U.N. BHACHAWAT, J.

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner, who was admitted in the Gajra Raja Medical College, Gwalior, for the M. B. B. S. Course vide Annexure R-IV dated 26th March 1981, and, subsequently, was expelled vide order dated 27th November 1981 (Annexure P-6), for quashing of this order (Annexure P-6).

(2.) The essential facts leading to the present petition and necessary for its decision are these : The petitioner was selected as a Scheduled Caste candidate and was admitted as such for the study of M. B. B. S. Course in the Gajra Raja Medical College at Gwalior vide Annexure R- IV dated 26-3-1981, Thereafter, on the complaint of some one, the Collector, Hoshangabad, made an enquiry on the question whether the petitioner, in fact, belongs to the Scheduled Caste- Khatik -or not On this enquiry, of which the petitioner had no notice, the Collector, Hoshangabad, found that the petitioner does not belong to the Scheduled Caste. On the basis of this report, the Dean, G. R. Medical College, Gwalior, vide Annexure P-6, was intimated that the petitioner be expelled from the College in case she had obtained the admission on the basis of her being a Scheduled Caste candidate, as, as per the enquiry report of the Collector, Hoshangabad, she has been found to be not belonging to the Scheduled Caste- Khatik. The Vice- Dean of the Medical College, accordingly, expelled the petitioner, as is indicated by his order on the back of Annexure P-6 itself.

(3.) The order (Annexure P-6) expelling the petitioner has been challenged on various grounds raised in the petition. Although the grounds raised in the petition, supplemented by a rejoinder, are quite populous, the learned counsel for the petitioner had planned down to the proposition that the order (Annexure P-6) is bad in law on the solitary ground that it has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. His submission had been that the foundation of the order (Annexure P-6) is the report of the Collector, which is Annexure R-VII, and that has, admittedly, been passed on an enquiry, that was made behind the back of the petitioner, inasmuch as the petitioner had no notice thereof.

(4.) The argument in counter had been that the admission of the petitioner, as is indicated by Annexure R-IV, was provisional; the order (Annexure P-6), in substratum, amounts to a refusal of admission and, as such, the order (Annexure P-6) is not justiciable; that even assuming that the provisional admission had subsequently ripened into an admission, the order (Annexure P-6) was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and is justiciable, still the petition deserves to be dismissed, as the documents on record unequivocally go to show that the petitioner does not belong to the Scheduled Caste- Khatik- on the basis whereof she had obtained the admission.

(5.) It may be stated that the learned counsel for the petitioner had in his argument in rejoinder, inter alia, contended that without prejudice to his contention that from the documents on record, it is transparently clear that the petitioner does belong to the Scheduled Caste- Khatik- the question whether the petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste or not, is a disputed question of fact, which should not be gone into in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, and the order (Annexure P-6), admittedly, having been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner either by the Dean or the Collector or any other authority, should be quashed and the matter should be remitted to the appropriate authority for making a confronted enquiry and then determining the question whether the petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste or not.

(6.) We may, before we proceed further, state that the learned counsel for the University, respondent No. 6 herein, had stated that the University does not take any stand either to oppose or support the petition, but, on being requested by the Court to make submissions with regard to the legal position, had made submissions, as, in his submission, emerged from the record.

(7.) We shall first proceed to consider the question whether the admission of the petitioner till the date of passing of the impugned order, i. e., Annexure P-6, continued, to be provisional or it had ripened into an admission.

