# Tilak Singh & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 1165 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2020-01-20 - **Case number:** WRIT-A No. 468 of 2020 - **Bench:** Saral Srivastava - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/tilak-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45637 - **Pages:** 14 ## Headnote Act,1973: Section 67; First Statute of the Agra University: Statute 13.03 - The Court refused to interfere with the public notices calling upon the petitioners to submit information as required in the questionnaire, giving effect to the exercise undertaken by the University to 1166 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES verify the marks sheet in order to find out the fake and tampered marks sheet. B. Writ petition challenging a show cause notice is not maintainable, as at that stage the writ petition is premature. The Apex Court has deprecated the High Court for stalling enquiries as proposed and retarding investigative process to find actual facts with participation and in presence of parties. (Paras 15 to 18, 35) C. No jurisdictional issue implying that the notice is per se illegal is involved. (Para 29) University has the jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices - The University had full knowledge about the fact that a large-scale fraud has been committed in issuing fake and tampered marks sheet of B.Ed. Examination- 2005. The verification exercise should have been undertaken by the University voluntarily instead of waiting for any direction from the Court or authority. It would be incorrect to say that the exercise has been undertaken on the dictate of the State Government. (Para 24, 25) Report of SIT is not being treated as a conclusive piece of evidence to hold degrees/marks sheets to be fake or tampered for the reason that the same have not yet been cancelled by the respondents. It only forms the basis of issuance of notices asking the candidates to furnish information, on which the genuineness of their degrees/marks sheets would be determined. (Para 26) C. The Court is vested with the power u/s 67 to cancel the degree/marks sheet in cases where the University finds that the same has been tampered. The Court is not empowered to carry out any verification exercise. In the present case, only the Executive Council has such power. (Para 30, 31) Writ petition dismissed. (E-4) Precedent followed: ## Text _Characters 0–39,700 of 44,638. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39700 for what follows._ 2 All. Tilak Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1165 (1) an affiliated or associated non-government aided college to which the privilege of affiliation has been granted by a University established under the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act, 1973; (2) a non-government aided intermediate College or a Higher Secondary School or a High School and an attached primary school recognized by the Board established under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921; (3) a school of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Board or an aided junior high school and includes an aided attached primary school recognized by the Board established under the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972. 12. In view of the facts and circumstances and the legislative amendments and enactment of the Act 2019, no direction can be issued to the respondents to permit the petitioner to fill up vacancy of five Assistant Teachers in the institution in question and to approve the appointment of such Assistant Teachers as may be selected by the petitioner. 13. However, looking into the necessity of selection and appointment of teaching and non teaching employees in non Government aided institutions under the provisions of the Act, 2019 and the relevant Rules, it appears necessary that the State Government should expeditiously take steps for enforcement of the Act, 2019 to make functional the Commission for selection and recommendation for appointment of teaching and non teaching Employees. This Court hopes and trusts that the State Government shall complete the entire exercise and issue necessary notification for enforcement of the Act, 2019 very expeditiously preferably within 15 days, if not issued so far, and shall also make efforts for appointments as expeditiously as possible so that institutions in need may get teaching and non teaching staff. 14. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. 