T. Nandakumar Singh, J.@mdashHeard Mr. O. Kiranjit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. Tarunkumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
2. This writ petition has a chequered history. The petitioners had already approached this Court a number of times by filing writ petitions for similar reliefs viz. for a direction to the resondents to declare the results of the petitioners for the B.Sc./B.A. Final Examination, 1998 held in the year 1999 under Roll Nos. 600086, 411056 and 600072.
3. The present petitioners had filed writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 951 of 2007 for the same relief i.e. for a direction to the respondents to declare the result of the petitioners for the B.Sc./ B.A. Final Examination, 1998 held in the year 1999. The said writ petition was disposed of by passing final order dated 22.12.2008 directing the respondents to pass appropriate order for disposing of the representations filed by the petitioners before the authority according to law within a month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment and order. For easy reference, the judgment and order of this Court dated 22.12.2008 is quoted hereunder
ORDER
Heard Mr. O. Kiranjit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. B.P. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. It is an admitted fact of both the parties that the present petitioners had earlier approached this Court by filing a writ petition i.e. W.P.(C) No. 1012 of 2000 against the present respondents for a direction to the respondents to declare the result of the final 3 Years Degree Course examination conducted in the year 1999. This Court had finally disposed of the writ petition i.e. WP(C) No. 1012 of 2000 by passing the final order dated 21.03.2001, the operative portion of which is read as follows :
8. In the view of the matter, the problem could be resolved in the following manner :
(i) the requisite fees of the petitioners and other similarly situated candidates for the year 1999 now remain with the Director Education (U) be remitted to the Controller of Examination, Manipur University, along with the application forms available in the College, of course on the formal written request made by him/them.
(ii) In case the application form is not readily available the petitioners and others willing candidates out of these aforementioned 62 candidates may be allowed to file fresh application along with the copy of forged admit cards to the Controller of Examination;
(iii) The Controller of Examination is to allow them to sit for the final examination of TDC to be held in 2001.
9. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of in the terms and conditions quoted above. No order as to costs.
Being aggrieved by the said order of this Court dated 21.03.2001 passed in WP(C) No. 1012 of 2000, the Writ Petitioners preferred an appeal being W.A. No. 43 of 2001 before the Division Bench of this Court and it has been dismissed with the observation that the applicants may file a representation before the authority and the authority shall consider the case of the appellants by giving a chance to the appellants for verification of the admit cards; and thereafter, the Authority shall announce the result, according to the result of Enquiry vide judgment and order dated 29.08.2001.
The present writ petition had been filed by the petitioner alleging that the respondents have not yet disposed the representation filed by the petitioner in pursuance to the judgment and order of Division Bench dated 29.08.2001.
In the above admitted factual background, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent to pass appropriate order for disposing of the said representation filed by the petitioner according to law within a month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment and order of this Court.
With the above observation and direction, writ petition is disposed of.
4. The authority concerned, in compliance of the direction of this Court in the judgment and order dated 22.12.2008 passed in WP(C) No. 951 of 2007, judgment and order of this Court dated 19.12.2009 passed in Contempt (C) Case No. 115 of 2002 and also order dated 29.08.2001 passed in WA No. 43 of 2001, passed impugned order dated 31.01.2009 to the effect that the Vice Chancellor, Manipur University was pleased to order that the petitioners cannot be treated as the candidates who appeared in the TDC IIIrd Year Examination, 1998 or in any subsequent year in view of the finding/report of the Fact Finding Committee on the 62 controversial candidates. The petitioners never turned up to the University authority for allowing them to appear in the TDC IIIrd Year Examination held in the year 2001 or in any subsequent year in pursuance of the said order of this Court dated 21.03.2001 passed in WP(C) No. 1012/2000. Thus the claim of the petitioners for declaring the result of the said examination cannot be acceded nor is it possible to do so as they did not appear in any examination whatsoever. Thus the representation dated 01.02.2007 submitted by the petitioners is disposed of and the case is closed once for all.
