# NIDHI KAIM v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS ETC

- **Citation:** [2016] 7 S.C.R. 822
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2016-05-12
- **Case number:** CivilAppealNo. 1727 of2016
- **Bench:** J. Chelameswar, Abhay Manohar Sapre
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/nidhi-kaim-v-state-of-madhya-pradesh-others-etc-31648
- **Pages:** 77

## Headnote

Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board Act, 2007:
s.3 - Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board
popularly known as Vyavsayik Pariksha Manda! (Vyapam) -
Constitution of Board/Vyapam - Notification uls.3 for constituting
the Board not been issued - But Board brought i11to existence for
conducting the examination for admission in the medical,
engineering and agricultural universities and for ad111ission in the
polytechnics - The Board constituted is a non-stalutmy body -
It
has no existence apart from the government - Appel !ants contention
that the Board constituted has no authority in law is not tenable for
the reason that if the Board is without any authority of law for
cancelling the examination conducted by it, it is equally without
any authority of law to conduct the common entrance examination
(PMT) - Any admission based on the marks obtained at such
common entrance exa111inatio11 would be equally without any
authority of law in the sense of legislative sanction - Whatever be
the legal implications of the exercise of such power vis-a-vis others,
the appellants cannot be heard saying that the Board has no
authority of law to take action against them because they had
appeared for the said examination and taken the benefit of securing
admissions into the various medical colleges on the basis of the
marks obtained by them in the examination - Even otherwise, under
the scheme of our Constitution, the executive power of the State is
co-extensive with its legislative power - If it is established that the
adoption of unfair means on large scale resulted in the contamination
of the entrance examination (PMT) process of successive years, the
State undoubtedly would have the power to take appropriate action
to protect the public interest - Education/Educational Institutions.
Examination process - Tampering of - Entrance examination
for admissions into medical colleges - Allegation of conspiracy in
822
NIDHI KAIM v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
the context of the examination - Cancellation of results of so111e
candidates resulting in cancellation of their admissions - Criminal
cases - Based on enquiry reports, Board concluded that there was
tampering with the examination p;·ocess and the appellants as well
as some other students resorted to unfair means at the said
examination - Cuncellafion of admissions of appellants and others -
Challenge against -
Per C/1e/ameswar, J:
The case on hand can
fall within the category of exceptions to the rule of audi alteram
partem if there is reliable material to hold that the examination
process is vitiated - There was tampering with the examination
process insofar as the appellants and a few others are concerned -
There is no reason to interfere with cancellation of admission on
the count that the rule of audi alteram partem was not complied
with by the re:;pondents before cancelling the admissions of the
appellants - However, question is whether these appellants deserve
sympathy and whether society can afford to waste such technically
trained and qualified human resources which require enormous
amounts of energy, time and other material resources to generate -
Appellants whatever by their role in tampering of the examination
process must have been juveniles and cannot be subjected to
punishment under criminal law - For the said reasons they should
be permitted to complete their study of medicine and become trained
doctors to serve the nation - It would serve the larger public
interests, by 111aking the appellants serve the nation for a period of
five years as and when they become qualified doctors, without any
regular salary and attendant benefits of service under the State
and certificates of their medical degrees be handed over only after
completion of five years - Per St1pre, J: The case at hand established
a case of 111ass copying attributable to appellants who resorted to
unfair means in a planned way in the PMT examination - It was
neither necessary to give any show cause notice to

## Text

_Characters 0–39,832 of 195,381. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39832 for what follows._

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
[2016] 7 S.C.R. 822
NIDHI KA!M
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS ETC.
(CivilAppealNo. 1727 of2016)
MAY 12, 2016
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.)
Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board Act, 2007:
s.3 - Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board
popularly known as Vyavsayik Pariksha Manda! (Vyapam) -
Constitution of Board/Vyapam - Notification uls.3 for constituting
the Board not been issued - But Board brought i11to existence for
conducting the examination for admission in the medical,
engineering and agricultural universities and for ad111ission in the
polytechnics - The Board constituted is a non-stalutmy body -
It
has no existence apart from the government - Appel !ants contention
that the Board constituted has no authority in law is not tenable for
the reason that if the Board is without any authority of law for
cancelling the examination conducted by it, it is equally without
any authority of law to conduct the common entrance examination
(PMT) - Any admission based on the marks obtained at such
common entrance exa111inatio11 would be equally without any
authority of law in the sense of legislative sanction - Whatever be
the legal implications of the exercise of such power vis-a-vis others,
the appellants cannot be heard saying that the Board has no
authority of law to take action against them because they had
appeared for the said examination and taken the benefit of securing
admissions into the various medical colleges on the basis of the
marks obtained by them in the examination - Even otherwise, under
the scheme of our Constitution, the executive power of the State is
co-extensive with its legislative power - If it is established that the
adoption of unfair means on large scale resulted in the contamination
of the entrance examination (PMT) process of successive years, the
State undoubtedly would have the power to take appropriate action
to protect the public interest - Education/Educational Institutions.
