• Trial Judge giving orders against the Judgment of the High Court!

When a result of the B.Tech examination of the University was declared in 2012, of the 68 students 27 failed, 23 scored exactly 40 marks (minimum for pass).  The matter was taken up with the University. No action for 5 months in spite of clear directions from the Vice-Chancellor to place it before the sub committee of the syndicate.  Finally, the Standing Committee of the Syndicate (without quorum - only one member attended the meeting) decided to reject the request of the students.  The matter was discussed with the Advocate.  The High Court Advocate advised to file another representation before the Vice-Chancellor as there was no quorum and all the facts were suppressed from the Sub Committee which considered the issue.  Accordingly, the Vice-Chancellor was represented again.  The Vice-Chancellor, after considering the issue and noting that this much students are filed and the average marks of two batches of students were 66 : 26, he ordered a re-examination after consulting the Pro-Vice-Chancellor.  

By the time, myself joined as PA to the Pro-Vice-Chancellor against the wishes of the Union(s) of the University.  My daughter was also one of the victims of the examination. The Unions opposed the conduct of examinations.  My daughter approached the Hon'ble High Court.  When the matter came for consideration, the University Unions NOT to bring to the notice of the High Court the absence of quorum and the suppression of material facts including the failure of 27 students and another students scoring exactly for marks, non-conduct of supplementary exam in spite of completion of course, through the counsel of the University informed the Court that they are ready to conduct the re-examination within 10 days.  This was recorded by the High Court and accordingly the re-examination was conducted.
After that, the results were withheld  under the pressure of the Unions.  Another student approached the High Court and the High Court directed to publish the results.  The matter was reported in the Electronic / Print media for weeks together.

After the exam, my daughter took up the issue with the Hon'ble Chancellor (Governor) of the University.  The Governor sought the explanation of the University and the University sent a 100% false reply to the Chancellor.  When the Chancellor was informed that the reply sent by the University was 100% false, the former again sought the explanation of the University.  Then the Registrar of the University admitted that the Chancellor was misrepresented.

Anticipating (?) action from the Chancellor, the Union(s) filed a complaint before the Vigilance Court, Thrissur, Kerala.  The Court without going into the merits ordered an enquiry under section 156(3) of the CrPC.

The Vice-Chancellor / Pro-Vice-Chancellor quoting provisions of the University Act challenged the orders of the Vigilance Court that no sanction of the Chancellor was obtained to investigate the matter.  However, while delivering its Judgment the High Court ordered that no sanction is required to investigate criminal cases.  But added that there was no necessity for the trial court to have given directions to Register FIR at that stage.  Also, in the Quick Verification Report nothing is there to implicate the Vice-Chancellor / Pro-Vice-Chancellor and directed the trial court to meticulously go through the Quick Verification Report from different angles and take a judicious decision. [The DYSP, Malappuram, Kerala had submitted a Quick Verification Report alleging nepotism and procedural irregularities and recommended. departmental action.]

As there was no nepotism and procedural error, the matter was taken up with the Director, Vigilance who transferred the investigation from Malappuram Unit to Kozhikode Unit.  The Kozhikode Unit, after investigation found that (1) the failure of 27 students and 23 scoring exactly 40 marks looks not normal (2) PA to PVC's daughter was wilfully failed with ulterior motives (3) the Controller of Exams conspired with Joint Controller of Exams, Asst Registrar and fabricated minutes, (3) concealed all the facts from the agenda (4) No supplementary exam was conducted (5) a fabricated document was used in the Court etc etc.  Also, they added that the findings of the Vigilance Malappuram was baseless.

In the meanwhile, the Hon'ble High Court, in a related case, ordered that the re-examination was conducted as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court and it is valid and binding on the University.

The Vigilance, Kozhikode filed a 'Mistake of Fact" and "Further action Dropped" report before the Vigilance Court on 4.5.2016.  The Vigilance Court after more than 3 dozen adjournments and hearing only the private complainant's (union leader) Advocate rejected the Report of the Vigilance and ordered further investigation.  The Vigilance has also doubted the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court which declared that the re-exam was conducted as per the Judgment of the High Court.  In the "Protest Petition", the complainant has clearly stated the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court is wrong. Still no action for contempt of court!!

I have been advised to file an Appeal against this Judgment and to get the FIR quashed.  But some Advocates suggest not to file appeal as there is heavy pressure from the Ruling Front (LDF) in this case as the Controller, Joint Controller etc are having high level connection with the party and there is every likelyhood of losing the present advantage.  Please advise me the next course of action.
Asked 7 years ago in Criminal Law
Religion: Hindu

First answer received in 30 minutes.

Lawyers are available now to answer your questions.

3 Answers

1) you can file petition in the HC to quash the FIR

2) rely upon Vigilance report filed in court on 4/5/16

3) dont file any appeal against the judgment

Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
95205 Answers
7607 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

you can file appeal against order of trial court ordering further investigations in the matter

2)SC would not intervene in the matter as you can exercise your right of appeal against trial court order

Ajay Sethi
Advocate, Mumbai
95205 Answers
7607 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

But some Advocates suggest not to file appeal as there is heavy pressure from the Ruling Front (LDF) in this case as the Controller, Joint Controller etc are having high level connection with the party and there is every likelyhood of losing the present advantage. Please advise me the next course of action.

If you feel that there is a gross injustice done on this and due to the manipulations and fabrication of records including frauds at the lower level, you may, if finding that an appeal would bring you relief, may proceed with the appeal. Giving up at this stage may not be of any use and the purpose of fighting this legal battle would be defeated.

You can take up the mater of quashing the FIR if you feel it is absolutely necessary or else you can challenge the same in the trial court itself on the basis of merits in your side.

T Kalaiselvan
Advocate, Vellore
85404 Answers
2236 Consultations

5.0 on 5.0

Ask a Lawyer

Get legal answers from lawyers in 1 hour. It's quick, easy, and anonymous!
  Ask a lawyer