http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: MR. ANIL BAIPADITHAYA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT17/10/1995

BENCH: HANSARIA B.L. (J) BENCH: HANSARIA B.L. (J) FAIZAN UDDIN (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR  432            1995 SCC  (6) 531  1995 SCALE  (6)132

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T HANSARIA, J.           Special leave granted. 2.        Admissions  in   professional  courses,  specially medical, despite all efforts being made to secure them, have always been  a vexed  question and  posed problems.  If  the efforts  are   within  legal  parameters,  the  same  cannot boomerang. The  appellants, however,  over-ded, so  much so, that while  seeking admissions  to Ist year MBBS courses for the academic  year 1993-94,  they,  in  collusion  with  the members of  the Selection  Scrutiny Committee  (SSC), put up higher rankings in their admission forms, by reason of which they were given admissions in various medical college of the State of  Karnataka. However, it was subsequently found that the rankings  were really  not as mentioned in the admission forms, but  lower. When  this fact came to the notice of the authorities,   their    admissions   were   cancelled.   The cancellation order  was challenged  on various  grounds, but the High  Court of  Karnataka upheld the action. Hence these appeals by special leave. 3.        On a  grievance being made that the appellants had been condemned  unheard, this  Court by  its order  9.1.1995 noted that  the State  would have no objection to granting a post-decisional hearing  to the appellants (except appellant No.1 K.  Sudarshan Shetty  in Civil  Appeal Nos.  9454-56 of 1995 arising  out of SLP(C) Nos.14608-10/94, who had already secured  admission  and  did  not  want  to  go  though  the rigmarole of  the enquiry) and an officer, who may even be a judicial officer,  could be  nominated for  this purpose. In that order  a request  was, therefore,  made  to  the  Chief Justice  of  the  High  Court  to  nominate  an  officer  to undertake the  inquiry, which  officer may  not be below the rank of  the District  & Sessions  Judge. Pursuant  to  this order, an inquiry was held by Shri T. Mahesh Hegde, District & Sessions  Judge functioning  as Officer-on-duty  -  cum  -

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

Registrar of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. 4.        The report  runs into  27 pages  and the result of the inquiry has been summed up as below in para 16 : "1)  General merit  list  of  all  successful candidates   was   not   published   in   the newspapers as  required under  Rule 9  of the Rules, but  the same  was published at Nodal- Centres/Directorate of  Medical Education and Technical Education. 2)   Select list  Nos. 1 and 2 were published in  the   newspapers  with   the  details  of admission ticket  numbers. College code etc., and  the   petitioners  were  not  among  the candidates selected in these two lists. 3)   The rankings  claimed by the petitioners while securing admissions were not theirs and that the  rankings actually  secured by  them were much  lower than the rankings claimed by them and there is no dispute in this regard. 4)   The petitioners  secured  admissions  by furnishing incorrect  rankings  in  collusion with S.S.C. 5)   All the  petitioners were eligible to be selected during spot selection. 6)   Members   of    S.S.C.   including   the Chairman, who  are  equally  quilty,  if  not more,   have    been   promoted    (Lokayukta investigation is still pending). 7)   Other  eligible   candidates  have   not challenged the  selection of  the petitioners and the  petitioners being otherwise eligible to  be   selected  have  not  deprived  other merited students of their legitimate seats." 5.        The  aforesaid  conclusions  show  that  incorrect rankings had  been mentioned and admissions had been secured in collusion  with the members of the SSC. Another important finding is  that all  the appellants  were  eligible  to  be selected on  the basis  of their  rankings, which came to be given during  spot selection.  We have  also noted  that the appellants admissions  have not been challenged by any other eligible  candidate.   Further,  the   appellants  have  not deprived any  other merited  students  of  their  legitimate seats. 6.        In view  of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the question  that arises  for consideration  is as  to what appropriate order  should be  passed, because  of the  fraud played  initially.  As  to  this,  the  submission  of  Shri Venugopal for  the appellants  is that  the State may not be allowed to  blow hot  and cold  in as much as the members of the then  SSC (who colluded with the appellants) having been even promoted, it does not lie in the mouth of the State and its  concerned   officers  to   demand  punishment   of  the appellants alone.  The learned  counsel submitted  that both promotion of  members of  the then SSC and punishment of the appellants cannot go together; they have to be treated alike and have to rise and fall together. 7.        On the  State counsel  being asked  by  us  as  to whether the State is prepared to restore the status quo ante regarding the  posts which  the concerned members of the SSC were holding  at that  time, cold  shoulder is  shown.  Shri Nagaraja states  that the  officers at  this stage cannot be punished without giving them opportunity. It is really not a question of  punishment to  them, but  of  taking  back  the reward give.  As the  State is  not prepared to do so, we do not think  if we  would be  justified in  punishing only one

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

party to  the fraud.  This would  not be equitable. So, even though we strongly decry and condemn the fraud played by the appellants,  the  present  is  not  an  occasion  where  any punishment is  deserved at  the behest  of one  who  is  not prepared to  punish the  main culprit, as the members of the SSC have to be regarded, because, but for their active role, the appellants  would not  have succeeded  in  their  highly objectionable  and  deplorable  act.  In  not  allowing  the cancelation to  take effect,  we have  also noted  that  the appellants have studied for about two years by now and their action had  otherwise not deprived any other merited student of his legitimate seat. 8.        In the  result, the  appeals are  allowed and  the cancellation orders  are set  aside. We,  however,  make  it clear that  this shall  not be  treated as  a precedent.  We leave the parties to bear their own costs.