15. A copy of this order shall be given to the learned Chief Standing Counsel free of cost, for communication to the State Government for necessary compliance. ---------- (2020)02ILR A1165 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.01.2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. WRIT-A No. 468 of 2020 Tilak Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Ashok Khare, Sri Siddharth Khare, Sri Rohit Upadhyay, Sri Shantanu Khare Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., Sri Gagan Mehta A. Education - U.P. State Universities Act,1973: Section 67; First Statute of the Agra University: Statute 13.03 - The Court refused to interfere with the public notices calling upon the petitioners to submit information as required in the questionnaire, giving effect to the exercise undertaken by the University to 1166 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES verify the marks sheet in order to find out the fake and tampered marks sheet. B. Writ petition challenging a show cause notice is not maintainable, as at that stage the writ petition is premature. The Apex Court has deprecated the High Court for stalling enquiries as proposed and retarding investigative process to find actual facts with participation and in presence of parties. (Paras 15 to 18, 35) C. No jurisdictional issue implying that the notice is per se illegal is involved. (Para 29) University has the jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices - The University had full knowledge about the fact that a large-scale fraud has been committed in issuing fake and tampered marks sheet of B.Ed. Examination- 2005. The verification exercise should have been undertaken by the University voluntarily instead of waiting for any direction from the Court or authority. It would be incorrect to say that the exercise has been undertaken on the dictate of the State Government. (Para 24, 25) Report of SIT is not being treated as a conclusive piece of evidence to hold degrees/marks sheets to be fake or tampered for the reason that the same have not yet been cancelled by the respondents. It only forms the basis of issuance of notices asking the candidates to furnish information, on which the genuineness of their degrees/marks sheets would be determined. (Para 26) C. The Court is vested with the power u/s 67 to cancel the degree/marks sheet in cases where the University finds that the same has been tampered. The Court is not empowered to carry out any verification exercise. In the present case, only the Executive Council has such power. (Para 30, 31) Writ petition dismissed. (E-4) Precedent followed: 1. Shri Puran Prasad Gupta Memorial Degree College Vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ Petition No. 399 (MB) of 2007 (Para 11(iii), 28) 2. Special Director and another Vs. Mohd. Gulam Ghouse and another, AIR 2004 SC 1467 (Para 15, 35) 3. Union of India Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, 2006 (12) SCC 28 (Para 16) 4. Secretary Ministry of Defence and Others Vs. Prabhash Chandra Mishra, AIR 2012 SC 2250 (Para 17) 5. Commissioner of Central Excise, Haldia Vs. Krishna Wax (P) Ltd., 2019 (368) ELT 769 (SC) (Para 18) Precedent distinguished: 1. M.C. Mehta (Taj Corridor Scam) Vs. Union of India and others, 2007 (1) SCC 10 (Para 11(i)) 2. Major Basil John Vs. State of Kerala and others, Crl. M.C. No. 1877 of 2015 decided on 22.06.2017 (Para 11(i)) Present petition challenges the decision dated 06.12.2019, taken by Executive Council, Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Agra, notice dated 28.12.2019, issued by Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Agra on website and notice dated 29.12.2019, published in the newspapers. (Delivered by Hon'ble Saral Srivastava, J.) 1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare, counsel for the petitioners, Sri Gagan Mehta, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 & 4 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1, 2 & 5. 2. The petitioners who are 496 in numbers have preferred the present 2 All. Tilak Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1167 petition challenging the decision taken by the Executive Council, Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Agra in its meeting held on 06.12.2019, notice dated 28.12.2019 issued by the respondent- Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Agra (hereinafter referred as 'University') on its official website and notice published in the newspapers dated 29.12.2019. 3. All the petitioners claim that they had taken admission in Bachelor of Education Course (hereinafter referred to as 'B.Ed.') in the University or its affiliated colleges for the academic session 2004-05. After successfully completing the course, each of the petitioners was issued marks sheet showing them as passed in the B.Ed. course. They were also issued degree. On the basis of marks sheet & degree in B.Ed. , petitioners obtained appointment as Assistant Teachers in Junior High School/Senior Basic Schools run by Board of Basic Education in different districts of the State. 4. It transpires from the record that one Sunil Kumar has preferred a Writ Petition No.2906 of 2013 (Sunil Kumar Vs. Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University and Others) praying for a direction to the University to correct marks sheet. In the said writ petition, this Court passed an order on 23.01.2014 directing the State Government to constitute Special Investigation Team as the Court found that fake mark-sheets were issued to the students with the connivance of the employees of the University and colleges affiliated to it. 5. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, a special investigation team (hereinafter referred to as 'SIT') was constituted to conduct an investigation as regards the malpractices committed in issuing the mark sheet to students who are alleged to have passed B.Ed. course in the session 2004-05 from the Universities and Colleges affiliated to the University. The said writ petition was later on converted into public interest litigation by orders of this Court dated 09.09.2015. 6. Upon investigation, the SIT team submitted report in August, 2017 which states that 3517 fake mark sheets and 1053 tampered mark sheets were distributed and these mark sheets have been adjusted in the tabulation chart. The SIT categorized the candidates in two list. One list of those candidates whose mark sheets are fake and the second list of those candidates whose marks sheet have been tampered. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, SIT by letter dated 11.07.2019 forwarded the aforesaid two list alongwith photo copy of tabulation chart to the University. He further requested the University by the said letter to verify the list of candidates from its record, and after identifying the candidates possessing fake and tampered degrees, it should proceed to cancel all such degrees as per procedure provided in the U.P. State Universities Act,1973 (hereinafter referred as 'Act, 1973'). The aforesaid letter was followed by the letter of Additional Chief Secretary dated 25.11.2019 addressed to the Vice Chancellor of the University making similar request to him. 7. Thereafter, the Executive Council of the University held an emergent meeting on 06.12.2019 and after considering the letter of the State Government dated 25.11.2019 took a decision to verify the list of fake/tampered candidates received from the Special 1168 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Investigation Team and to invite objection against the same. The relevant extract of decision of the Executive Council is extracted hereinbelow:- "mDr ijh{kk lfefr fnukad 06-082016 ds fu.kZ; dh laiqf"V dk;Z ifj"kn cSBd 2808-2017 esa gks pqdh gSA fu.kZ;% vij eq[; lfpo] jktLo ,oa csfld f'k{kk m0 iz0 'kklu ds i= la[;k& 583@ ALUBRLS dw @19 fnukad 25-11-2019 dks ifj"kn ds le{k iko fn;k fd ,l0vkbZ0Vh0 ls izkIr MkVk dks fo'ofo|ky; dh csclkbM ij viyksM djk;k tk;sA ifj"kn us ;g Hkh fu.kZ; fy;k fd ,l0vkbZ0Vh0 ls lEcfU/kr lwpuk ih0Mh0,Q0 izk:i esa izkIr dh tk;sA ftlls vfxze dk;Zokgh lqpk: :i ls lapkfyr gks ldsA blds fy;s ,l0vkbZ0Vh0 ls vfoyEc vuqjks/k fd;k tk;s A rnksijkUr nSfud lekpkj i=ksa es bl vk'k; dk lekpkj Hkh izdkf'kr djk;k tk;sA bl izLrko ij lnL;x.kksa us Fake ,oa Tampered dh lwph dks lkoZtfud fd;s tkus ij lgefr iznku dhA bl izdkj lEcfU/kr O;fDr ls izkIr Li"Vhdj.k ds vk/kkj ij fu;ekuqlkj fof/kd dk;Zokgh dh tk;s rFkk le;≤ ij ijh{kk lfefr fo'ofo|ky; lHkk rFkk dk;Z& ifj"kn dks voxr djk;s tkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;kA d`r dk;Zokgh ls lEcfU/kr foHkkx ,oa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; dks vko';d :i ls lwfpr fd;k tk;sA c& dk;Zifj"kn }kjk fo'ofo|ky; vuqnku vk;ksx] fo'ofo|ky; vkSj egkfo|ky;ksa esa f'k{kdkas vkSj vU; 'kSf{kd deZpkfj;ksa dh fu;qfDr gsrq U;wure vgZrk rFkk mPprj f'k{kk es ekudks ds j[k j[kko gsrq vU; mik; lEcU/kh fofu;e 2018 ds lEcU/k es mRrj izns'k 'kklu mPp f'k{kk vuqHkkx&1 ds i= la[;k& 890@lRrj&1&2019&16 1⁄41141⁄2 @2010 fnukad 16 vxLr&2019 dks dk;Zifj"kn ds vuqeksnu dh izR;k'kk esa dqyifr vkns'k fnukad 21-11-2019 ds vUrxZr Mk0 Hkhe jko vEcsMdj fo'ofo|ky;] vkxjk dh ifjfu;ekoyh dh /kkjk& 21-14 ij iz[;kfir fd;s tkus ls voxr djkukA 2 All. Tilak Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1169 fu.kZ; dk;Z ifj"kn mDr en ls voxr gqbZA ifj"kn us dqyifr d`r dk;Zokgh dks vuqeksnu iznku fd;kA" 8. Pursuant to the decision of the Executive Council, the University proceeded to publish the notice in newspaper whereby all the candidates, who had passed the B.Ed. examination during the academic session 2004-05, have been intimated that three list namely list of fake candidates, list of tampered candidates and list of candidates appearing in the examination on the basis of roll number allotted to more than one candidate has been published on the official website of the University requiring such individual candidate to submit reply online as also offline by registered or speed post within a period of 15 days failing which exparte proceedings would be taken. 