Examination process - Tampering of - Entrance examination
for admissions into medical colleges - Allegation of conspiracy in
822
NIDHI KAIM v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
the context of the examination - Cancellation of results of so111e
candidates resulting in cancellation of their admissions - Criminal
cases - Based on enquiry reports, Board concluded that there was
tampering with the examination p;·ocess and the appellants as well
as some other students resorted to unfair means at the said
examination - Cuncellafion of admissions of appellants and others -
Challenge against -
Per C/1e/ameswar, J:
The case on hand can
fall within the category of exceptions to the rule of audi alteram
partem if there is reliable material to hold that the examination
process is vitiated - There was tampering with the examination
process insofar as the appellants and a few others are concerned -
There is no reason to interfere with cancellation of admission on
the count that the rule of audi alteram partem was not complied
with by the re:;pondents before cancelling the admissions of the
appellants - However, question is whether these appellants deserve
sympathy and whether society can afford to waste such technically
trained and qualified human resources which require enormous
amounts of energy, time and other material resources to generate -
Appellants whatever by their role in tampering of the examination
process must have been juveniles and cannot be subjected to
punishment under criminal law - For the said reasons they should
be permitted to complete their study of medicine and become trained
doctors to serve the nation - It would serve the larger public
interests, by 111aking the appellants serve the nation for a period of
five years as and when they become qualified doctors, without any
regular salary and attendant benefits of service under the State
and certificates of their medical degrees be handed over only after
completion of five years - Per St1pre, J: The case at hand established
a case of 111ass copying attributable to appellants who resorted to
unfair means in a planned way in the PMT examination - It was
neither necessary to give any show cause notice to the appellants
nor necessary to supply the material to appellants - Procedure
adopted by State!Vyapam cannot be said to be unfair or arbitrary -
Action impugned is not in breach of rules of natural justice -
Appellants are not entitled to claim equitable relief on the ground
that they have al111ost completed their course during interregnum
period - No case 111ade out under Art.142 of the Constitution -
State may consider per111itting the appellants and other candidates
alike the appellants to appear in the co111petitive examination
823
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
824
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 7 S.C.R.
A
whenever it is held and consider granting age relaxation to those
candidates who crossed the age limit, if prescribed - Held: In view
of difference of opinion, matter to be placed before the Chief Justice
of India for appropriate orders - Constitution of India - Art.142 -
Equity.
B
Directing to place matter before Chief Justice of India in
c
D
E
F
G
H
view of difference of opinion, the Court
HELD: PER CHELAMESWAR, J. 1.1. Section 3 of the
Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination Board Act, 2007
contemplates establishment of a Board (a body corporate) by a
notification of the State Government. Admittedly, the notification
constituting the Board has not been issued, but a body constituted
earlier under various executive orders of the State of Madhya
Pradesh continues to be in existence. The composition and legal
structure of the third respondent (BOARD) was discussed
elaboratetv in * Pratiblta Si11gll 's case and upheld by Supreme
Court in **Pooja Yadav case. It appears from the said judgment
that the third respondent (BOARD) was brought into existence
"for conducting the examination for admission in the medical,
engineering and agricultural universities and for admission in the
polytechnics and initiate the necessary proceedings in this
regard" by a notification dated 17.4.1982 issued in the name of
the Governor. The said notification was published in the official
gazette on 19.4.1982. Therefore, the BOARD is a non-statutory
'body'. It is not a corporate entity. It has no existence apart from
the government. Barring the vague statement regarding the
purpose for which the BOARD is created, the Notification dated
17.4.1982 does not contain any details regarding either the powers
or the functions of the BOARD. The net result is that the entire
exercise of holding the PMT and regulating the admissions of
students into the various medical colleges would be only an
exercise of the executive powers of the _State of Madhya Pradesh.
If the third respondent BOARD is without any authority of law
for cancelling the examination conducted by it, it is equally without
any authority of law to conduct the common entrance examination
(PMT). Any admission based on the marks obtained at such
common entrance examination would be equally without any
authority of law in the sense of legislative sanction. Even
NIDHI KAIM v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
otherwise, the argument of the appellants is required to be
rejected for the reasons that under the scheme of our
Constitution, the executive power of the State is co-extensive
with its legislative power. In the absence of any operative
legislation, the executive power could certainly be exercised to
protect the public interest. The right of each one of the appellants
for admission to the medical colleges in the State of Madhya
Pradesh is itself an emanation of the State's executive action.
No doubt, even executive action of the State can create rights.
