See Case Details of AIIMS in HighCourt of Delhi about NOT Cancelling Exam (Merely on apprehensions)

See Case Details of AIIMS in HighCourt of Delhi about NOT Cancelling Exam (Merely on apprehensions) 

 हाईकोर्ट -  सिर्फ डर की वजह से की बड़े पैमाने पर गड़बड़ी हुई है  से / कुछ आरोपों के कारण पूरी परीक्षा रद करना ठीक नहीं

N  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  DELHI  AT  NEW  DELHI
+  W.P.(C) 638/2012 and CM 1375/2012
Decided on: 10th February, 2012
IN THE MATTER OF DR. PRASHANT DASS AND ORS.     ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. O.P. Gulabani, Advocate
versus
UOI AND ORS.      ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Asit Tiwari, Advocate for R-1/UOI. Mr. Mehmood Pracha, Advocate with Mr. Sumit
Babbar and Mr. Sahil Singh Chauhan, Advocates for  R-2/AIIMS.



CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI



HIMA KOHLI, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition is filed by five petitioners praying inter alia for quashing of the All India Post Graduate Medical Entrance Exxamination-2012 (in short ‘the ÁIPGMEE-2012), held simultaneously in 156 centres all 
over the country on 08.01.2012. The petitioners have also sought directions to respondent No.2/AIIMS to evolve a mechanism to prevent recurrence of such an incident of cheating in the entrance examination, which occurred in a Centre at Noida, as noted in the press clippings.
2. On  31.01.2012, counsel for respondent No.2/AIIMS had stated on instructions that a letter dated 24.01.2012 had been addressed by the Sub-Dean (Examination), AIIMS to the Director General, Directorate General of health Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of

India, stating  inter alia that the incident of cheating in respect of the All India Post Graduate Medical Entrance Examination-2012 held on 08.01.2012 was found to have occurred only at one examination centre situated at Noida and that the Centre Supervisor at  the said  centre had submitted a comprehensive report, which was in turn forwarded for investigation to the Crime Branch, Delhi Police.  The report of the investigation was awaited. In the report dated 10.01.2012 prepared by the Centre Supervisor at the Noida Examination Centre, a mention was made of three candidates from whose possession, some electronic gadgets were recovered by the police after investigation. Though  on the last date,  it was stated by the counsel for  respondent No.2/AIIMS that apart from the aforesaid stray incident that took place only in one centre at Noida and the examinations in all the remaining 155 examination centres were held peacefully and without any hindrance, respondent No.2/AIIMS was directed to file a brief affidavit in that regard.




3. An affidavit has been filed by respondent No.2/AIIMS on 08.02.2012, wherein it is stated that the entrance examination in all the centres all over the country had  commenced at 10 AM on 08.01.2012 and
that the examination went on smoothly at all centres except at  the  Noida centre situated at Vishwa Bharti Public School, Arun Vihar, Sector-28.  When the examination was in progress at the aforesaid centre, at about 10:20 AM, out of the two invigilators in the Noida centre, one invigilator had reported


that one candidate possessed a mobile phone, which was subsequently confiscated and handed over to the Centre Supervisor, who in turn informed the AIIMS examination control room about the incident.  At 11:30 AM on the same date, four officers from the Crime Branch, Delhi Police came to AIIMS with the scanned copy of the questions so as to verify  as to whether the questions in the scanned document matched with the original booklet of AIPGMEE-2012.  Upon scrutiny of the documents, it was observed that 2-3
pages of the question booklet appeared to have been scanned, which also contained the images of a ball pen that is supplied by AIIMS for use by the candidates appearing in the said examination.   Later on, it was revealed that the AIIMS representative, who was supervising the Noida Centre,  had deposited a seizure report of the mobile phone that had been seized from a candidate and the said phone was in turn handed over to the Crime branch officials, who  had  visited the centre later  on  and had apprehended the
candidate found to be cheating in the examination.   It is further averred in the affidavit that the Crime Branch, Delhi Police has interrogated the said candidate and two other candidates and some electronic gadgets were recovered    by the Crime Branch from all the three candidates. It is stated that the matter continues to remain under investigation of the Crime Branch, Delhi Police.




4. In view of the averments made in the aforesaid affidavit filed by respondent No.3/AIIMS, it is apparent that the incident of cheating is found to have occurred on 8.1.2012 only at one examination centre and that too in a centre which  was  situated at Noida, where  a  mobile phone  is stated to have been recovered from one candidate and some electronic gadgets were recovered from two candidates.  Apart from the aforesaid incident, the AIPGMEE-2012  appears to have been conducted peacefully all over the remaining 155 examination centers.  A total number of 71,968 candidates are stated to have applied for  sitting in  the aforesaid examination and 69,069 candidates had actually appeared in the said examination.  It is also pertinent to note that the examination centre of none of the five petitioners herein was situated at Noida.  Rather,  upon inquiry, the Court is informed that  the centre from where petitioner No.1  had sat for taking his examination was located  at Rajouri Garden, that of petitioner No.2 was at JNU Centre, that of petitioner No.3 was at Vivek Vihar, that of petitioner No.4 was at Tagore Garden and that of petitioner No.5 was near Karkardooma Courts.




5. Merely  an  apprehension expressed by the petitioners that they would suffer irreparable loss and injury in the event of a scam, which scam is  under  investigation by the Crime Branch,  Delhi Police, cannot be considered as sufficient  ground for quashing  the AIPGMEE-2012 held on 08.01.2012 for 69,069 candidates all over the country. When the magnitude of the aforesaid incident is still unknown and the investigations are on, the present petition can only be termed as  one based on surmises and conjectures.  As a result, the present petition is  dismissed along with the pending application, as being premature and without any basis.



(HIMA  KOHLI)
JUDGE

FEBRUARY  10, 201



Info Source : http://lobis.nic.in/dhc/HK/judgement/18-02-2012/HK10022012CW6382012.pdf