9. The Vice Chancellor on 28.12.2019 passed an order to upload the list of fake candidates, list of tampered candidates and list of candidates appearing in the examination on the basis of roll number allotted to more than one candidate for uploading on the official website of the University. Thereafter, a detailed public notice has been released on the official website of the University on 29.12.2019 and University proceeded to publish three separate list namely; list of fake candidates, list of tampered candidates and list of candidates as candidates from among more than one candidate, who have appeared in the examination with the same roll number alongwith said notice and questionnaire. The said notice alongwith questionnaire issued by the University is extracted hereinbelow:- ",rn~}kjk loZ lk/kkj.k ,oa lEcfU/kr dks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd ;kfpdk la[;k 2006@2013 lquhy dqekj cuke Mk0 Hkhejko vkacsMdj fo'ofo|ky; vkxjk esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] bYkkgkckn }kjk ikfjr vkns'kksa ds vuqikyu esa ch0 ,M0 l+= 2004&2005 ds izdj.kksa esa tkapksijkUr ,l0vkbZ0Vh0 eq[;ky; mRrj izns'k y[kuÅ esa eq0v0la0 02@2015 /kkjk 409@420@467@468@471@204@201 lifBr 120 ch Hkk0n0fo0 o 13 1⁄411⁄2 Mh 1⁄421⁄2 1⁄431⁄2 Hkz0fu0 vf/kfu;e cuke gjh'k dlkuk vkfn iathd`r fd;k x;k gSA mDr eq0 v0 la0 es izpfyr foospuk ds dze es ,l0vkbZ0Vh0 }kjk lEcfU/kr Nk=ksa dh rhu lwfp;kW& Qsad] VsEiMZ o ,d gh vuqdzekad ij ijh{kk nsus okys ,d ls vf/kd Nk=ksa dh lwph iszf"kr djrs gq;s fo'ofo|ky; ls vko';d dk;Zokgh djus dh vis{kk dh xbZ gSA bl fo"k; esa fo'ofo|ky; dh dk;Z&ifj"kn dh cSBd fnukad 06-12-2019 esa fy;s x;s fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj ,l0vkbZ0Vh0 ls izkIr rhuksa Js.kh ds Nk=ksa es ls Qsad (Fake) o VsEiMZ 'kS{kf.kd izek.k i=ksa o ,d gh vuqdzekad ij ijh{kk nsus okys ,d ls vf/kd Nk=ksa dk fooj.k fo'ofo|ky; dh vf/kd`r osclkbM www./dbrau. Org.in ij izlkfjr gSA 1⁄4v1⁄2 Qsad Nk=ksa dh lwphA 1⁄4c1⁄2 VsEiMZ Nk+=ksa dh lwphA 1⁄4l1⁄2 ,d gh jksy uEcj ij ijh{kk nsus okys ,d ls vf/kd Nk=ksa dh lwphA Qsad (Fake) ,oa VSEiMZ Nk=ksa ,oa ,d gh vuqdzekad ij ijh{kk nsus okys ,d ls vf/kd Nk=ksa dh lwph esa ukfer Nk=ksa dks lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd os bl lwpuk ds izdk'ku dh frfFk ls 15 fnol ds vUnj dqylfpo] Mk0 Hkhejko vakcsMdj fo'ofo|ky;] vkxjk dks vkWu ykbZu ,oa iathd`r@LihM iksLV }kjk gkMZ dkih izsf"kr djrs gq;s viuk i{k ,oa vkifRr;ka izLrqr djsa ftlls muds izdj.kksa esa vxzsrj fof/k lEer dk;Zokgh dh tk ldsA vU;Fkk dh fLFkfr esa mijksDr vafdr izdj.kksa esa fo'ofo|ky; dks ,d i{kh; dk;Zokgh djus gsrq ck/; gksuk iMsxkA VSEiMZ mikf/ki=ksa@vadi=ksa okys Nk=ksa dh lwph ij fof/kd dk;Zokgh i`Fkd ls izpfyr dh tk;sxhA 1170 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES mDr dk;Zokgh ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] bykgkckn }kjk ;kfpdk la[;k 2906@2013 lquhy dqekj cuke Mk0 Hkhejko vkacsMdj fo'ofo|ky; vkxjk ds fu.kZ;k/khu gksxhA MkW0 Hkhejko vkacsMdj fo'ofo|ky;] vkxjk 1⁄4iwoZorhZ vkxjk fo'ofo|ky;] vkxjk1⁄2 ch- ,M- o"kZ 2005 1⁄4,l0 vkbZ0 Vh0 tkap ls lEcaf/kr1⁄2 izos'k@ijh{kk lEcaf/kr fooj.k uksV%& ,l0 vkbZ0 Vh0 tkap ls lEcaf/kr fuEu lwpuk;s fo'ofo|ky; osclkbV www.dbrau.org.in ij viyksM dj 'kh"kZd& ch0 ,M0 eq[; ijh{kk 2005 lEcU/kh izR;kosnu lhYM fyQkQs eas dsoy iathd`r@LihM iksLV ds dqylfpo] MkW- Hkhejko vkacsMdj fo'ofo|ky;] vkxjk dks izsf"kr djsA 1 Nk=@Nk=k dk uke 2 Nk=@Nk=k dk LFkkbZ@i=O;o gkj dk irk] eks0 uEcj ,oa vk/kkj dkMZ uEcjA 3 Nk=@ Nk=k ds firk dk ukeA 4 izos'k ijh{kk dk vuqdzekadA 5 ftl egkfo|ky; esa izos'k fy;k mldk uke 6 izos'k dkmfUlfyax vFkok izcU/kdh; dksVs esa gqvk 1⁄4Li"V mYys[k djsa1⁄2 7 DkamfUlfyax la[;k@izcU/k dh; dksVs esa izos'k lwph esa LFkku 1⁄4dkmfUlfyax i= layXu djsAa1⁄2 8 egkfo|ky; eas izos'k ds le; izos'k 'kqYd Mak¶V@udn tek djkus dk fooj.kA Mk¶V@jlhn la[;k--------- ----@/kujkf'k-----------fnukad 1⁄4izek.k lfgr1⁄2 9 egkfo|ky; esa LdkWyjf'ki izkIr dh n'kk esa fooj.kA Mk¶V@jlhn la[;k--------- ----@/kujkf'k-----------fnukad 1⁄4izek.k lfgr1⁄2 10 Ukekadu la[;k (Enrollment No.) 11 eq[; ijh{kk ch0 ,M0 05 dk vuqdzekad 12 ch0 ,M0 o"kZ 2005 eq[; ijh{kk ds ijh{kk dsUnz dk uke 13 ch0 ,M0 o"kZ 2005 ijh{kk esa cSBus dk izos'k i= dh Nk;k izfrA 14 ch0 ,M0 o"kZ 2005 dh ijh{kk es lfEefyr gksus ds ckn 2 All. Tilak Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1171 vadrkfydk Lo;a izekf.kr dj layXu djsaA 15 ;fn vLFkkbZ izek.k i= fo'ofo|ky; }kjk fuxZr fd;k x;k gks rks izek.k i=ksa dh la[;k&leLr vLFkkbZ izek.k i=ksa dh Nk;k izfr layXu djsaA 16 ewy mikf/k dk fooj.k dzekad la[;k 17 vU; dksbZ fooj.k@lwpu k uksV&mijksDr ls lEcfU/kr lHkh vfHkys[kksa dh Loizekf.kr izfr;kW@izek.kd vfuok;Z :i ls layXu djsA layXuksa dh la[;k vadks eas --------------------- ------1⁄4'kCnks esa1⁄2---------------- lEcfU/kr egkfo|ky; ds izkpk;Z }kjk vxzlkj.k& izekf.kr fd;k tkrk gS fd Jh@Jherh@dqekjh ------------------iq=@iq=h ----------------- -------fuoklh --------------------------us egkfo|ky; esa o"kZ 2004&05 dkamlfyax esutesUV--------------------ds vUrxZr fof/k lEer izosf'kr Nk=@Nk=k Fks@FkhA Jh ------------------------dks tks vadrkfydk fo'ofo|ky; }kjk tkjh dh x;h Fkh mlds ---------vad izkIr gq;s gks rFkk lS)kfUrd esa -----------------Js.kh rFkk izk;ksfxd esa ----------------------Js.kh FkkA छात्र/छात्रा के हस्ताक्षर----------------- प्राचायम किनाोंक ----------------- हस्ताक्षर एवों मुहर" 10. The hard copy of the questionnaire is to bear the signature of the candidate and also the seal and signature of the Principal of the College. The aforesaid public notice calling upon the petitioners to submit information as required in the questionnaire are impugned in the present petition. 