(8.) The main plank of the State Government in support of the contention that the admission of the petitioner (Annexure R-IV) was provisional and continued to be so. Annexure R-IV, so far relevant, reads as under : *** *** *** Subject to fulfilment of the conditions laid down in Rules 4, 5, 6, 22 and 23 of the Rules for admission into Medical, Dentistry and Ayurvedic Colleges in M. P., you are hereby provisionally selected for admission to 1st Year MBBS/BDS Course in the Medical College, Gwalior. You are accordingly directed to report to the Dean, Medical College/Principal, Gwalior for admission latest by 6-4-1981 under intimation to this office and produce before him the required certificates in original under the said Rules. In case you fail to report to the Dean, Medical College, Gwalior within the specific time your selection shall be treated as automatically cancelled without further notice. It should also be noted that this submission is purely provisional and if after enquiry it is found that you do not belong to Scheduled Caste category or do not fulfil any of the conditions as per rule, you are liable to be expelled from the College. Sd /- R. K. Bhatnagar Controller, Board of Pre- Medical Examination, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. No. 1169 /PME/Adm./19-Bhopal, dated 26-5-1981. Copy to:

The Dean, Medical College, Gwalior for information and necessary action. Kum. Dolly Rani Shaha Roll No. 17761 is directed to report to you for admission latest by 6-4-1981. The intimation regarding his/her admission may please be sent immediately. His / Her application form and documents duly completed are being sent herewith, which may kindly be acknowledged. His / Her selection is provisional and is subject to verification of his/her documents (in original) which will be done by you to ensure that he / she fulfils ail the terms and conditions laid down in the Rules. In case the candidate fails to report within the specific time, he/she should not be allowed to join after the expiry of the due date and the fact should immediately be reported to this office for further necessary action. In case a student leaves the College and his name is removed from the College Roll, this office may please be informed accordingly. The list of students admitted may please be sent category-wise at weekly intervals till all the seats in your institution have been filled up. xxx xxx xxx ."

The State Government has in its return averred that the admission of the petitioner was provisional. To quote :

" xxx xxx Further, it may be mentioned here that admission of the petitioner in the Medical College was purely provisional. A copy of admission memo dated 26-3-1981 is appended as Annexure R/IV."

It is significant to note that the State Government has not averred that after the provisional admission of the petitioner vide Annexure R-IV, the Dean took steps in the matter of verification, that he was required to do, vide the latter part of Annexure R-IV, extracted hereinabove. Though in Annexure R-IV no time limit has been prescribed within which the Dean has to do the required verification, yet from the nature of things a duty is cast on the Dean to do it within a reasonable time. It cannot be gainsaid that the Dean knew that on the strength of the provisional admission granted vide Annexure R-IV, the petitioner was continuing her studies in the College and, as such, if the petitioner is to be told by the Dean that she was not eligible for admission, she should be told so at an early time. The reason is obvious : for a student studying in a College, every year of study matters in his life and career. If the student is not told within a reasonable time, his year would be wasted, as otherwise he can, on refusal of admission at an early stage, chalk out his plan so as to utilise that year of study. The question arises what can be the reasonable time within which the Dean may reject the provisional admission. It may be stated here that in the return of the State Government, nothing has been mentioned so as to provide a data for determining this reasonable time for verification. We, during the course of the arguments, put a specific query to the learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State to let us know the period within which this verification is generally being done. The learned Deputy Government Advocate regretted his inability to answer for want of instructions in that regard. He, however, submitted that it could be done any time during the academic session, and on such verification, if the student being found to be ineligible, he can be told that admission is refused to him. In our view, unless there is / are some special reason / reasons, it should be done within a month or two, so that, in the event of refusal of the admission, the student has an opportunity to plan his career so as not to waste that academic year. In the instant case, no special reasons have been pointed out. To accept the submission of the learned Deputy Government Advocate about the reasonable time will tantamount to encouraging and putting a premium on the callous indifference on the part of the Dean and allowing them to play havoc with the life and career of young students seeking admission into the portals of colleges. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the Dean having not done his duty of verifying the documents, as he was required to do under Annexure R-IV, and the petitioner having been allowed to continue her studies till she was expelled vide impugned order (Annexure P-6), her provisional admission had ripened into an admission. 8.01. This apart, from the following facts also, it is obtainable that the petitioner was admitted and her admission was not provisional on the date when the impugned order (Annexure P-6) was passed, rather she was recognised to have been admitted: (1) In the order (Annexure P-6) itself, if is admitted that the petitioner was admitted and it was not that her admission was continuing as provisional. To quote: "PRAVESH DIYA GAYA THA" ****** "KU. DOLLY SHAH KO IS MAHAVIDYA- LAYA SE TURANT NISHKASIT KIYA JATA HAI" ******* "TURANT NISHKASIT KIYA JATA HAI * * * * *". At this stage, it would be relevant to point out that in the Rules for admission, entitled as Rules for Admission into Medical, Dentistry and Ayurvedic Colleges in Madhya Pradesh, for the year 1980, the removal or expulsion of a student from the College is contemplated only when he is admitted. This will be borne out from Rules 7, 24 and 26 of the aforesaid Rules, which have been reproduced in these Rules for the year 1981 also. Rule 7 (so far relevant), Rules 24 and 26 read thus :