The impugned order dated 31.01.2009 (Annexure-A/20 to the writ petition) is quoted hereunder:
ORDER 307
Canchipur, dated the 31st January, 2009
MU/III/84/2002-Adm.1: Whereas, there was a controversy in regard to the actual appearing or not of as many as 62 candidates in the TDC IIIrd Year Examination 1998 held in the year 1999 which was without the knowledge and the approval of the Manipur University, in the Moirang College by candidates including Shri Maibam Somorendro Meetei, Shri Tongbram Sunil Singh & Mr. Ginsuanlal Samte.
And whereas on receipt of certain complainants, fact finding committee was constituted by the Govt. of Manipur to probe into the issue. The said Committee so constituted submitted its report wherein it was established that college authorities did not submit the Examination forms, fees, statement of candidates for the said 62 candidates to the University and the University authorites did not issue admit cards to the said controversial candidates. The said 62 candidates are therefore, unable to establish their rights to the candidature for having legally appeared at the TDC IIIrd Year Examination 1998 of the Manipur University from the Moirang College.
The said Committee further revealed that from the records of the Moirang College only 26 students including Maibam Somorendro Meetei and Tongbram Sunil Singh out of the said 62 controversial candidates had been admitted in the College. Out of the said 62 controversial candidates 31 candidates whose Roll numbers are 400057, 400585, 401121, 403010, 411114, 412768, 50064, 500871, 510343, 510646, 510772, 510849, 602424, 602427, 602428, 602341, 606343, 602344, 602363, 602364, 602367, 606369, 602346, 602347, 613075, 613081, 613100, 613119, 613178, 613181 and 614973 appeared in the TDC IIIrd Year Examination, 1999 which was held in the year 2000 and 2 (two) candidates whose Roll Numbers are 510664 & 613198 appeared in the TDC IIIrd Year Examination 2000 held in the year 2001 and rest of the candidates including the petitioners never turned up for appearing in the said examination.
And whereas, Shri Maibam Somorendro Meetei, Shri Tongbram Sunil Singh and Shri Ginsuanlal Samte jointly filed a Writ petition being Civil Rule No. 1012 of 2000 in the Hon''ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench praying for a direction to the Controller of Examinations, Manipur University to declare the result of the TDC IIIrd Year Final Examination conducted by the Manipur University in 1999.
And whereas, the Hon''ble Gauhati High Court vide the Judgment and Order dated 21.03.2001 disposed of the said Writ Petition with the following observation and directions.
(i) The requisite fees of the petitioners and others similarly situated candidates for the year 1999 now remain with the Director of Education (U) be remitted to the Controller of Examination, Manipur University along with the application from available in the college of Course, on the formal written request made by him/them.
(ii) In case the Application Form is not readily available the petitioners and others willing candidates out of these aforementioned 62 candidates may be allowed to file fresh application along with the copy of the forged Admit Cards to the Controller of Examinations.
(iii) The Controller of Examinations is to allow them to sit for the final examination of TDC IIIrd year to be held in 2001. In case additional case are required the respective candidates should pay the same to the University.
And whereas, being not satisfied with the said Judgement and order the said 3 (three) persons preferred Writ Appeal No. 42 of 2001 before the Division Bench of the Hon''ble Gauhati High Court. The Hon''ble Appellate Court dismissed the said Writ Appeal vide the order dated 29.08.2001. Besides dismissal the Appellate Court granted liberty for filling/submitting representation before the authorities concerend and the authorities concerned were directed to give chance to the said petitioners for verification of Admit Cards and thereafter to announce the result according to the rule of equity etc.
And whereas, after passing of the said order by the Appellate Court one of the consels who was/is practising under Shri S. Jayanta Singh, Senior Advocate submitted representation on behalf of the petitioners on 21.09.2001 to the Controller of Examinations, Manipur University praying inter alia to consider the case of the said petitioners sympathetically and declare the result of the B.Sc./B.A. Final Examination on payment of necessary fees.
And whereas, the said petitioners also submitted a representation on 01.03.2007 to the Controller of Examinations, Manipur University, praying inter alia to declare the result of the B.Sc./B.A. Final Examination, 1998 held in the year 1999 subject to the payment of necessary fees etc.
And whereas, the petitioner did not turn up to the University authorities with any Admit Cards for allowing them to appear in the TDC IIIrd Year Examination, 2001 and the subsequent years by giving necessary fees in compliance with the said judgment and order passed in WP(C) No. 1012/2000. On the other hand, the petitioners also failed to file/submit representations in compliance with the order passed by the Hon''ble Gauhati High Court in WA No. 432/2001 in time.
