# S.N. PATIL v. DR. M.M. GOSAVI - **Citation:** [1987] 1 S.C.R. 458 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1986-12-09 - **Bench:** R.S. Pathak, SABY ASACHI MUKllARJI ANDS. NATARAJAN - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/s-n-patil-v-dr-m-m-gosavi-9421 - **Pages:** 27 ## Headnote Evidence-Admission of addiiional · evidence, principle of1' Admissibility of evidence as to "similar fact"-Ajfidavits evidence-Value of Code of Civil Procedure, Order XIX Ru/e3 Malafides-Allegation of C malafides against men in power-Court/ duty to view such allegations vis-a- £ vis purity in public life, explained. -,a Post-graduate medical examinatwn in Maharashtra-A/legation of manipulation in the grade sheets of M.D. (Gynae) examination to clear the candidate, a daughter of the Chief Minister of Maharashtra-Adverse D remarks against the Chief Minister, whether justified as a finding of fact or as a comment based on no evidence-Judic.'al pronouncements and duty of the Judges. Dr. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi app.,llant in CA 4453/86 and respondent in CA 4452/86 was a failed candidate at the M.D. examination in the E speciality of Gynaecology and Obstetric.1 held in the year 1985. He filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the High Court of Bombay challenging the results of the 1\1.D. examination held in November' 85. He alleged that favouritism was shown by one Dr. Rawal who went to the extent of tampering with grade shee1s of the examinees so as to clear f unsuccessful candidates and in particular Smt. Chandrakala Patil daughter of the Chief Minister of Maharashtra app.,llant in CA 4452/86 and respondent in cross appeal CA 4453/86 . .In support of the writ petition alleging how the malpractice took place, he filed an affidavit (hearsay evidence) of one Dr. Manikant Mishra, who is supposed to have heard certain talks that took place between Dr. Rawal and Smt. Chandrnkala Patil at Dr. Rawals' Chambers and that what the deponent heard came to be proved by the M.D. (Gynae) G results in which one Dr. Smita Thakl"?dueed so many eminent professors and students. The Univerity of Bombay conducts M.D. examiantions, inter alia, in the disciplines of Obstetrics and Gynaecology in the Faculty of Medicine. The theory examination consists of four papers, of which paper No. IV is of Essay. G The theory papers I to III consist of three questions each. The practical clinical examination consists of a long and short case in obstetrics and a long and short case in Gynae.cology and Viva. The theory papers are assessed by individual H A 468 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 1 S.C.R. examiners and the grades are allotted in respect of each question in each paper in accordance with the provisions set cut in the note giving special instructions to the examiners in the Faculty of Medicine. The M.D. theory examination in the instant case was held between 14t:1 October and 17th October, 1985 and was followed by pratical examination which was held between 4th November B · and 9th November, 1985. The University had appointed four paper-setters and examiners in accordance with the nrcessar~ provisions of the Act, two of which were internal examiners, namely Dr. M.Y. Rawal as mentioned herein before and one Dr. S.N. Mukherjee from Indian Navy. There were two external examiners who were Dr. (Mrs.),A. Nafeesa Beebi from Madras and Dr. S.T. Watwe of Sangli. It is not necessary to deal in more detail with the C factual aspects which as mentioned hereinbefore have been exhaustively set out in ihe judgment of the learned sin:~le judge, and which were not disputed before us by any of the parties. We may mention that grading had to be made on the following lines as noted in the judgment of the trial judge: · "G" -Good. D "P" - Little better than passing. "p" - Passing "P" - Border Jim failure "F" - Failure. The learned single judge noted that 37 candidates had been declared E successful including respondent No. 4 being Chandrakala Patil and respondent No. 5 Dr. Mrs. Smita Thakker. The other respondents no. 6 to 15 mentioned hereinbefore were other successful candidates whose result came to be nullified and made subject to re--examination by the judgment of the learned single judge. We are not concerned with this aspect or with them any more. The petitioner had claimed that he had wrongly been declared as failed. F The petitioner stated that he had some doubts as to whether his code number was properly decoded and he made vuious other allegations. The petitioner complained and the gravamen of his charges was that tl).ere were large number of irregularities in the declaration of result and mark-sheet was tampered in favour of respondent no. 4 Chandrakala Patil who is the daughter of the erstwhile Chief Minister and that Dr. Rawal was