1. Challenging the orders passed by the respondents on 10-5-2010, canceling the admission and refusing to declare the result of petitioner with regard to the examination conducted for obtaining a Post Graduate Degree i.e. M.D. Pediatrics on the ground that petitioners initial admission to the medical education i.e. M.B.B.S. in the year 2000 was not in accordance to law, inasmuch as admission was granted to petitioner in a seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe Candidate, whereas now it has found that petitioner does not belong to such a category, this writ petition has been filed. Petitioner claims to be a member of caste Bhunjia" a scheduled tribe community. It is stated that she passed the higher secondary school examination in the year 1997 in first division and 12th class examination again in first division in the year 1999 and appeared in the Pre-Medical Test conducted by the appropriate Board and was granted admission in the M.B.B.S. Course in Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal vide admission memo Annexure P-3 dated 20-12-2000. Petitioner prosecuted her studies in question and passed her graduation examination i.e. MBBS from Gandhi Medical College Bhopal in the year 2005. Thereafter she completed her internship from the same medical college in the year 2006 and was registered as Doctor on 2-12-2006 by M.P. Medical Council, Bhopal. It is stated in the writ petition from para 5.6 onwards that the petitioner throughout has a brilliant academic career, passed each examination with distinction and the certificate received by petitioner are indicated in these paras. It is stated that after completing her MBBS course with flying colours she again appeared in Post Graduate Examination conducted in the year 2000 and secured 143.74 marks out of 200 marks and got admitted for M.D. Pediatric Course to the same medical college in a seat reserved for scheduled caste candidate. It is indicated in para 5.8 itself that she had secured first position in the reserved category, and in unreserved category she secured position at Sr. No. 33 as per merit list and even as general candidate based on merit she should have received admission in the post graduate course.

2. Be that as it may be. Petitioner completed her course of studies in M.D. Pediatrics, when the impugned action was taken for withholding her result vide Annexure P-12 dated 10-5-2010. Petitioner was informed that she does not belongs to a Scheduled Tribe category, therefore, her admission and induction to the MBBS course was not proper, accordingly action was proposed to be taken in the year 2010 i.e. more than 10 years after taking admission. It was indicated in the notice issued that petitioner is using the surname Gupta and as person belonging to Scheduled Tribe community does not use such a surname. In the meanwhile, challenging the aforesaid action before this Court, this Court passed an interim order directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in examination and declare her result. Petitioner participated in the examination and had passed the examination with first division. In the meanwhile the matter was referred to High Power Committee constituted by the State Government with regard to determination of her social status. The High Power Committee having submitted report adverse to petitioner, the petitioner amended the writ petition and challenge is also now made to the report of High Power Committee. Challenge to the report of M.P. High Power Scrutiny Committee is made merely on the ground that High Power Committee has conducted deliberation and thereafter finding is recorded on the basis of ipse dixit inasmuch as finding is recorded merely on the ground that petitioner is using word Gupta which does not belong to Scheduled Tribe and pointing out that on the basis of false caste certificate she had taken admission, adverse report is issued.

3. Be that as it may be. Shri Aditya Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that when petitioner was admitted to the course in question and when she passed MBBS course in the year 2005 thereafter when she completed her internship and got admission in the post graduate course and when she completed the said course also no objection was raised and now the impugned action is taken only because certain adverse report have been received with regard to her social status. Inviting my attention to certain principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Milind and Others, and subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court again in the case of R. Vishwanatha Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and Others, Shri Aditya Sanghi, learned counsel argued that action of the respondents cannot be sustained. He referred to para 38 of the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Milind (supra) wherein the following principles have been laid down:

The respondent joined the medical course for the year 1985-86. Almost 15 years have since passed. He is stated to have already completed the course and may be practicing as a doctor. In this view and at this length of time it is for nobodys benefit to annul his admission. Huge amount is spent on each candidate for completion of medical course. No doubt, one Scheduled Tribe candidate was deprived of joining medical course by the admission given to the respondents. If any action is taken against the respondent, it may lead to depriving the service of a doctor to the society on whom public money has already been spent. In these circumstances, this judgment shall not affect the degree obtained by him and his practicing as a doctor. But he cannot claim to belong to the Scheduled Tribe covered by the Scheduled Tribes Order. In other words, he cannot take advantage of the Scheduled Tribes Order any further or for any other constitutional purpose. Moreover, any appointments that have become final shall remain unaffected by the instant judgment.

