2 and requested him that Dr. Mrs. Chandrakala Patil had appeared several times for M.D. Examination Obs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. These two special leave peti tions arise out of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the appeal No.
The theory papers 1 to 111 companysist of three questions each.
In paragraph 14 it was alleged that after these irregularities came to light, the petitioner in the original petition had started enquiring.as to the way in which respondent No.
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark sensed Marcellus in Scene V of Act 1 in Shakespeares Hamlet.
R. Dhanuka, V.M Tarkunde, and Dr. L.M. Singhvi, Pramod Swarup, Milind Sathe, P.N. Gupta, P.C. Srivastava, U.S. Prasad, A.M. Singhvi, C. Mughopadhaya, Raian Karanjawala, Mrs. Manik Karanjawala, Hardeep S. Anand, Ejaz Moqbool, S. Radhakrishn anand Surya Kant for the appearing parties.
The appellant Shri Shivajirao Nilengekar Patil filed an affidavit denying the allegations in para graphs 14 and 25 of the application stating that he had played numberpart in the said examination as alleged or other wise.
Leave as asked for is granted in both and appeals arising therefrom are disposed of by this judgment.
It was alleged that the respondent No.
4452 53 of 1986 From the Judgment and Order dated 16.6.1986 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No.
214 of 1986 by Dr. Rawal was companycerned, the division bench found that some of the remarks against Dr. Rawal were too harsh and the punishment was too severe.
216 of 1986.
The University had appointed four paper setters and examin ers in accordance with the necessary provisions of the Act, two of which were internal examiners, namely Dr. M.Y. Rawal as mentioned hereinbefore and one Dr. S.N. Mukherjee from Indian Navy.
The petitioner thereafter learnt that one Sree P.K. Shah who happened to be a good friend of Dr. M.Y. Rawal, respondent No.
Chandrakala Patil is the daughter of the appellant, the erstwhile Chief Minister of Maharashtra.
The said appeal No.
Dr. Mishra claimed that he went to Dr. Rawal to enquire and he numbericed that respondent number 4 was sitting in the doctors chamber.
The petitioner also learnt that the said Dr. P.K. Shah and Dr. Y. Rawal though number permitted by Rules and Regulations had been practising in Zaveri Clinic for Dr. C.L. Zaveri, since long time, and thus they became dose friends.
There were two external examiners who were Dr. Mrs. A. Nafeesa Beebi from Madras and gr.
Such claim for introduction of additional evidence, was, however, number entertained by the Division Bench.
The setting aside of the results of Smt.
It was further the case of the petitioner that due to some reasons the petitioner had numbergood terms with the said respondent No.
The learned judge numbered after setting out the gist of the allegation in paragraph 14 of the petition that the averments made in that paragraph were wholly unsatisfactory and insufficient because the petitioner to the writ petition and the respondent herein had number disclosed from whom he had learnt what he had averred.
The learned single judge numbered that 37 candidates had been declared successful including respondent No.
4 to the original petition and one Dr. Mrs. Smita Thakkar who was respondent No.
The M.D. theory examination in the instant case was held between 14th October and 17th October, 1985 and was followed by practical examination which was held between 4th November and 9th November, 1985.
In view of this, the Division Bench had asked the learned companynsel for the appellant Shri Dhanuka, whether the appellant desired that there should be a full fledged factu al enquiry into the charges of the alteration of the grades of respondent number 4 having been altered as aforesaid with a view to pass respondent number 4, Smt.
No affidavit was filed by the peti tioner himself.
Our attention was drawn to the fact that in the affida vit in support of the petition one Dr. Manikant Mishra had stated that he had approached Dr. Rawal to find out whether his wife had appeared in the said M.D. examination and it was alleged that on this occasion he had over heard certain alleged companyversation between Dr. Rawal and Smt.
As the learned trial judge thought that it would prolong the trial and for other reasons, he declined to admit the additional evidence.
He and Smt.
Chandrakala Patil also denied the meeting that transpired between her and Dr. Rawal.
The necessary verification has been set out hereinbefore.
It is number necessary to deal in more detail with the 7actual aspects which as mentioned hereinbefore have been exhaustively set out in the judgment of the learned single judge, and which were number disputed before us by any of the parties.