Unless there is something either in the Constitution or law which
prohibits the abrogation or abridgment of rights, it is permissible
for the State to do so by executive action in accordance with some
specified procedure of law. No doubt, that the overarching
requirement of Constitution is that every action of the State must
be informed with reason and must be in public interest. If it is
established that the adoption of unfair means on large scale
resulted in the contamination of the entrance examination (PMT)
process of successive years, the State undoubtedly would have
the power to take appropriate action to protect the public interest.
[Paras 1, 21, 22) [836-H; 837-A-B; 846-B-F; 847-A-B; 848-A-C)
**Pooja Yadav &Anr. v. State of M.P. decided by
Supreme Court on 19.5.2014 in SLP(C) 13629-630 of
2014 - relied on.
*Ku. Praiibha Singh (Minor) v. State of Madhya
Pradesh & Ors. 2014 (III) MPJR 178 - referred to.
2. This Court in **"Sinha case laid down the principle that
the rule of "udi (l/ter"m partem need not be complied with in
connection with the cancellation of examinations where it would
be impracticable to apply the said principle. Adoption of unfair
means on a large scale is one of them. The Court did not go by
the percentage of the students who were alleged to have had
resorted to the practice of unfair means. When the Court
characterized the situation as practice of unfair means on a 'large
scale', it used the expression only to distinguish the situation
from cases of practice of unfair means by one or two students.
The Court has also held that there are other circumstances
justifying the departure from complying with the audi a/teram
partem rule. They are - leakage of question papers and
825
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
826
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 7 S.C.R.
destruction of a large number of answer papers. The examples
given therein are not exhaustive of all the categories constituting
exceptions to the application of the rule of "udi "lter"m p"rtem.
Therefore, the percentage of the students who are alleged to
have resorted to unfair means is irrelevant. Similarly, resorting
to unfair means by a 'large number of students' is not the only
circumstance which justifies the non-compliance with the rule of
"udi (l/fer"m p(lrfem. Cases such as the one on hand where there
are allegations of criminal conspiracies resulting in the tampering
with the examination process for the benefit of a large number of
students would be certainly one of the exceptional circumstances
indicated in Sinha's case provided there is some justifiable
material to support the conclusion that the examination process
had been tampered with. The case on hand can fall within the
category of exceptions to the rule of "udi (l/fer"m p"rtem if there
is reliable material to come to the conclusion that the examination
process is vitiated. [Paras 23, 34] [858-B, C; 857-D-E; 849-A-D]
* * * The Bihar School Examination Board v. Sub has
Chandra Sinha & Others (1970) 1 SCC 648: 1970 (3)
SCR 968 - relied on.
Onkar Lal Bajaj & Others v. Union of India & Another
(2003) 2 SCC 673: 2002 (5) Suppl. SCR 605 - relied
on.
3. There is nothing inherently irrational or perverse in the
BOARD's conclusions (i) that the examination process was
tampered with; and (ii) that all the appellants who are identified
to be members of the 'pairs' are beneficiaries of such manipulated
examination process, relying upon the circumstances if they are
unimpeachable. Each one of the circumstances is an inference
which flows from certain basic facts which either individually or
in combination with some other facts constituted the
circumstance. The fact that the entire process of the generation
of roll numbers to the students and allotment of the students to
various examination centres is done by a computerised process
is not in dispute. The assertion of the BOARD that technically
such a process requires SOME LOGIC to be followed is not
disputed by the appellants. The expert committee (on an analysis
of the data) (i) identified the logic followed for generating the roll
numbers and allotting the examination centres and also (ii)
NIDHI KAIM v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
reaching a conclusion that in the case of the appellants and a few
others the allotment was not in accordance with the logic initially
adopted. The same are not normally amenable to judicial review
because Courts would lack the necessary technical expertise to
sit in judgment over such matters. There is no reason to doubt
either the factual or legal correctness of the first two
circumstances. [Paras 36, 37) [858-H; 859-A-B, C-F]
4. The appellant contended that ifthere is a deviation from
the general pattern with regard to the allotment of Roll numbers
and the examination centres, the appellants could not be blamed
or 'penalised' because the entire process of the allotment was
done by the Board and its officials. The question of either 'blame'
or 'penalty' does not arise in the context. If tampering with the
examination process took place, whether all or some of the
appellants are culpable is a matter for a criminal court to examine
as and when any of the appellants is sought to be prosecuted.
But the fact that the examination process was tampered with is
relevant for administrative action such as the one impugned
herein. The said fact formed the foundation for the further enquiry
for identifying the beneficiaries of such contaminated process.
Having regard to the circumstances relied upon, there is no illogic
in the conclusions drawn by the expert committee which formed
the basis for the impugned action of the BOARD. There is no
irrationality either in the formula or the decision of the BOARD
to assign greater weightage to the incorrect matching answers.