4. Thereafter the aforesaid principle was again considered in the case of R. Vishwanatha Pillai (supra) and observations made in para 28 reads as under:

28. In this case we find that the appellant had joined Regional Engineering College in the year 1992. He completed the course of his studies in the year 1996 under the interim orders of (sic the High) Court which were subject to the final orders to be passed in the writ petition. No purpose would be served in withholding the declaration of the result on the basis of the examination already taken by him or depriving him of the degree in case he passes the examination. In terms of the orders passed by the Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Milind we direct that his result be declared and he be allowed to take his degree with the condition that he will not be treated as Scheduled Caste candidate in future either in obtaining service or for any other benefits flowing from the caste certificate obtained by him. His caste certificate has been ordered to be cancelled. Henceforth, he will be treated as a person belonging to the general category for all purposes.

5. Referring to aforesaid enunciation of law Shri Aditya Sanghi, learned counsel argued that in the light of facts and circumstances of present case which is identical to the situation that was existing in both the cases considered by the Supreme Court the petitioners result having been declared now a direction should be issued to issue the degree certificate and mark-sheet of the petitioner and petitioner can now be prohibited from taking the benefit of scheduled caste certificate in future.

6. Further placing reliance on subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Additional General Manager/Human Resource Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. Vs. Suresh Ramkrishna Burde, Shri Aditya Sanghi argued that the matter of granting benefit to person who have been admitted to professional course like Engineering and Medical Science, the Supreme Court has again reiterated the principle as laid down in the case of Milind and R. Vishwanatha Pilial (supra) and has made a distinction with regard to granting relief to the students who got distinction in professional courses in comparison to person employed by producing false caste certificate. Accordingly, Shri Aditya Sanghi argued that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner only wants a direction to be issued to the respondents in the light of law laid down in the cases referred to hereinabove.

7. Shri Rajesh Tiwari learned counsel refuted the aforesaid and places reliance on a judgment rendered by a Bench of this Court in the case of Vilas Kumar Bhugaonkar Vs. State of M.P. and Others, and contends that when benefit is acquired by a person by producing false caste certificate and when the cast certificate issued with regard to the social status of person concerned is itself found to be arbitrary and illegal, no further benefit based on such a invalid certificate can be granted to the person concerned, therefore, inviting my attention to the principles laid down in the case of Vilas Kumar Bhugaonkar (supra) Shri Tiwari prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record and considered the principles laid down in the cases relied upon by learned counsel for the parties.

9. On considering the facts of the present case it is clear that there is no dispute with regard to factual aspects of the matter, it is a fact that petitioner was admitted to the course in question in the year 2000 i.e. more than 13 years back, she has passed the M.B.B.S. Examination from Gandhi Medical College Bhopal and her academic career as available on record shows that she has passed various examination with distinction. It is also seen from the material available on record that petitioner was admitted to the post graduate course i.e. M.D. Pediatrics in the year 2010 on the basis of first division acquired by her in reserved category. That apart, if petitioners candidature in general category is considered, she would have at Sr. No. 33 in the general category and it is her case that even in general category she would have granted admission to the P.G. Course. Be that as it may be and fact remains that during this period of more than 13 years petitioner has completed the course, she is a qualified doctor now and has passed the course with high percentage of marks, as is indicated hereinabove. Therefore, the question warranting consideration is, whether now all the degree and qualification acquired by petitioner is liable to be quashed in the light of the fact that petitioners initial induction based on the invalid caste certificate is found to be unsustainable.