On the said 18th November, 1985, the meeting was attended only by Dr. Rawal as Dr. Mukherjee, another companyxaminer was number available at Bombay.
216 of 1986 was disposed of accordingly.
The learned judge observed that it, in the facts and circumstances of this case, companyld reasonably be inferred that the alteration was done at the behest of Nilangekar Patil, erstwhile Chief Minister and her daughter, Chandrakala Patil.
The first appeal was filed by the appellant Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil who was at the.
The petitioner stated that he had some doubts as to whether his companye number was properly decoded and he made various other allegations.
On 16th June, 1986, the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in appeal No.
These appeals came up before a division bench companysisting of Kania, Ag.
There are three points involved in these two appeals.
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 affected by the companyduct of Dr. Rawal.
3 in the original petition and the appellant herein after receiving this message from the respondent No.
It was further asked to declare those students who secured upto any number of P minus to be passed.
3 and 4 to the original petition were responsible for getting Dr. Rawal to alter the grades aforesaid was based on certain companytingencies.
According to the division bench, the reasoning of the learned trial judge in companying to the companyclusion that respondent Nos.
It was further stated that it was learnt that the respondent No.
The Division Bench, however, in its judgment numbered that the appellant was party to the writ petition and had an opportunity of explaining and defending himself.
Dr. Chandrakala Patil alias Dawale, a Junior Assistant Medical Officer in the said K.E.M. Hospital, Bombay, who was re spondent No.
4 and from Dr. P.K. Shah accordingly companytacted respondent No.
The petitioner incidentally verified the petition stat ing that the companytents of paragraphs 1 to 22 and paragraphs 24 to 30 were true to his own knowledge while various other relevant paragraphs were verified as information received from reliable sources but the source was number disclosed.
Dr. Shah had claimed that he had never companytacted Dr. Rawal in companynection with the examination of respondent number 4 and so was the claim of respondent number 4 and of Dr. Rawal.
216 of 1986.
Such additional evidence were sought to be introduced as part of the claim of public interest litigation because it involved the companyduct of the Chief Minister in respect of the affairs of the University.
2 also told the said Dr. K. Shah that he would companye to know about the result only after the submission of the grade sheet to the University because thereafter only one would know the position with regard to the names of the students who have failed and till that time he would number know.
relevant time the Chief Minister of the State Maharashtra and the second one was filed by Dr. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi, the applicant in the original writ petition out of which appeal ultimately came to the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court resulting in Civil Appeal No.
4 5, but if such an enquiry was held, the person designated to hold the enquiry should be selected with the companysent of the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court.
The petitioner had claimed that he had been working as a junior Assistant Medical Officer and that he had done his housemanship in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at K.E.M. Hospital Respondent No.
The Division Bench also upheld the finding of the learned single judge that there was tampering with the grade sheets.
No appeal had been preferred to this Court from the said decision, So far as appeal No.
The Division Bench also uphold the finding that Dr. Rawal was mainly responsible for the same.
The petitioner, Dr. Gosavi was declared to have failed.
2 i.e. Dr. Rawal was the Head of the Department of the same.
S.T. Watwe of Sangli.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
In the judgment of the learned trial judge, it was unsafe to place any reliance on the words of Mishra.
On 30th November, 1985 the result of M.D. exami nation was declared.
A prayer was made before the Division Bench for deletion of such remarks.
In these circumstances the petitioner claimed that the results declared in respect of some of the candidates declared failed should have been declared passed.
3 in this writ petition.
The petitioner had claimed that he had wrongly been declared as failed.
We have perused the nature of the additional evidence which were sought to be adduced as is apparently from the special leave applica tion by Dr. Gosavi, the original petitioner in the writ petition and the respondent in the first appeal herein.
The appellant in his affidavit dated 26th January, 1986 had stated that Dr. Shah did number send any message number did be companytact Dr. Rawal at any stage.
There is an application for introduction of additional evidence.
One Dr. Y. Rawal was the head of the Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics in the said hospital and was the companyvener of the Board for the said examination.
The companytroversy in this case centers round the companyduct, if any, of the appellant in the first appeal in the M.D. Theory examination in the discipline of Gynaecology and Obstetrics held by the University of Bombay on 14th to 17th October, 1985.
In order to companysider the same must be examined in little de tail.
In that subject, the practical examination was held by the University at K.E.M. Hospital, Bombay.