And whereas the said three persons namely, Maibam Somorendro Meetei, Tongbram Sunil Singh and Mr. Ginsuanlal Samte filed a Contempt petition being Contempt Case(C) No. 115 of 2002 in the Hon''ble Gauhati High Court by stating inter alia that the authorities concerned/ respondents therein failed to comply with the orders passed by the Hon''ble Gauhati High Court, the Hon''ble Gauhati High Court closed the said Contempt petition vide the order dated 19.122006.
And whereas, the petitioners again filed the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 951 /2007 with the similar relief/prayer to declare the result of the B.Sc./ B.A. Final Examination, 1998 held in the year 1999 in respect of Roll Nos. 600086, 411056 and 600072.
And whereas, the Hon''ble Gauhati High Court disposed of the said writ petiton to pass appropriate order as 11.12.2008 with the direction of the said representatin within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the said order.
Now, therefore, the Vice-Chancellor, Manipur University is pleased to order that the petitioners cannot be treated as the candidates who appeared in the TDC IIIrd Year Examination, 1998 or in any subsequent year in view of the finding/report of the Fact Finding Committee on the 62 controversial candidates. The petitioner never turned up to the University Authoriteis for allowing them to appear in the TDC IIIrd Year Examination held in the year 2001 or in any subsequent year in pursuance of the said order dated 21.03.2001 passed in WP(C) No. 1012/2000. Thus, the claim of the petitioners for declaring the result of the said examination cannot be acceded nor is it possible to do so as they did not appear in any examination whatsoever. Thus the representation dated 01.02.2007 submitted by the petitioner is disposed of and the case is closed once for all.
5. It is the case of the petitioners that after passing the B.Sc./B.A. (TDC IIrd Year) Examination conducted by the Manipur University in the year 1997 they appeared B.Sc/B.A. (TDC IIIrd Year) Examination through the Moirang College, Moirang held in the year 1999 under Roll Numbers 600086, 411056 and 600072 respectively. The Manipur University announced result of the said examination but result of the above 62 candidates including the petitioners were withheld. The Controller of Examination, Manipur University, Canchipur issued letter dated 2.6.1999 to the Principal, Moirang College, Moirang for explanation regarding non-submission of Examination forms of 62 candidates, but had already appeared in the said examination. In the mean time, the Principal, Moirang College in order to cover their fruits had written a letter on 28.10.1999 to the Controller of Examination, Manipur University for allowing those 62 students to appear in the re-examination of B.Sc./B.A. Final Examination.
6. In response to that the said letter of the Principal, Moirang College dated 28.10.1999, the Deputy Controller of Examination, Manipur University had written the letter dated 29.10.1999 to the Principal, Moirang College, Moirang stating that the University had no objection to allow them, if they fulfil the eligibility conditions laid down by the Manipur University. In the meanwhile, the Meitei Society, Churadhancpur submitted letter dated 04.11.1999 to the concerned authority i.e. respondents in the present writ petition for declaring result of the said Final B.Sc/B.A. (TDC IIIrd Year) Examination held in the year 1999. This Court passed order dated 21.03.2001 in WP(C)No. 1012 of 2000 filed by the present petitioners directing the respondents to remit the requisite fees of the petitioners to the Controller of Examination, Manipur University for doing the needful.
7. Being aggrieved by the said order of this Court dated 21.03.2001 passed in WP(C) No. 1012/2000 petitioners preferred WA No. 43 of 2001 before the Division Bench. The Division Bench also disposed of the said WA No. 43 of 2001 on 29.08.2001 by directing the petitoners to file representation to the concerned respondents and they shall consider case of the petitioners by giving change to the petitioners for verification of Admit Cards.