instrumental in tampering G with the result which was done at the behest of the then Chief Minister. The learned judge came to the conclusion that Dr. Rawal alone was responsible for tampering with and altering the tabulated grade-sheet of theory examination. After discussing all these aspects in dftail at the concluding paragraph 15 of the judgment, the learned judge had observe_d that he had no hesitation in · concluding that Dr. Rawal was responsible for manipulating the result by H tampering with and altering the grade-sheet so as to favour respondent No. 4 l ( . I S.N. PATIL v. DR. M.M. ?OSAVI [MUKHARJI, J.) 469 and respondent no. 5 in the writ petition namely Chandmkala Patil aild Dr. A Smita Thakkar. The next question, and which is the main issue before us, to which the learned judge's•attention was drawn was whether the manipulation was done by Dr. Rawal at the instance of or behest of'Tespondent no. 3, the appellant herein, the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra. The learned judge discussed B the evidence in great detail. The allegations in respect of the same are contained in paragraph 14 of the petition which have been set out herein before. The learned judge noted after setting oμt the gist of the allegation in paragraph 14 of the petition that the averments made in that paragraph were C wholly unsatisfactory and insufficient because the petitioner to the writ petition and the respondent herein had not disclosed from whom he had learnt what he had averred. We are in entire agreement with that conclusion of the learned single judge. Indeed this aspect wa5 not disputed by any of the parties before us. The learned single judge further noted tpat the allegations were not only denied by Dr. Rawal, Dr. Shah and Chandrakala Pat'! but also by the D Chief Minister, the appellant, on oath by filing affidavit. Dr. Shah had claimed that he had never contacted Dr. Rawal in connection with the examination of respondent no. 4 and so was the claim of respondent no. 4 and of Dr. Rawal. The appellant in his affidavit dated 26th January, 1986 had stated that Dr. Shah did not send any message nor did be contact Dr. Rawal at any stage. An effort was made by the original petitioner, respondent herein to establish by E direct evidence the link between Dr. Rawal and respondent no. 4 by relying upon the evidence of one Dr. Mishra sworn on 28th February, 1986. Dr. Mishra had claimed that his wife who is a doctor had left home to appear in M.D. examination in November, 1985, but subsequently the wife declined to answer as to whether she had appeared or ncit. Dr. Mishra claimed that he went to Dr. Rawal to enquire and he noticed that respondent no. 4 was sitting F in the doctor's chamber. Dr. Mishra claimed that he over-heard D~. Rawal telling respondent No. 4 about her poor performance in the examination and suggested that he could do something only if her father, the Chief Minister, gave any message. The learned single judge observed in his judgment the .less said about this affidavit was better. The learned judge further observed that it was impossible to place any reliance on the evidence of Dr. Mishraas it.ws not G known how he came to contact the original petitioner-respondent herein or why he did vot choose to file affidavit till 28th February, 1986. Dr. Rawal had denied in his evidence that this Mishra came to see him and pointed out that on that relevant date, that he was heavily occupied and he had hardly any time to contact any visitor. Smt. Chandrakala Patil also denied the meeting that transpired between her and Dr. Rawal. In the judgment of the learned trial H 470 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] I S.C.R. A judge, it was unsafe to place any reliance on the words of Mishra. We respectfully agree. The learned judge thereafter concluded that there was no direct evidence to establish the involvement of respondent no. 3, the erstwhile Chief Minister or the daughter, respondent no. 4 in the original writ petition in securing favourable result from Dr. rawal. The learned judge noted that counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner before the trial judge_ had · B accepted this position but had urged that it was not possible or in any event extremely difficult to establish by direct evidence the link between the wrong doer and the benefit seeker in such cases. It was, therefore; submitted _that it was necessary for the =ourt to draw inference from the probabilities of the case as -well as the- surrounding circumstance5. Reliance was placed on the principles of sectlon 114 of the Indian Evidence Act and it was claimed that _ C _ from the facts found by the High Court, the inference was irresistible that the results were tampered with or altered at the behest of the erstwhile Chief Minister and his daughter: After referring