4 and respondent number 5 in the writ petition namely Chandrakala Patil and Dr. Smita Thakkar.
3 in the original petition but that would number automatically lead to the companyclusion that the charges against the said respondents number 3 and 4 to the original petition were number established.
On 15th November, 1985, a circular was issued by the Univer sity of Bombay companyvening a meeting of local examiners for the final isation of M.D. results on 18th November, 1985.
216 of 1986.
5 were three candidates amongst others who had appeared for the examination.
The appellant was at the relevant time the Chief Minister of Maharashtra.
4 being Chandrakala Patil and respondent No.
4 to pass the M.D examination can the same be justified either as a finding of fact or as a companyment?
The special appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner against the appellant challenging the findings respectively.
10665 of 1986 by the original petitioner are before this Court.
The total number of candidates registered for the examination was 52 of which 5 remained absent.
A prayer was made in the writ petition filed in the High Court for producing grade sheets.
Respondent No.
One Dr. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi, original petitioner, who was at the relevant time Assistant Medical Officer of E.M. Hospital, Bombay was the petitioner.
The learned judge went on to observe that it would be a mockery of justice if the companyrts chose to close their eyes to the facts which were brought on record by the University by producing the origi nal documents etc.
216 of 1986 before the divi sion bench was companycerned, the learned judges pointed out after discussing the evidence and the principles of law that there was numberdirect evidence that the alterations in the grades of Chandrakala Patil were made at the instance of the appellant.
An effort was made by the original petitioner, respondent herein to establish by direct evidence the link between Dr. Rawal and respondent number 4 by relying upon the evidence of one Dr. Mishra sworn on 28th February, 1986.
IV is of Essay.
The petitioner stated that the University had declared examination programme and the petitioner thereafter had appeared for the said M.D. exami nation in the month of October November, 1985.
An affidavit was filed claiming the right to adduce certain additional evidence and introducing certain writings from the magazine INDIA TODAY etc.
These appeals are also number companycerned with such direction.
a decision in which the judgment was delivered by one of us S. Natarajan, J. The High Court observed that the remarks made against the appellant, Nilangekar Patil cannot be supported as companyclu sions arrived at against him but these can be regarded as companyments and number finding of fact and such companyments were number wholly unjustified in the facts of this case.
C.J. Shah, J. of the Bombay High Court.
7568 of 1986 filed by Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil against the alleged adverse remarks and the other arising out of Special Leave Petition Civil No.
Smita Thakkar was also upheld.
It transpired later that Mrs. Kalpna Misra wife of the said Manikant Misra was number even registered as a candidate.
There were materials on record bearing on his companyduct justifying the remarks which the Division Bench characterised as companyments and number findings.
Out of the 47 candidates who had ap peared for the examination, 34 candidates were declared successful including Dr. Chandrakala Patil alias Dawale and Dr. Mrs. Smita Thakkar.
They directed that enquiry be held against him.
The theory examination companysists of four papers, of which paper No.
214 of 1986 by Dr. Rawal, appeal number 215 of 1986 by Chandrakala Patil and appeal No.
Chandrakala Patil, daughter of the Chief Minister.
The learned judge directed that the result declared on 30th November, 1985 in respect of respondents number.
So far as the learned trial judge, held that the same was done at the behest of the erstwhile Chief Minister, the same was number upheld as a finding of fact but remarks to that fact made by the learned trial judge were number interfered with.
The allegations had been made against the appellant in paragraphs 14 and 25 of the petition.
2 also informed the said Dr. P.K. Shah that he would take the risk only if the Chief Minister gave him a telephone ring otherwise he would number.
So far as appeal No.
but companyld number get through and therefore she should be shown some favour.
The practical clinical examination companysists of a long and short case in obstetrics and a long and short case in Gynaecology and Viva.
As mentioned hereinbefore an affida vit was filed by one Dr. Manikant Mishra on 28th February, 1986 in support of the allegations.
Dr. Mishra had claimed that his wife who is a doctor had left home to appear in D. examination in November, 1985, but subsequently the wife declined to answer as to whether she had appeared or number.
Chandrakala Patil and Smt.
To that extent the finding of the learned single judge was upset.
Upon these, a petition was filed by Dr. Gosavi under article 226 of the Constitution of India in the High Court of Bombay.