8. The respondents filed their affidavit in opposition wherein it is stated categorically that cases of the petitioners and other 59 candidates alleged to have appeared in the TDC IIIrd Year Examination 1998 from Moirang College had already been examined by a Fact Finding Committee, which was constituted on 01.07.1999, consisting of (1) Dr. Y. Mohendro Singh, Director, College Development Council, Manipur University -Chairman, (2) Shri H. Rajamani Singh, Deputy Controller of Exams, Manipur University -Member and (3) Shri N. Chura Singh, Joint Director (S/W), Director of Education (U), Government of Manipur--Member/ Convenor. The said Fact Finding Committee clearly found that the petitioners and 50 others were allowed to sit at the aforesaid examination i.e. B.Sc/B.A. (TDC IIIrd Year) Examination 1998 from the Moirang College, by a Dealing Assistant In-Charge of TDC Examination of Moirang College and their examination fees and centre fees, admission fees were never submitted to the Manipur University as the said amount were misused by the abovesaid Dealing Assistant (Shri I.K. Ibungo Singh). Their answer scripts were also not submitted to the Manipur University. Admit Cards were also supplied to them by the abovesaid Dealing Assistnat by forging the signatures of the issuing authorities. The said inquiry report was also furnished to the petitioners by annexing a copy of it as Annexure-B/1 to the affidavit in opposition filed by teh Registrar, Manipur University in Contempt (C) Case No. 115 of 2002 filed by the petitioners.
Despite having clear knowledge of existence of the said Fact Finding Committee''s report the petitioenrs did not mention the said report of the Fact Finding Committee in the present writ petition. Relevant portions of the report of Fact Finding Committee read as follows:
FINDINGS
The genesis of the case in brief is that the 62 controversial candidates deposited the examination fees, admission fees along with examination forms and admission forms to Shri K. Ibungo Singh, Dealing Assistant in-charge of the TDC examinations of the Moirang College. The Dealing Assistant should have put up the cases to the Principal of the College for onward submission to the University for issue of Admit Cards for appearing in the examination. In these cases, the Dealing Assistant did not put up the cases to the Principal. He, therefore, did not submit the examination forms and fees with his signatures to the University. However, the 62 candidates were allowed to appear in teh examinations by the college without the knowledge of the University. The Dealing Assistant forged the signatures of the Controller of Examinations and the Principal of the Moirang College on the columns provided in the examination forms the candidates accordingly appeared in the examination with the fake Admit Cards. The Principal had only obtained official permission from the University for 229 candidates for the TDC 3rd Year Examinations, 1998. Subsequently, the Controller of Examinations came to know that there were 62 candidates in excess of the permitted number of candidates by the University in different subjects. The Controller of Examinations, accordingly, called an explanation about the excess number of 62 candidates from the Principal of the Moirang College vide letter No. MU/Exam/Misc/99/2348 dated 02.06.1999. On receipt of the explanation from the Controller of Examinations, the Principal directed the Dealing Assistant of the College to explain the situation. The Dealing Assistant admitted that he allowed 62 candidates to sit at the examination without the knowledge of the Principal and the University. It was further revealed that the signatures of the Principal of the College and the Controller of Examinations. Manipur University on the examination forms were forged by the Dealing Assistant, Shri K. Ibungo Singh. It was also known froom the Office of the Directorate of Education (U), Government of Manipur that the Principal of College deposited a sum of Rs. 44,480/- (Rupees forty four thousand four hundred eighty) only as the examination fees, centre fees, admission fees etc. realised from th3e 62 candidates to the office of the Director of Education (U), Government of Manipur for safe custody. It is reported that this amount was surrendered by Shri K. Ibungo Singh, Dealing Assistant through Shri K. Ibotombi Singh, Librarian of the College to the Principal. Shri K. Ibungo Singh. Dealing Assistant of the College is the main culprit for all these problems. He had also admitted this fact in this explanation given to the Principal by him on 10.06.1999.
As regards the involvement of Shri M. Thambal Singh, Principal and Officer-in-Charge of the Moirang College Centre is concerned it is found that the Principal failed to make a detailed inquiry into the case of excess number of detailed inquiry into the case of excess number of candidates when the matter relating to the shortage of question papers was brought to him by Shri A. Sharatchandra Sharma, Selection Grade Lecturer who was the Assistant Officer-in-charge of the College Centre on 9.3.1999, the first day of the TDC 3rd Year Examinations, he also failed to report the matter immediately to the Controller of Examinations, Manipur University. The Principal, therefore, failed to discharge his duties as Officer-in-charge of the Examination Centre.