10. The question has been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Milind (supra) and further in the case of R. Vishwanatha (supra) as is indicated hereinabove. In the case of Milind (supra) in para 38 it has been held by the Supreme Court that once a candidate has joined the medical course about 15 years back, then in view of the public money and the time that has been spent in doing so. It has been clearly laid down in the order that canceling the caste certificate and infact the degree and qualification acquired by the candidate namely Shri Milind was permitted to stand and to practice in the profession on the basis of degree, however future benefits accruing by virtue of social status was directed to be curtailed or denied in future. This judgment in the case of Milind (supra) is again followed in the case of R. Vishwanatha Pillai (supra) and it has been held that no purpose would be served now after so many years by withholding the result, canceling examination or depriving the candidate from obtaining degree. The principle laid down in the case of Milind (supra) was followed and the candidate was curtailed from obtaining the benefit of the caste certificate in future i.e. either for obtaining service or for any other benefits flowing from the caste certificate. It is, therefore, clear that in the matter of obtaining professional degrees and seeking admission in professional courses in the cases as indicated hereinabove, the candidate were permitted to make use of the degrees and qualification acquired, the Honble Supreme Court not deemed it appropriate to cancel or undone the course of student and qualification acquired, instead by directing the authorities to permit the candidate to take the benefit and qualification acquired, the only prohibition imposed was that in future the candidate will not be entitled to the benefit of the reserved social status.

11. However, as pointed out by Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the State in the matter of seeking appointment in public service and while considering the question of continuing with the service earned by a person on the basis of false caste certificate a total different view has been taken. It is held by a Bench of this Court in the case of Vilas Kumar Bhugaonkar (supra) when a person is found to have secured appointment to a public service by producing false caste certificate which is found to be illegal his appointment can be cancelled. This principle will be applied only in the matter of cancellation of appointment to public service and not to case like the present one. In the case of Suresh Ramkrishna Burde (supra) the Supreme Court has considered the matter and a distinction has been drawn in the matter of obtaining employment on the basis of the false caste certificate and admission to professional course, this distinction has been made in para 11 which reads as under:

11. The principle, which seems to have been followed by this Court is, that, where a person secures an appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate, he cannot be allowed to retain the benefit of the wrong committed by him and his services are liable to be terminated. However, where a person has got admission in a professional course like engineering or MBBS and has successfully completed the course after studying for the prescribed period and has passed the examination, his case may, on special facts, be considered on a different footing. Normally, huge amount of public money is spent in imparting education in a professional college and the student also acquires the necessary skill in the subjects which he has studied. The skill acquired by him can be gainfully utilized by the society. In such cases the professional degree obtained by the student may be protected though he may have got admission by producing a false caste certificate. Here again no hard and fast rule can be laid down. If the falsehood of the caste certificate submitted by the student is detected within a short period of his getting admission in the professional course, his admission would be liable to be cancelled. However, where he has completed the course and has passed all the examinations and acquired the degree, his case may be treated on a different footing. In such cases only a limited relief of protection of his professional degree may be granted.

12. If the aforesaid principle of law is applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case it would be seen that the petitioner was admitted to the course in question in the year 2000. For a long period of time i.e. more than 10 years after seeking admission the falsehood of the caste certificate was not detected within short period of getting admission, the candidate, namely petitioner herein, has completed the course and has passed all the examination with distinction. That being so, the case of such a candidate, who has obtained admission to professional course like engineering or medical has to be treated differently from a person who seeks appointment on the basis of caste certificate. Accordingly, if the principle laid down in the case with regard to admission to the professional course and in particular the principle as followed in para 11 of the judgment rendered in the case of Suresh Ramkrishna Burde (supra) is applied to the facts and circumstances of present case. We see no reason as to why relief claimed by the petitioner limited to the extent of declaring the result and for issuing the degree certificate and mark-sheet cannot be allowed. The principle applicable in the case of securing appointment on the basis of false caste certificate as laid down in the case of Vilas Kumar Bhugaonkar (supra) and relied upon by Rajesh Tiwari will not be applicable in the present case, instead the principles laid down in the case of Suresh Ramkrishna Burde (supra) be applicable and if that is applied, the petition has to be allowed in part.

13. Accordingly, this petition is allowed in part, the order of the respondents in refusing to declare the result of petitioner as impugned in this writ petition i.e. order dated 10-5-2010 is quashed, as petitioners result has already been declared and petitioner has passed the examination in question. Respondents are, therefore, directed to issue to the petitioner the requisite mark-sheet and degree certificate and permit the petitioner to practice the profession for which she has acquired the necessary degree and skill. However, we did not deem it appropriate to interfere in the order passed by the High Power Committee instead we declare that petitioner henceforth should be treated as candidate belonging to general community and no benefit accruing to a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or reserved candidate be extended to the petitioner. With the aforesaid the petition stands allowed and disposed of.