LexNIDHI KAIM versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & OTHERS ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
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 equi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.