As the additional evidence were number admitted and the appellant in the first appeal herein had numberopportunity to deal with the same, it would number be, fair to take these allegations into companysideration.
After discussing all these aspects in detail at the companycluding paragraph 15 of the judgment, the learned judge had observed that he had numberhesitation in companycluding that Dr. Rawal was responsible for manipulating the result by tampering with and altering the grade sheet so as to favour respondent No.
Two appeals one arising out of Special Leave Petition Civil No.
In the appeal by the original petitioner an affidavit had been filed in this case claiming the right to adduce additional evidence.
By a judgment delivered on 16th June, 1986, these appeals were disposed of.
As mentioned hereinbefore there are three appeals filed namely appeal No.
In the petition under, article 226 of the Constitution filed before the High Court of Bombay on 16th January, 1986 Dr. Gosavi challenged the results declared in the said examination.
The alleged source of information was number disclosed at any time.
It was further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had companypleted all the requirements and companyditions for ap pearing for the M.D. examination.
2 and requested him to favour his daughter.
The High Court referred to the decision of this Court in Niranjan Patnaik v. Sashibhu shan Kar and Another, 1986 2 SCC 569.,
4 as they were together as the assistant medical officers at K.E.M. Hospital, Bombay.
2 had companymitted these irregularities.
The learned judge, therefore, companycluded that the companyollary 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.
There are several allegations made by the petitioner about the irregularities and it was further alleged, inter alia, that the grade sheets were manipulated and tampered with as a result of which the said Dr. Chandrakala Patil and Dr. Smita Thakkar were passed by respondent No.2 Dr. Rawal at the instance and behest of respondent number 3 in that petition, the appellant in the first appeal, being the Chief Minister of Maharashtra at the relevant time.
The theory papers are assessed by individual examiners and the grades are allotted in respect of each question in each paper n accordance with the provisions set out in the numbere giving special instructions to the examiners in the Faculty of Medicine.
In paragraph 25 of the petition, the petitioner stated as follows The petitioner states that on the basis of information from reliable source, the peti tioner has made allegations on Chief Minister of Maharashtra, therefore, he has been made respondent No.
216 of 1986 by Nilangekar Patil.
The learned judge came to the companyclusion that Dr. Rawal alone was responsible for tampering with and altering the tabulat ed grade sheet of theory examination.
4 to 15 be revoked and that there should be fresh examination by the other examiners.
Chandrakala Patil was tampered with at the behest of the appellant, Shivajirao Nilangekar Patil, respondent No.
The respondent No.
4 of the original petition, Smt.
The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court rejected the prayer to adduce the additional evidence.
The position that grades were altered was upheld by the division bench.
4 about her poor performance in the examination and suggested that he companyld do something only if her father, the Chief Minister, gave any message.
It was also stated in the aforesaid affidavit that the petitioner has number disclosed the so called reliable sources of information.
It is also learnt that on behalf of Dr. Mrs. Chandrakala Patil, who is the daughter of erstwhile Chief Minister of Maharashtra the said P.K. Shah met respondent No.
These were the only allegations upon which the petition was factually based.
2 in the original petition and also happened to be a good friend of respondent No.
The learned single judge further numbered that the allegations were number only denied by Dr. Rawal, Dr. Shah and Chandrakala Patil but also by the Chief Minister, the appellant, on oath by filing affidavit.
215 of 1986 preferred by Chandrakala Patil was companycerned, the same was dismissed with numberorder as to companyts.
He prayed that the record of grade sheet submitted to the University of Bombay by all the four examiners of M.D. in Obstetrics and Gynae companyogy examination, necessary papers and rules and regula tions, should be produced and to set aside the result of the D. examination to the extent that those students who had secured P minus grade be disqualified.
The University of Bombay companyducts M.D. examinations, inter alia, in the disciplines of Obstetrics and Gynaecology in the Faculty of Medicine.
2 informed the said Dr. P.K. Shah that he would definitely favour Dr. Mrs. Chandrakala Patil if she failed, provided the Chief Minister himself phoned him personally.
The petitioner had passed the MBBS examination in April, 1981 and after companypletion of internship got registra tion for M.D. Obstetrics and Gynaecology in June, 1982.
So far as appeal No.
It was learnt that the respondent No.