11. Challenging the aforesaid notices, learned Senior Counsel has made following submissions; (i) The decision of the Executive Counsel in its meeting dated 06.12.2019 to verify and identify the fake and tampered marks sheet of B.Ed. for the academic session 2004-05 is not an independent decision of the Executive Council rather the said exercise is being undertaken on the dictate of the letter of Additional Chief Secretary dated 25.11.2019 as well as letter of Deputy Inspector General of Police dated 11.07.2019 (ii) The investigation report of SIT has not yet been accepted either by this Court or by any other Court, and the said report cannot be treated to be a substantial and conclusive piece of evidence to arrive at a conclusion that marks sheet/degree obtained by the petitioners are fake or tampered. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the judgement of Apex Court in the case of M.C. Mehta (Taj Corridor Scam) Vs. Union of India and Others 2007(1) SCC 10 & judgement of Kerala High Court at Ernakulam in the case of Major Basil John Vs. State of Kerala and Others Crl. M.C. No.1877 of 2015 decided on 22.06.2017. 1172 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES (iii) Controversy regarding the validity of marks sheet obtained by the petitioners is already concluded by the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition no.399 (MB) of 2007 (Shri Puran Prasad Gupta Memorial Degree College Vs. State of U.P. and Others) as this Court has validated the admission of petitioners and directed for declaration of result. Hence, the aforesaid exercise undertaken by the University to verify the marks sheet in order to find out the fake and tampered marks sheet is nothing but an abuse of process of law. (iv) As per Section 67 of the Act, 1973, the Court may by a two-third majority of the members present and voting withdraw from any person any degree, or certificate conferred or granted by the University. In the present case, the decision to cancel the degree has not been taken by the Court but by the Executive Council, who is not competent to initiate such process as the Court and Executive Council are two different authorities under the Act, 1973. Thus, the verification exercise undertaken by the Executive Council is without jurisdiction. He further submits that statute 13.03 of the First Statutes of the Agra University provides the procedure and the manner which is to be followed before taking decision to cancel the degree, but the notices impugned are in complete violation of statute 13.03 inasmuch as the said notice does not communicate the charge against the petitioners so as to enable them to submit their explanation. 12. Per contra, Sri Gagan Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents submits that it is settled law that writ petition against a show cause notice is not maintainable. Further he submits that the petitioners may raise all contentions raised in the writ petition before the authority concerned and as the petitioners are not prejudiced, therefore, this court may not exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and interfere with the show cause notice. 13. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. 14. Before adverting the respective arguments of counsel for the parties, it would be apt to refer few judgements of the Apex Court wherein Apex Court has considered the question regarding the maintainability of writ petition against a show cause notice. 15. In Special Director and Another Vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and Another AIR 2004 SC 1467 the respondent Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse preferred a writ petition before the High Court challenging the show cause notice for violating Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The High Court passed an order of status quo which came to be challenged before the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition. The Apex Court while allowing the appeal held that writ petition challenging a show cause notice is not maintainable. The Apex Court has deprecated the High Court for stalling enquiries as proposed and retarding investigative process to find actual facts with participation and in presence of parties. Paragraph 5 of the judgement is extracted hereinbelow:- "5. This Court in a large number of cases has deprecated the practice of the High Courts entertaining writ petitions questioning legality of the show cause notices stalling enquiries as proposed and retarding investigative process to find 2 All. Tilak Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1173 actual facts with the participation and in the presence of the parties. Unless, the High Court is satisfied that the show cause notice was totally non est in the eye of law for absolute want of jurisdiction