There is nothing inherently suspicious about two candidates sitting
in close proximity in an examination and giving the same correct
answer to a question because there can only one correct answer
to a question. On the other hand, if they give the same wrong
answer to a given question and if the number of such wrong
answers is high, it can certainly generate a doubt and is a strong
circumstance indicating the occurrence of some malpractice. Such
a test was approved by this Court in Bagles/1w"r Prasad's case.
Even otherwise, it would be futile to pursue the inquiry in this
regard. There is no r~ason to interfere with the impugned
judgment on the count that the rule of audi alteram partem was
not complied with by the respondents before cancelling the
admissions of the appellants. [Para 38) [859-G; 860-A-F; 861-A,
C-D)
827
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
828
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 7 S.C.R.
Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P.,
Allahabad & Another v. Bagleshwar Prasad & Another
(1963) 3 SCR 767 - relied on.
5.1. The next question that requires examination is the
legality of the action of the respondents after a lapse of
considerable time. It varies between one to five years with
reference to each of the appellants. The decision of the
respondents necessarily led to litigation which consumed another
three years. The net result is that appellants, who belong to
2012 batch, spent four years undergoing the training in medical
course; others progressively longer periods extending up to eight
years but could not acquire their degrees because of the impugned
action and the pendency of this litigation. Most of the appellants
would have acquired their degree in medicine by now if they had
been successful at the examinations. In the case in hand, the
number of students involved is relatively huge. In view of the
conclusion that neither the procedure adopted by the respondents
nor the evidence relied upon by the respondents for taking
impugned action against the appellants could be characterized as
illegal, is it permissible for this Court to interfere with the
impugned action of the respondents either on the ground that
there is a considerable time lapse or that such action would have
ruinous effect on the lives and careers of the appellants? and
therefore inequitable is a troubling question. [Paras 39, 46) [861D-F; 864-E-F)
5.2. The public policy of the country and the larger public
interests would be more appropriate guides than the
considerations of equity to decide the questions in the absence
of any statutory prescription applicable to the controversy on
hand. Public policy of this country regarding the retention of the
benefit obtained by perpetrator of crime is that normally the
benefit cannot be permitted to be retained by the perpetrator of
crime. But the principle is applied only on adjudication that the
benefit was obtained by perpetration of crime. Situ Sa/iu's case is
also a case establishing the principle that the law permits the
retention of property acquired pursuant to fraudulent means
(allegedly) because law does not permit an enquiry into the
allegation beyond the reasonable period. However, when it comes
to other civil rights, the public policy, as can be discerned from
NIDHI KAIM v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
various enactments, seems to be not to deprive those who are
found to have been guilty of offences of all their civil rights. It is
required to be examined whether it would be consistent with the
public policy to deprive the appellants of the benefits of their
education on the ground that they secured certain benefits by
adopting fraudulent means. [Paras 47, 50, 51) [864-G; 867-D-E;
869-B-E]
Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Limited &
Another v. Brojo Nath Ganguly & Another (1986) 3 SCC
156: 1986 (2) SCR 278 - relied on.
Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others (2012)
7 SCC 433: 2012 (5) SCR 768; Ram Preeti Yadav "
U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education
& Others (2003) 8 SCC 311: 2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 352
- Explained.
6.1. All the appellants are also being investigated for the
commission of various offences which if proved would render them
liable for imprisonment for periods extending beyond three years,
and therefore, there is no period oflimitation for taking cognizance
of them. Therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned action
against the appellants would be inconsistent with the public policy
on the ground of the .time gap. While it is a salutary principle
based on public policy not to permit the retention of 'property'
obtained by fraudulent means, the application of the said principle
becomes a matter of doubtful utility to, the society in the context
of the acquisition of knowledge by adopting fraudulent means
examined from the point of view of the public interest. In the
context of property (economic gains), the application of the
principle works to the benefit of the rightful owner. But in the
context of acquisition of knowledge, nobody would benefit by the
application of the rule and would therefore serve only a limited
public purpose. [Paras 52, 53) [870-A-D]
6.2. Some 634 youngsters, who have already completed
their training in medicine (or about to complete) and whose
knowledge could have otherwise been utilized for the benefit of
the society, would be simply rendered useless for the society in
the sense their knowledge cannot be utilized for the welfare of
the society. The question is not whether these appellants deserve
829
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
830
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 7 S.C.R.
any sympathy. A larger question- whether this society can afford
to waste such technically trained and qualified human resources
which require enormous amounts of energy, time and other
material resources to generate. Obviously, it takes another five
years of time and expenditure of considerable material resources
to produce another set of 634 qualified medical graduates. It is
in the background of this consideration, this issue is required to
be decided. Another important consideration in the context is
that most of the appellants, whatever be their respective role, if
any, in the tampering of the examination process, must have been
'juveniles' as defined under the Juvenile Justice Act. They cannot
be subjected to any 'punishment' prescribed under the criminal
law even if they are not only the beneficiaries of the tampered
examination process but also the perpetrators of the various acts
which constitute offences contaminating the examination process.