"7. *** *** *** If such an affidavit is found to be false or incorrect in any respect, the candidate concerned shall, in addition to any action that may be taken against his/her father, mother (or her husband) or guardian, as the case may be, be rejected for admission; or if he/she has already been admitted shall be removed from the college forthwith."

xxx xxx xxx

"24. Any false or incorrect statement in the application form shall disqualify a candidate for admission to the examination. Further, if the candidate is selected on the basis of any false or incorrect statement, he shall be liable to be removed from the College by the Deans of Medical Colleges or Principal of College of Dentistry or Principals of Ayurvedic Colleges, as the case may be, or by such authority as the State Government may specify."

xxx xxx xxx

"26. (1) If the Board has reason to believe that the certificate furnished in support of the categories mentioned in rule 7 are incorrect or incomplete it may reject the application for admission. (2) If the Board has reason to believe that the certificate issued by the Collector is not correct and the applicant is not a bona fide resident of Madhya Pradesh or does not belong to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, it may reject the application of candidate for admission to the Medical College, as the case may be, and, if admitted, may expel him. xxx xxx xxx"

From the fore-quoted Rule 7, a subtle distinction has to be marked that the rule making authority has used different expressions for refusal of admission and for removal after admission. To quote : for the former, "be rejected for admission" and, for the latter, "shall be removed." The accepted rule of interpretation is that unless a different intention appears in the context, the words should be assigned the same meaning throughout the statute or the rules. In view of this general rule of interpretation, as also from the reading of Rules 24 and 26, extracted hereinabove, it is obtainable that the words "removed" and "expel" are used in the context of removal or expulsion after admission. In this background, the use of the expression in Annexure P-6 "NISHKASIT KIYA JATA HAI" goes to show that the petitioner was admitted and, thereafter, she has been removed. (2) The impugned order (Annexure P-6) has not been passed as a result of the verification by the Dean as envisaged in Annexure R-IV. Had it been so, it could be said that it is a refusal of the admission under the terms of Annexure R-IV. Annexure P-6 has been passed as a result of the enquiry by the Collector, Hoshangabad, vide which he found that the petitioner does not belong to the Scheduled Caste "Khatik". (3) In the rejoinder paragraph 6, the petitioner in answer to the allegation of the State Government about her provisional admission stated as under:

"The respondents after verifying the original and satisfying fully, had admitted the petitioner."

The State Government has not denied this averment in the rejoinder of the petitioner in its returns.

(9.) In the light of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the petitioner was admitted in the College and her admission was not provisional on the date when the impugned order (Annexure P-6) was passed.

(10.) Now, the question is whether the impugned order (Annexure P-6) is vitiated having been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of being heard either by the Collector, Hoshangabad, who, on inquiry, vide Annexure R-VII, found that the petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Caste, or the authority, which, on the basis of Annexure R-VII, directed the Dean, vide Annexure P-6, to expel the petitioner, or the Dean, who in compliance with this direction ordered the petitioners expulsion. It can also not be gainsaid that the impugned order leads to civil consequences in deprivation of the petitioner of her right to study for the M. B.B. S. Course in the Government Colleges in the State. In this view of the matter, the principles of natural justice had to be followed in passing the order impugned.