of the authority to even investigate into facts, writ petitions should not be entertained for the mere asking and as a matter of routine, and the writ petitioner should invariably be directed to respond to the show cause notice and take all stands highlighted in the writ petition. Whether the show cause notice was founded on any legal premises is a jurisdictional issue which can even be urged by the recipient of the notice and such issues also can be adjudicated by the authority issuing the very notice initially, before the aggrieved could approach the Court. Further, when the Court passes an interim order it should be careful to see that the statutory functionaries specially and specifically constituted for the purpose are not denuded of powers and authority to initially decide the matter and ensure that ultimate relief which may or may not be finally granted in the writ petition is accorded to the writ petitioner even at the threshold by the interim protection, granted." 16. In the case of Union of India and Another Vs. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, 2006 (12) SCC 28 the Apex Court after considering various pronouncements of the Apex Court held that writ petition should not be entertained against a show cause notice as at that stage the writ petition is premature. Paragraph 13, 14 & 15 of the judgement are extracted hereinbelow:- "13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board vs. Ramdesh Kumar Singh and others JT 1995 (8) SC 331, Special Director and another vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and another AIR 2004 SC 1467, Ulagappa and others vs. Divisional Commissioner, Mysore and others 2001(10) SCC 639, State of U.P. vs. Brahm Datt Sharma and another AIR 1987 SC 943 etc. 14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-cause notice does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of any party unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It is quite possible that after considering the reply to the show-cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and/or hold that the charges are not established. It is well settled that a writ lies when some right of any party is infringed. A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe the right of any one. It is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, that the said party can be said to have any grievance. 15. Writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and hence such discretion under Article 226 should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a show-cause notice or charge sheet." 17. The same view has been taken by the Apex Court in the case of Secretary Ministry of Defence and Others Vs. Prabhash Chandra Mishra AIR 2012 SC 2250. Paragraph 13 of the judgement is extracted hereinbelow:- "13. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that chargesheet cannot generally be a subject 1174 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES matter of challenge as it does not adversely affect the rights of the delinquent unless it is established that the same has been issued by an authority not competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings. Neither the disciplinary proceedings nor the chargesheet be quashed at an initial stage as it would be a premature stage to deal with the issues. Proceedings are not liable to be quashed on the grounds that proceedings had been initiated at a belated stage or could not be concluded in a reasonable period unless the delay creates prejudice to the delinquent employee. Gravity of alleged misconduct is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration while quashing the proceedings." 18. In the recent judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Haldia Vs. Krishna Wax (P) Ltd. 2019 (368) ELT 769 (SC) the Apex Court has again reiterated that a writ petition should normally not be entertained against mere issuance of show cause notice. Paragraph 12 of the judgement is extracted hereinbelow:- "12. It has been laid down by this Court that the excise law is a complete code in itself and it would normally not be appropriate for a Writ Court to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and that the concerned person must first raise all the objections before the authority who had issued a show cause notice and the redressal in terms of the existing provisions of the law could be taken resort to if an adverse order was passed against such person. For example in Union of India and another vs. Guwahati Carbon Limited5, it was concluded; "The Excise Law is a complete code in order to seek redress in excise matters and hence may not be appropriate for the writ court to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution", while in Malladi Drugs and Pharma Ltd. vs. Union of India6, it was observed:- "...The High Court, has, by the impugned judgment held that the Appellant should first raise all the objections before the Authority who have issued the show cause notice and in case any adverse order is passed against the Appellant, then liberty has been granted to approach the High Court... ...in our view, the High Court was absolutely right in dismissing the writ petition against a mere show cause notice." It is thus well settled that writ petition should normally not be entertained against mere issuance of show cause notice. In the present case no show cause notice was even issued when the High Court had initially entertained the petition and directed the Department to prima facie consider whether there was material to proceed with the matter." 