For the said reasons, the appellants should be permitted to
complete their study of medicine and become trained doctors to
serve the nation. But at the same time there is a compelling
national interest that dishonest people cannot be made to believe
that "time heals everything' and the society would condone every
misdeed if only they can manage to get away with their wrong
doing for a considerably long period. Society must receive some
compensation from the wrongdoers. Compensation need not be
monetary and in the instant case it should not be. It would serve
the larger public interests, by making the appellants serve the
nation for a period of five years as and when they become qualified
doctors, without any regular salary and attendant benefits of
service under the State, nor any claim for absorption into the
service of the State subject of course to the payment of some
allowance (either in cash or kind) for their survival. The appellants
be handed over the certificates of their medical degrees only
after they complete the five years. [Para 54, 55, 56] (870-D-G;
871-A-E]
Situ Sahu & Others v. State of Jharkhand & Others
(2004) 8 SCC 340: 2004 (4) Suppl. SCR 258- relied
on.
B. Ramanjini & Others v. State of A.P. & Others (2002)
5 SCC 533 : 2002 (3) SCR 506; S.P. Chengalvaraya
H
Naidu (Dead) by LRs v. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs &
NlDHI KAIM v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Others, (1994) 1 SCC 1: 1993 (3) Suppl. SCR 422;
Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P.
v. Ghanshyam Das Gupta & Others 1962 Supp (3) SCR
36 - referred to.
Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley (1956) 1 All ER 341 -
referred to.
PER SAPRE, J. (Partly dissenting) 1. The facts of the case
at hand are identical partly to the facts of the case of Bi/iar School
Examination Board and partly to the facts of Bagleshwar Prasad
and Prem Prakash. This I say for the following reasons. First,
this is a case where large number of candidates (more than two
hundred) in the examinations held from 2008 to 2012 were found
involved in copying like what was noticed in the case of Biliar
School Examination where 36 candidates were found involved in
copying. Second, there was uniform pattern adopted by the
candidates for doing copy in the examinations. This circumstance
lends support to the fact that "mass copying" was done by the
candidates in a planned manner; Third, candidates who managed
to sit in pair in close proximity (described as "scorer" and
"beneficiary"), their wrong answers consistently matched with
each other. This circumstance was relied on in the cases of
Bagleshwar Prasad and Prem Prakash Kalunia for forming an
opinion that both the candidates copied from each other; Fourth,
the material seized in investigation prinw facie established that
"mass copying" was done in a planned manner by the several
candidates (appellants) to enable them to answer the questions;
Fifth, interpolations were found in sitting plan originally made by
Vyapam for some years to accommodate the candidates
(appellants) and others like the appellants to sit in a particular
examination center in close proximity with each other so that
they are able to copy from each other; Sixth, many candidates
despite clearing the examination did not take admission in any
medical college. There was no satisfactory answer given by them
barring very few; Seventh, material seized in investigation was
found sufficient by the Expert Committee to form an opinion that
it was a case of "mass copying". In addition it was also established
on probabilities and circumstantial evidence that the candidates
in large scale which included the appellants did mass copying;
831
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
832
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 7 S.C.R.
Eighth, the Expert Committee examined the issues from all angles
and analyzed the material seized for coming to a conclusion that
it was a case of "mass copying" done by the candidates in large
scale as a part of a planned strategy and that they used unfair
means; Ninth, allegations of ma/a fides were not alleged in the
writ petitions by any candi~ate against any member of Expert
Committee or/and officials of the StateNyapam; Tenth, the writ
court rightly did not act as an appellate court to reverse the
decision of Expert Committee; Eleventh, the formula evolved
by the Expert Committee was usually applied in such type of cases
by various institutions and no perversity or/and arbitrariness was
shown by the appellants in the formula except to contend that it
was not a proper formula; and lastly, the expression "mass
copying" not being defined in any Act/Regulation/Rules, its
meaning in ordinary parlance can be summed up as "sizable or
large number of candidates found copying or discovered to ltave
copied wltile answering their question paper by using unfair means
in examination". This fully applies to the facts of the case at hand.
[Paras 45, 46) [889-A-H; 890-A-C]
The Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas
Chandra Sinha & Others (1970) 1 SCC 648: 1970 (3)
SCR 968; Board of High School and Intermediate
Education, U.P., Allahabad & Another v. Bagleshwar
Prasad & Another (1963) 3 SCR 767 - relied on.