(11.) However, on the facts of the instant case, we do not find any justification in this case for quashing the order impugned on the ground that it was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The foundation of the petitioners admission was her belonging to the Scheduled Caste- Khatik; whereas the petitioners own document and the basis of her being categorised as belonging to the Scheduled Caste - Khatik- reveal, as we shall presently discuss hereinafter that the petitioner is not a Khatik. We, therefore, do not see in a case like this that it would be of any useful purpose to the petitioner, if she was given an opportunity of being heard, since the petitioner claims to be of Khatik caste on account of her being a Sunri, which, according to her is a sub- caste of Khatik. 11.01. According to the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, in Part IX- Madhya Pradesh, at item No. 30 Khatik is included in the Scheduled Castes. In Part XIX relating to West Bengal, at item No. 57 Sunri (excluding Saha) has been included in the Scheduled Castes, and Khatik has been separately included at item No. 34. The purpose in mentioning all this is to indicate that the statutory order goes to show that Khatik and Sunri are two distinct castes and in Madhya Pradesh Sunri is not included in the list of Scheduled Castes in the said Order. It is significant to note that it is an admitted position that the petitioners father and so the petitioner are Sunris. The only question is whether Sunri is a sub-caste of Khatik. The fact that Sunri is not a sub-caste of Khatik is borne out from what we have said with regard to the entries of the Scheduled Castes hereinabove in Madhya Pradesh and West Bengal. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner by the learned counsel that it is a disputed question whether Sunri is a sub-caste of Khatik or not, which can be proved by leading evidence and, as such, it should not be decided in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution and, if the Court chooses to decide it, the petitioner be given an opportunity to lead evidence, as evidence is permissible to prove that Sunri is a sub- caste of Khatik. The argument is devoid of substance and is stated to be rejected. To iterate, the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, according to which alone it can be determined whether a particular caste in a particular State is a Scheduled Caste or not, has unequivocally made it clear that Sunri is not a sub-caste of Khatik. A question cannot be called to be a disputed question of fact merely because a fact, which cannot be disputed, has been denied by a party. To demonstrate, it is well recognised that 2+2 make four and if a party chooses to say that 2+2 do not make four, it would not be a disputed question of fact. Similarly, if there is a certified copy of a judgment showing a particular holding and if the other side were to dispute the judgment, that there was no such judgment, or that the particular fact alleged was not decided by the judgment, which is very clear from the reading of the judgment that it was decided, such a denial would not make the question a disputed question of fact, because under section 76 of the Evidence Act, a judgment stands proved by production of the certified copy thereof. So we again reiterate that in face of what we have said hereinabove, there is no disputed question of fact calling for evidence. We do not deem it necessary to discuss various decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his argument, that the petitioner is entitled to lead evidence to prove that Sunri is a sub-caste of Khatik, for the simple reason that they are quite distinguishable from the facts of the instant case. In the instant case, we have found that Khatik and Sunri are quite distinct castes and, as such, the question of leading evidence that Sunri is a sub-caste of Khatik does not arise. It would also be significant to state that as per Annexure P-12-A, a document relied upon by the petitioner, the origin of the petitioners family is from Bengal. To quote :

This further reinforces our conclusion that Sunri is a caste distinguished from Khatik in West Bengal; as is evidenced by the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. It would also be relevant here to point out that the petitioners father Devendra Kumar Shah, who is a railway employee, has, as indicated by Annexure R-V, instituted as Particular of Service, mentioned his caste and religion as Sunri and Hindu, and the Director for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, Government of India, vide his clarification (Annexure R-VI), clarified that in Madhya Pradesh there is no such community as Sunri which has been declared as Scheduled Caste. The matter being clinched by what we have said hereinabove, it is not necessary for us to go into other documents and discuss the arguments advanced in relation to them.

(12.) In the light of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the petition deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. We, however, make no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.