be at least secondary evidence, in the event of a charge sheet being filed.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in the writ petitions shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.
__________________________ V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J ____________________ ANIS, J.
10th August, 2016 cbs
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN Ö AND THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE ANIS
Writ Petition Nos. 24167 & 24207 of 2016 (Per VRS,J) 10th August, 2016 cbs