2. Neither the writ court and nor this Court could sit as an
appellate Court over the decision of the Expert Committee and
find fault in the material relied on by the Committee; Secondly,
the method evolved by the experts was usually applied to find
out as to whether two candidates had copied from each other and
hence no fault could be noticed in it; Thirdly, the decision to cancel
the results was based on other contemporaneous material seized
during the investigation by STF; Fourthly, the decision to cancel
the results was not taken in post-haste but was taken with full
application of mind by the Expert Committee which consists of
experts in subjects and lastly, this being a case of "mass copying",
it was neither necessary to give any show cause notice to the
appellants and nor necessary to supply the material to the
appellants. [Para 48) (890-E-F]
NIDHI KAIM v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
3. It is a clear case of what is called in ordinary parlance a
"mass copying". The procedure adopted by the StateNyapam
cannot be said to be unfair or arbitrary. The action impugned is
not in breach of rules of natural justice which has no application
to the facts of this case. It is a settled principle that rules of
natural justice are not embodied rules and hence such rules cannot
be put in a strait-jacket. The object of tke rules of natural justice,
is only to ensure that order causing civil consequences should
not be passed arbitrarily. It is not that in every case, there must
be an opportunity of oral hearing to person concerned. This
principle applies to the case at hand. [Para 50] [891-A-C]
4. This takes to the next submission namely, that since
there was inordinate delay in taking the decision to cancel the
examination and in the meantime the appellants have altered their
position by completing their degree course, or are about to
complete the Course in near future and hence this Court should
protect the appellants' interest on equitable considerations. The
appellants are not entitled to claim any equitable relief on the
ground that they have almost completed their course during the
interregnum period and hence no action on the basis of their
PMT Examination results is called for. The case at hand prima
f acie established a case of "mass copying" attributable to the
appellants who resorted to unfair means in a planned way in the
PMT examination and lastly, when any action is done discretely,
it takes times to discover. In these circumstances, the State may
consider permitting the appellants and other candidates alike the
appellants to appear in the competitive examination whenever it
is held and consider granting age relaxation to those candidates
who crossed the age limit, if prescribed. Such liberty, if granted,
would not cause any prejudice to any one and at the same time
would do substantial justice to all such candidates. Beyond this,
the appellants are not entitled to claim any indulgence. [Paras
51, 57, 58, 61) [891-D; 894-A-B, C-D; 895-H; 896-A-B]
5. It is well known that the Examination is always considered
as one of the major means to assess and evaluate candidate's
skills and knowledge be it a school test, university examination,
professional entrance examination or any other examination.
Candidate's fitness for his further assignment whether in studies
833
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
834
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 7 S.C.R.
or employment is, therefore, judged on the basis of his
performance in the examination. It is for this reason, the
examination is considered as a common tool around which the
entire education system revolves. Examination malpractices,
academic fraud or cheating in the examination is as old as the
examination itself. Study made by the educationist ·has revealed
that these malpractices are gradually on the rise across the world
and has caused a threat to public trust in reliability and credibility
to the system as a whole. These malpractices occur within and
outside the examination halls and are perpetrated by the
candidates, staff and other external agencies before, during and
after the examination. Various kinds of strategies are innovated
and then applied to enable the candidate to clear the examination
any how. It has, therefore, destroyed the piousness of the
examination. With a view to prohibit such activities, State of A.P.
had enacted a legislation but it was found inadequate to control
such activities. It is, therefore, the collective responsibility of
the Government (Central/States), educational bodies/Institutions
to ponder over and evolve a uniform policy in a comprehensive
manner to firmly deal with such activities in the larger public
good. It is hoped that effective remedial steps would be taken in
that regard. (Paras 68 to 70) (897-G-H; 898-A-D)
Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P.,
Allahabad and Anr. v. Ghanshyam Das Gupta and Ors.
AIR 1962 SC 1110: 1962 Supp (3) SCR 36; Prem
Parkash Kaluniya v .. Punjab University and Ors.
(1973) 3 SCC 424; B. Ramanjini & Ors. v. State of A.P.
& Ors. (2002) 5 SCC 533: 2002 (3) SCR 506; Chief
General Manager, Calcutta Telephones District, Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Surendra Nath Pandey & Ors.,
2011 (15) SCC 81: 2011 (14) SCR 840; Ram Preeti
Yadav v. U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate
Education and Ors. (2003) 8 SCC 311:2003 (3) Suppl.
SCR 352; Madhyamic Shiksha Manda! MP. 1( Abhi/ash
Shiksha Prasar Samiti & Ors., (1998) 9 SCC 236 -
relied on.
Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. (2012) 7
SCC 433: 2012 (5) SCR 768; Union qf India & Anr. v.
Tulsiram Patel (1985) 3 SCC 398: 1985 (2) Suppl.
NIDHI KAIM v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
835
SCR 131; Dr. Dinesh Kumar & Ors. v. Motilal Nehru
A
Medical College, Allahabad & Ors., (1985) 3 SCC
542:1985 (2) Suppl. SCR 1; State of Maharashtra &
Ors. v. Jalgaon Municipal Council & Ors. (2003) 9 SCC
731:2003 (1) SCR 1112; Situ Sahu & Ors. v. State of
Jharkhand & Ors. (2004) 8 SCC 340:2004 (4) Suppl.