On Shri A. Sharatchandra Sharma, Selection Grade Lecturer of the College, it is stated that he was the Asstt. Officer-in-charge of the Moirang College Centre for the TDC 3rd Year Examinations, 1998 of the Manipur University. He was, therefore, in-charge of Confidential Matters relating to the examinations. He should know the total number of candidates appearing in different subjects according to the seat charts of the rooms where the examinations were held. If there were any discrepancies in relation to the number of candidates, he should have reported the matter to the Principal before the commencement of the examinations. Therefore, Shri A. Sharatchandra Sharma, Senior Grade Lecturer failed to discharge his duties as AOC.
Regarding the status of the 62 controversial candidates it is stated that the College authorities did not submit the examination forms, fees, statement of candidates for these 62 candidates to the University. The 62 candidates are, therefore, unable to establish their rights to the candidature for appearing at the TDC 3rd Year Examinations 1998 of the Manipur University from the Moirang College Centre.
9. The Apex Court in
20. It is not necessary to multiply authorities on this question since the matter has come up for consideration before this Court on earlier occasions. In
It is the settled position of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non est in the eye of the law. Such a judgment/ decree-- by the first Court, whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any Court even in collateral proceedings.
The Court went on to observe that the High Court in that case was totally in error when it stated that there was no legal duty cast upon the plaintiff to come to the Court with a true case and prove it by true evidence. Their Lordships stated: (SCC p.5, para 5).
The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parteis. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often that no. process of the court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax-evades, bank loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court process a convenient lever to retain the illegal gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.
21. In
No judgment of a court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything.
22. According to Story''s Equity Jurisprudence, 14th Edn., Vol.1, Para 263.
Fraud indeed, in the sense of a Court of Enquiry, properly includes all acts, omissions, and concealments which involve a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust, or confidence, justly reposed, and are injurious to another, or by which an undue and unconscientious advantage is taken of another.
(Emphasis supplied)
10. The Apex Court also in
The object underlying the above principle has been succinctly stated by Scrutton, L.J., in R.V Kensington Income Tax Commissioners: (1917) 1 KB 486, in the following words:
It has been for many years the rule of the Court, and once it is of the greatest importance to maintain, that when an application comes to the court to obtain relief on an ex parte statement he should make a full and fair disclosure of all the material facts-- facts, not law. He must not misstate the law if he can help it-- the court is supposed to know the law. But it knows nothing about the facts, and the applicant must state fully and fairly the facts, and the penalty by which the court enforces that obligation is that if it finds out that the facts have not been fully and fairly stated to it, the court will set aside, any action which it has taken on the faith of the imperfect statement.
(Emphasis supplied)
11. The Apex Court in
10. Although the prayer made in the four writ applicants are apparently different, having gone through teh writ applications, it became evident that the core issue in each of the matter centres round recovery of the amount advanced to the appellants by the bank. Evidently, orders passed at different stages of the proceedings as also new proceedings based upon fresh calculation of interest on the principal sum had been in question from time to time. As indicated hereinabove, even a public interest litigation was filed hereinabove, even a public interest litigatin was filed wherein also Appellant 2 was a party. Maybe that validity of Section 35-A of the U.P. Khadi and Villages Industries Board Act, 1960 was one of the issues raised therein but even the recovery proceeding was the subject-amtter thereof.
....
....
16. A writ remedy is an equitable one. A person approaching a Superior Court must come with a pair of clean hands. It not only should not suppress any material fact, but also should not take recourse to the legal proceedings over and over again which amounts to abuse of the process of law. In
12. From the above facts, it is crystal clear that the petitioners had clear knowledge that they appeared in the B.Sc./B.A. (TDC 3rd Year Exmaination), 1998 in the year 1999 under the forged Admit Cards and also their examination fees were not even forwarded to the Manipur University and also in spite of giving chance to appear in the re-examination of B.Sc/B.A. (TDC 3rd Year) Examination, petitioners opted not to appear in the reexamination but had approached this Court repeatedly for the same relief. More particularly in the present writ petition they did not disclose the fact that there is a finding of the Inquiry Committee that the petitioners appeared in the examination with the Fake Admit Cards.
13. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed.
