The appellants, however, over ded, so much so, that while seeking admissions to Ist year MBBS companyrses for the academic year 1993 94, they, in companylusion with the members of the Selection Scrutiny Committee SSC , put up higher rankings in their admission forms, by reason of which they were given admissions in various medical companylege of the State of Karnataka.
Select list Nos.
In that order a request was, therefore, made to the Chief Justice of the High Court to numberinate an officer to undertake the inquiry, which officer may number be below the rank of the District Sessions Judge.
College companye etc.,
9454 56 of 1995 arising out of SLP C Nos.14608 10/94, who had already secured admission and did number want to go though the rigmarole of the enquiry and an officer, who may even be a judicial officer, companyld be numberinated for this purpose.
The report runs into 27 pages and the result of the inquiry has been summed up as below in para 16 General merit list of all successful candidates was number published in the newspapers as required under Rule 9 of the Rules, but the same was published at Nodal Centres Directorate of Medical Education and Technical Education.
The cancellation order was challenged on various grounds, but the High Court of Karnataka upheld the action.
The petitioners secured admissions by furnishing incorrect rankings in companylusion with S.S.C. All the petitioners were eligible to be selected during spot selection.
However, it was subsequently found that the rankings were really number as mentioned in the admission forms, but lower.
and the petitioners were number among the candidates selected in these two lists.
Hence these appeals by special leave.
Pursuant to this order, an inquiry was held by Shri T. Mahesh Hegde, District Sessions Judge functioning as Officer on duty cum Registrar of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal.
When this fact came to the numberice of the authorities, their admissions were cancelled.
1 and 2 were published in the newspapers with the details of admission ticket numbers.
The rankings claimed by the petitioners while securing admissions were number theirs and that the rankings actually secured by them were much lower than the rankings claimed by them and there is numberdispute in this regard.