B
SCR 258 - Distinguished.
Case Law Reference
In the Jude;ment of Chelameswar, J.
19(~ (3) SCR 968
relied on
Para 26
20Q~ (3) SCR 506
referred to
Para 26
c
(1963) 3 SCR 767
relied on
Para26
1962 Supp (3) SCR 36
referred to
Para27
2002 (5) Suppl. SCR 605
relied on
Para 27
20~2. (5) SCR 768
Explained
Para 40
2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 352
Explained
Para 41
D
1993 (3) Suppl. SCR 422
referred to
Para 43
19~~ (2) SCR 278
relied on
Para 48
2004 (4) Suppl. SCR 258
relied on
Para 49
E
In the Judi:;ment of Aba:r Manohar Sal.!re, J.
1962 Supp (3) SCR 36
relied on
Para24
0?63) 3 SCR 767
relied on
Para 45
19(~ (3) SCR 968
relied on
Para 45
20Q~ (3) SCR 506
relied on
Para36
F
(1973) 3 sec 424
relied on
Para 45
2011 (14) SCR 840
relied on
Para38
2003 (3) Suppl. SCR 352
relied on
Para 41
0?98) 9 sec 236
relied on
Para 54
G
20p (5) SCR 768
Distinguished
Para 59
1985 (2) Suppl. SCR 131
Distinguished
Para 62
1985 (2) Suppl. SCR 1
Distinguished
Para 62
2003 (1) SCR 1112
Distinguished
Para62
2004 (4) Suppl. SCR 258
Distinguished
Para 62
H
836
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 7 S.C.R.
A
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1727
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
of2016.
From the Judgment and Order dated 07.10.2014 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Jabalpur in Writ Petition No. 7676 of
2014
WITH
C.A.NOS.1720-1724, 1726, 1728, 1729, 1733, 1734-1741, 17421749, 1750-1751, 1752, 1753-1758, 1759-1764, 1765, 1766, 1767-1768,
1769-1774, 1776-1787, 1788, 1789-1791, 1792-1794, 1795-1798, 17991805, 1806-1808, 1809, 1810-1811, 1812, 1813-1814, 1815, 1816-1817,
1818-1819, 1820, 1821, 1822-1824, 1825, 1826, 1827, 1828, 1830, 18311832, 1833, 1834, 1835, 1836-1837, 1838, 1839, 1840, 1841, 1842, 1843,
1844, 1845, 1846and 1847-1852of2016.
Dr. Raj iv Dhavan, Ms. Indu Malhotra, Sr. Advs., Vijay Kumar,
Thomas Oommen, Ms. Bharti Tyagi, Sunny Choudhary, Nikhil Jain, Gagan
Deep Sharma, Ms. Preeti Singh, Ms. Vikram Mehta, Varun Kumar
Tikmani, Varun Singh, Vikas Mehta, Nar Hari Singh, Aniruddha P. Mayee,
Varinder Kumar Sharma, Bharat Singh, Ashish Kr. Upadhyay, Amit
Pawan, Ms. Pragati Neekhra, Suryanarayana Singh, Karamveer Jindal,
Divyakant Lahoti, Anish Gupta, Shashank Garg, Pulkit Tare, Rameshwar
Prasad Goyal, Rajender Prasad, Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Navin Prakash
Ms. Meetu Singh, Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, T. Mahipal, Mithilesh
Kumar Singh, Mrs. Manju Singh,Akshay Ringe, E. C. Agrawala, Atishi
Dipankar, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ranjit Kumar, SG, Maninder Singh, ASG, Ms. Meenakshi Arora,
Sr. Adv., R. Balasubramanian, Raj iv Nanda, Santosh Kumar, B. V. Bairam
Das,Rajul Shrivastava, K. Krishna Kumar, Purushaindra Kaurav, Mishra
Saurabh,Ankit Kr. Lal, Sanjeev Bansal, Akshay K. Ghai, Rajeev Kumar
Bansal, C. D. Singh, Amithesh Kumar, Shashank Shekhar, (For M. K.
Sinha), Gaurav Sharma, Prateek Bhatia, Dhawal Mohan, Arjun Garg,
Mani sh Yadav, Pramod Sharma,Abhinav Gupta, Ms. PratibhaJain, Advs.
for the Respondents.
The following Judgments and Order of the Court were delivered
by
CHELAMESWAR, J. I. The Madhya Pradesh Vyavsayik
Pariksha Manda! Adhiniyam, 2007 [The Madhya Pradesh Professional
NIDHI KAIM v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
[CHELAMESWAR, J.]