19. The present case requires to be examined in the light of principles enunciated by the Apex Court regarding maintainability of writ petition against a show cause notice. 20. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer the chain of events in which the present exercise to verify and cancel the fake, fabricated and tampered marks sheet and degrees have been undertaken. This Court while considering the Writ C No.2906 of 2013 (Sushil Kumar Vs. Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar University and Another) found that the original cross list produced pertaining to B.Ed. examination 2005 does not bear signature of any of the authority concerned. The first order passed in the writ petition is extracted hereinbelow:- "Vice-Chancellor of the University should file his personal affidavit after inspection of original 2 All. Tilak Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1175 records in respect of B.Ed. examination 2005, by the next date. Original cross list has been produced today pertaining to B.Ed. Examination 2005 before this Court. It is surprising that none of the pages of the register bear any signature of any officer. Such register appears to be, prima facie, a manufactured document. It is stated that cross list are required to be signed by duly authorized persons and it is only then that the cross list can be accepted as genuine. It is also stated that all cross list of other examinations are duly signed by the officers of the University. List on 12.03.2013. The cross list produced today is returned to the counsel for the University." 21. In the said writ petition, the Vice Chancellor had filed an affidavit contending therein that though, the First Information Report has been lodged with the police with regard to fake mark-sheets issued to the students but no investigation had taken place. In the aforesaid backdrop, the Court directed the State to be impleaded as a party by order dated 05.08.2013. On the direction of this Court, a preliminary investigation was carried out. The preliminary investigation report revealed the shocking state of affairs in the University. Consequently, this Court on 14.03.2014 issued a direction to the Secretary, Home, U.P. Lucknow, to assign the investigation to a Special Investigation Agency of the State other than C.B, C.I.D. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, a special investigation team was constituted by the orders of Deputy Director General of Police dated 06.05.2014. Subsequently, this Court on 09.09.2015 after noticing the previous orders directed the Registrar General to place the said matter before Hon'ble The Chief Justice requesting him that the writ petition be treated and dealt with as a Public Interest Ligation by the appropriate Bench. 22. In the aforesaid backdrop, the special investigating team constituted pursuant to the orders of this Court conducted the investigation and submitted report in August, 2017. The SIT on verification categorized candidates in two list namely; list of candidates whose marks sheet are fake and list of candidates whose marks sheet are tampered. Pursuant to the aforesaid report, the Director General of Police and Additional Chief Secretary asked the Vice Chancellor of the University to initiate the exercise to cancel the fake and tampered marks sheet and degrees of candidates after verifying it from the records of the University. In the aforesaid background, the Executive Council took a decision to verify the degree, and accordingly, in order to carryout the said verification, notice impugned alongwith questionnaire have been issued. 23. Now, the moot question which arises for consideration is as to whether the show cause notice impugned in the present petition have been issued by a person lacking inherent jurisdiction and the said show cause notice has any in way prejudiced the rights of the petitioners. 24. The first contention of Sri Khare that exercise undertaken by the Executive Council is not an independent exercise but has been done at the behest of the State Government is misconceived inasmuch as the University had full knowledge about the fact that the large scale fraud has been committed in issuing the fake and tampered marks sheet of B.Ed. Examination-2005, which fact is also 1176 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES fortified from the personal affidavit of the Vice Chancellor of the University filed before this Court wherein he has made a categorical averment that as many as 6 FIR had been lodged to investigate the allegation of issuance of fake and tampered mark-sheets to the students in collusion with the University employee but no investigation was done by the Police and a request was made to the Court through the said affidavit to handover the investigation to any independent agency. In the aforesaid backdrop, this Court passed an order for constituting SIT to carryout the investigation. 