JUDGMENT
Vineet Saran, J.
1. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the
order dated 11.11.2004 passed Principal, District Institute of
Education & Training, Robertsganj, District Sonbhaddra, Respondent
No. 3, by which the admission of the petitioner in the institute for
undergoing the course of B.T.C. has been cancelled. A further prayer
has been made for a direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents to permit the petitioner to pursue her
studies in the second year B.T.C. training course and to appear in
the final examination.
2. The main ground for cancellation of the admission of the
petitioner as set out in the impugned order is that in the admission
form the petitioner had declared that she had obtained 1143/!800
marks in B.A. examination which she claims to have passed from
Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur. After selection,
the marksheet submitted by her was also to the effect that she had
obtained 1143/1800 marks and on such basis she had got
admission. However, on verification of the said maiksheet from the
respondent-University it was found to be forged and fabricated. After
issuing notice to the petitioner on 29.10.2004, to which the petitioner
submitted her reply on 2.11.2004 and on consideration of the same,
the impugned order has been passed.
3. I have heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior counsel assisted
by Sri S.D.Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as
well as learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the Respondent Nos.
1 to 3 and Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of Respondent No. 4. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been
exchanged and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties
this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.
4. Nowhere in the writ petition has it been stated that in the form
submitted by the petitioner filled up by her at the time of seeking
admission she had not declared that she had obtained 1143/1800
marks although that was the specific ground for canceling her admission. It has also not been stated in the writ petition that she had not produced the mark sheet showing that she had obtained
1143/1800 marks on the basis of which she had got admission. In
paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit filed by the State-respondents it
has been specifically averred that the petitioner herself filled up the
data sheet in her own hand-writing and made the declaration that
she had secured 1143 marks out of 1800 marks. There is no specific
denial of the said assertion of the respondents.
5. The case of the petitioner now is that she had passed the B.A. Examination from Rajkiya Snatkottar Mahavidyalay Obra Sonbhadra affiliated to Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur and had obtained 809 out of 1800 marks and even if such marks are taken into account, she would be selected for undergoing the B.T.C.
course and as such there is no justification for canceling her
admission. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-University,
although it is accepted that the petitioner has passed B.A. with
809/1800 marks but it is categorically stated that the marksheet
which had been submitted by the petitioner and had been sent to the
University for verification was forged and fabricated as no such
marksheet had ever been issued by the University.
6. The petitioner is seeking admission in a course after which she
would be appointed as a teacher, which is a noble profession. It being
not denied anywhere in the writ petition that she had filled up the
form stating that she had obtained 1143/18000 marks and had
submitted a marksheet supporting the same, which was ultimately
found to be forged and fabricated, such person should not be allowed
to undergo teacher’s training. When the very foundation of seeking
admission is on the basis of forgery, even if such a candidate is
eligible for admission on the basis of her correct marksheet, the same should not be permitted. It appears that the petitioner had submitted the forged marksheet showing that she had obtained very high marks only in order to ensure and guarantee her admission. She did not
want to take a chance of being denied admission on the basis of her
actual marksheet as she had actually obtained much lesser marks on
which basis she may or may not have been selected for admission in
the B.T.C. course but she knew that on the basis of the fabricated
marksheet. she would be assured of admission.
7. As such, in the aforesaid circumstances the petitioner would
not be entitled to any indulgence by this Court, specially in its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. For a petitioner to be entitled to the relief under this
jurisdiction, she is not only expected to show that law is in her favour
but that equity is also in her favour. In the present case, may be the
petitioner would be entitled to admission on the basis of her correct
marksheet but in the present case, equity being totally against her,as
she had initially approached the authorities for admission on the
basis of forged and fabricated marksheet and giving wrong
declaration, she would not be entitled to any relief.
8. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No order as to cost.