Examination Board Act, 2007] (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')
came into force on 15°' October 2007. Section 3 1 of the said Act
contemplates establishment of a Board (a body corporate) by a
notification of the State Government. Admittedly, as on today, the
notification constituting the Board has not been issued, but a body
constituted earlier under various executive orders' of the State of Madhya
Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as "the BOARD") continues to be in
existence. It carries on various activities.
2. One of the objectives of the statutory Board specified under
Section I 0 is as follows:
"(a) to conduct entrance examinations for admission to various
professional and other educational institutions on the request of
the State Government, other State Governments, Central
Government, Universities and national or state level institutions."
3. It appears that admissions to various medical colleges either
privately managed or managed by the government in the State of Madhya
Pradesh are regulated by a common entrance examination [called as
"Pre-Medical Entrance Test (PMT)]. such an examination was
conducted annually by the BOARD. The Act came to be passed with a
view to create a statutory basis for the BOARD which, inter alia, is
required_ to conduct entrance examinations for admissions into various
educational institutions including medical colleges. Unfortunately, the
notification contemplated under Section 3 never came to be issued but
everybody in the administration of the State of Madhya Pradesh
proceeded all these years on an assumption that the BOARD (a mythical
beast) would somehow became the body contemplated under Section 3
of the Act. This aspect of the matter is one of the issues in the case;
and, therefore, I shall deal with it later in this judgment.
1 Section 3. Incorporation of the Board. - (I) The State Government shall establish by
a notification, a Board to be called the Madhya Pradesh Professional Examination
Board with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification.
(2) The Board shall be a body corporate by the name of the Madhya Pradesh
Professional Examination Board and shall have perpetual succession and a common
seal with power to acquire and hold property, both movable and immovable and shall
have power to transfer any property held by it and to contract and do all other things
necessary for the purposes of its constitution and may sue or be sued in its corporate
name.
2 For the details of the executive orders, See Ku. Pratibha Singh (Minor) v. The State of
Madhya Pradesh & Others. 2014 (Ill) MPJR 178
837
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
838
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2016) 7 S.C.R.
4. Entrance examination for admissions into medical colleges for
the year 2013 was conducted by the abovementioned BOARD on
7.7.2013. On the same day, a crime came to be registered in FIR No.539
of 2013 alleging commission of various offences pursuant to a large
scale conspiracy in the context of the examination. The FIR came to be
registered against several persons including students and some employees
of the State of Madhya Pradesh who were working in the administration
of the BOARD.
5. The Chairman of the BOARD also caused some enquiry3 into
the allegations. By two orders, dated 9.10.2013 and 6.12.2013, the
BOARD cancelled the results of 345 and 70 candidates respectively.
As a consequence, admissions granted to the abovementioned students
in various medical colleges stood cancelled. Challenging those orders, a
batch of writ petitions came to be filed before the Madhya Pradesh
High Court. All the said writ petitions were dismissed by an order dated
11.4.2014 of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in
Ku. Pratiblta Singh v. Tile State of Madhya Pradesh & Others. The
correctness of the said judgment was questioned in SLP (C) Nos.13629630 of2014 (Pooja Yadav & Another v. State of M.R & Others) and
16257 of 2014 (Sumit Sinha v. State of M.P. & Others), which were
dismissed by orders dated 19.5.2014 and 08.08.2014 respectively
confirming the judgment of the High Court.
6. Parallelly, the police investigated the crime (FIR No. 539/2013)
mentioned supra. Some officers of the BOARD and others were
arrested. Pursuant to information gathered during the course of the
investigation of the abovementioned crime, the investigating agency sent
two letters dated 23. I 0.2013 and 31.12.20134 to the BOARD. It is
' The nature of the enquiry "·as discussed by Madhya Pradesh High Court in great detail in
the judgment of Ku. Pratibha Singh (Minor) v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others,
2014 (Ill) MPJR 178
• (a) In reference to above subject. it is submitted that on conducting inquiry from the
accused arrested in the cases registered in connection with referenced examination and
other examinations in S.T.F.. M.P. Bhopal and even in so far as the accused arrested by
your office have stated regarding forgery in these examination. Accused Jagdish Sagar and
Sanjiv Shilpkar arrested in the S.T.F. Crime No.12/2013. under Section 420, 467. 468,
471. 120 B l.P.C .. 3(0)1. 2/4 M.P. Recogniltion Examination Act. 1937 have stated
regarding forgery for setting of equal roll number in P.M.T. Examination 2012 and 2013
and for setting of equal roll numbers in the P.M. T. Examination 2013 in collusion with
Officers of Vyapam namely Nitin Mahindra and Others.
Therefore, it is requested to provide report after conducting investigation in accordance
with law as conducted in connection P.M.T. Examination 2013. P.M.T. Examination
2012. in the referenced P.M.T. Examination 2009. 2010. 2011. so that.