25. The exercise of verification of fake as well as tampered degree should have been undertaken by the University voluntarily instead of waiting for any direction from the Court or authority more so when it was aware of the fact that the fake and tampered mark-sheets have been issued to the students in connivance with the employees of the University. Thus, to say that the verification exercise undertaken by the University is on the dictate of the State Government is not correct and misconceived. In this view of the fact, the first submission of the petitioner is not sustainable. 26. As far as the second contention of Sri Khare that report of SIT is not a conclusive piece of evidence and that cannot be considered and relied upon to hold that degree/marks sheet of the candidates mentioned in the list of candidates of fake marks sheet or tampered marks sheet also lacks substance for the reason that the respondents have not yet cancelled the marks sheet/degree of the candidates categorized in the three list; the list of candidates of fake mark-sheet, list of candidates of tampered mark-sheets and list of candidates appearing in the examination on the basis of roll number allotted to more than one candidate, rather the authority has issued a notice inviting details from each candidate in the form of questionnaire so as to verify the fact as to whether name of a candidate in the list of fake or tampered marks sheet has been correctly shown in the list submitted by the SIT. Had the authorities treated the report of SIT to be a conclusive piece of evidence, there was no occasion for the respondents to publish the notice impugned in the writ petition and asking the candidates to furnish information sought in the questionnaire. Further, the two letters dated 11.07.2019 & 25.11.2019 of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, SIT & Additional Chief Secretary also directs the University to follow the procedure as provided in the Act, 1973 for cancellation of a degree. Thus, this Court does not find any merit in the second submission of the counsel for the petitioner. 27. So far as the judgements relied upon by Sri Ashok Khare in support of second submission are concerned, the same are not applicable in the facts of the present case as they have been rendered in a different factual context. 28. As regards the third submission of Sri Khare that the controversy as regards the validity of admission and issuance of the mark-sheets of the petitioners have already been concluded by this Court in Writ Petition no.399 (MB) of 2007 (Shri Puran Prasad Gupta Memorial Degree College Vs. State of U.P. and Others) and other writ petitions, this Court without adverting upon the merits of the contention advanced by the learned Senior Counsel finds it appropriate 2 All. Tilak Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1177 that the petitioners may raise the said contention before the authority concerned as each individual candidate has to demonstrate that his case is covered by the said judgement and this Court has validated his admission. 29. Thus, for the reasons given above, this Court finds that a show cause notice cannot be interfered with by this Court on any of the aforesaid three grounds as none of the issue involves jurisdictional issue or that the notice is per-se illegal. 30. Now, coming to the fourth contention of Sri Khare, it is relevant to mention that the Court is vested with the power under Section 67 of the Act, 1973 to cancel the degree/marks sheet. The Court under Act, 1973 is to exercise such power only in cases where the University finds that the marks sheet or degree has been issued by the University though, it has been tampered. The procedure contemplated under the Act, 1973 cannot be said to be applicable to cancel those degrees which according to the University have not been issued by it and have been procured by the candidates from outside with which the University has no concern. 31. In the case in hand, the Executive Council has undertaken the exercise to verify and sort out list of candidates whose degree or marks sheet are fake and list of candidates whose marks sheet are tampered and list of candidates who have appeared with the roll number allotted to many other candidates. The Court as defined in the Act, 1973 is not empowered to carryout any such exercise, and it is only Executive Council who has power to undertake such exercise. Therefore, the last submission of Sri Khare is also devoid of merit. 32.