to the factual position and noting the principles of law, · the learned judge observed that undoubtedly there was no direct evidence that D · the result' of respondent no. 4 namely Smt. Chandrakala Patil was tampered with at the behest of the appellant, Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil, respondent No. 3 in the original petition but that would not automatically lead to the conclusion that the charges against the said respondents no. 3 and 4 to the original petition were -not established. The learned judge went on to observe · that it would be a mockery of justice if the courts chose to close their eyes to the E · facts which _were brought· on record by the University by producing the original documents 'eic. The learned judge observed that it, in the facts and :circumstances of this case,' could reasonably be inferred that the alteration was dime at the behest of Nilangekar Patil, erstwhile Chief Minister and her daughter, Chandrakala Patil. It could not be overlooked, according to the _ j ' learned judge, that only these three were interested in 'securing favourable- ~ -F . result at the examination According to the learned judge. there were two _ contingencies which had to be taken into consideration. The first was that respondent no. 4, Smt. Chandrakala Patil, might have used the riame of her. father, the erstwhile Chief Minister to 'secure favourable result from Dr. Rawal and secondly, the appellant, the erstwhile Chief Minister might have used his office to obtain a favourable result for his daughter. Learned counsel on behalf G - of the original petitioner had urged before learned trial single judge that the third contingency could not be overlooked that it was probable that Dr. Rawal ------- on his llwn did all these. Learned trial judge rejected the third contingency as wholly improbable. He was of the view that Dr. Rawal was an experienced . 'examiner and he was not young or immature and it was impossible to accept_ - the view that .1 pe;..on like Dr. Rawal would proceed to do a criminal act and H tamper with the record of the examination on his own with a view merely to S.N. PATIL.v. DR. M.M. GOSAVI [MUKHARJI, J.] 471 --.:' please the people in power. No same person, according to learned judge, was A likely to take such risk unless he was prompted to do so and given an assurance of protection by the persons in power. The lear~ed judge was of the view that ' ,, ... J I \ the risk involved in what Dr. Rawal had do.ne was so enorljlOUS that it was difficult to conceive that he did it on his own. It was further urged by learned counsel before learned trial judge that respondent no. 4, Chandrakala Patil had failed in the examination on three previous occasions when her father was Law Minister and yet previously the said Nilangekar Patil, respondent no. 3 had not used his influence and power, therefore it was difficult to accept the position that he would do it on this occasion. This hypothetical question, according to the learned trial judge, overlooked the fact that every examiner was not necessarily obliging or subservient as Dr. Rawal was. The learned judge, therefore, concluded that the corollary of this finding was that Dr. Rawal had done it at the behest of either the appellant Nilangekar Patil or Chandrakala Patil or both of. them. Then the learned judge passed some strictures on Dr. Rawal and suggested some punishment and gave certain directions about examination of 12 other candidates whose results were also B c . affected by the conduct of Dr. Rawal. As these appeals are not concerned with D the same, it is not necessary to refer to these. The learned judge directed that . the result declared on 30th November, 1985 in respect ofrespondents nos. 4 to 15 be revoked and that there should be fresh examination by the other examiners. These appeals are also not concerned with such direction. It may be mentioned that an application was made before the learned trial judge for adducing certain additional evidence on behalf of the petitioner. As the learned trial judge thought that it would prolong the trial and for other reasons, he declined to admit the additional .evidence. As montioned hereinbefore there are three appeals filed namely appeal No. 214 of i986 by Dr. Rawal, appeal no. 215 of 1986 by Chandrakaia Patil and appeal No. 216 of 1986 by Nilangekar Patil. These appeals came up before a division bench consisting of Kania, Ag. C.J. Shah, J. of the Bombay High Court. By a judgment delivered on 16th June, 1986, these appeals were disposed of. So far as appeal No. 214of1986 by E F Dr. Rawal was concerned, the division bench found that some of the remarks against Dr. Rawal were too harsh and the punishment was too severe. They G directed that enquiry be held against him. These appeals. are not concerned with thi~. So far as appeal No.