Dismissed¶69

S.S.Prabhu v. The Registrar

Madras HC19 Sept 2025WP/669/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.No.669 of 2023, High Court of Madras, 19.09.2025, G.K.Ilanthiraiyan J.; Pondicherry University provisional certificate cancellation; MBBS Reg.9617546 mark sheet tampering OMR white fluid; Vinayaga Missions Medical College Karaikal; criminal acquittal benefit of doubt does not equal pass; malpractice debarred December 1999, May 2006 papers cancelled; certiorarified mandamus dismissed; Article 226 Constitution of India; IPC 120(b) 420 468 471; Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 13(1)(d) 13(2); Tamil Nadu Medical Council.

What did the court decide?

This Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order dated 30.09.2021 passed by the second respondent; the writ petition lacks merits and is dismissed. ¶68

S.S.Prabhu Vs The Registrar — Corruption | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶69

Issue for consideration

Whether the second respondent's cancellation of the petitioner's MBBS provisional certificate (Registration No.9617546) and November 2007 mark sheet was arbitrary and unjust, given the petitioner's acquittal in C.C.No.1 of 2014 and his contention that no opportunity of hearing was afforded before cancellation.

¶29

Court's answer

This Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order dated 30.09.2021 passed by the second respondent; the writ petition lacks merits and is dismissed.

¶68

Ratio / Principle

Though the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case, such acquittal does not imply that he passed all the examinations; admittedly the OMR answer sheets were tampered and the petitioner's mark sheets were altered (marks inflated with white fluid and pass marks inserted).

¶58

Key takeaways

The petitioner showed a pattern of malpractice (December 1999 first-year examination leading to debarment for two sessions; May 2006 examination leading to cancellation of all papers), and after a lapse of twenty-five years he cannot be permitted to re-write the examination; hence the cancellation was rightly made after due process of law, with direction to surrender the provisional certificate and mark sheet of November 2007.ratio¶64
The second respondent acted lawfully: after following the due process of law it rightly cancelled the provisional certificate and directed the petitioner to surrender the provisional certificate and mark sheet of November 2007, answering the petitioner's objection of arbitrariness/no hearing.ratio¶64

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MADRAS HIGH COURT (G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.), judgment dated 19.09.2025 in W.P.No.669 of 2023 (with W.M.P.No.610 of 2023): Dismisses an Article 226 writ petition seeking certiorarified mandamus against the Registrar, Pondicherry University's order dated 30.09.2021 (No.PU/med/MBBS/E5/2021/579) cancelling the petitioner's MBBS provisional certificate (Reg. No.9617546, course 1998-1999, Vinayaga Missions Medical College, Karaikal) and November 2007 mark sheet. Holding: (i) acquittal of the petitioner and two others in C.C.No.1 of 2014 (order dated 28.03.2019) was on benefit of doubt — the prosecution failed to prove the accused effected the alterations — and does not imply he passed all examinations; the OMR answer sheets and marks were admittedly tampered/inflated; (ii) the petitioner had a record of malpractice (debarred after the December 1999 first-year exam; all May 2006 papers cancelled), and after twenty-five years cannot be permitted to re-write the examination; (iii) the second respondent, after following due process of law, rightly cancelled the provisional certificate and mark sheet; no infirmity or illegality found in the impugned order. Statutory references noted: Article 226, Constitution of India; S.120(b)/420/468/471 IPC; S.13(2), 13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; S.65B Indian Evidence Act (within reproduced trial-court excerpt). Connected miscellaneous petition closed; no costs.

¶1

W.P.No.669 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 19.09.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

W.P.No.669 of 2023

¶7

and W.M.P.No.610 of 2023

¶8

S.S.Prabhu .... Petitioner

¶9

¶10

1.The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Medical Council, New No.914, Old No.569, Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 106.

¶11

2.The Registrar Pondicherry University, R.Venkataraman Nagar, Kalapet, Puducherry.

¶12

3.The Controller of Examinations, Pondicherry University, R.Venkataraman Nagar, Kalapet, Puducherry.

¶13

4.Vinayaga Missions Medical College, Keelakasakudimedu, Kottucheri Post, Karaikal, Puducherry .... Respondents

¶14

1/12

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

W.P.No.669 of 2023 Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order dated 30.09.2021 in No.PU/med/MBBS/E5/2021/579 of the second respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents to issue the Provisional Certificate-1 and the Mark Sheet, Nov 2007 under Reg. No.9617546 MBBS Course 19981999 in the fourth respondent college.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.AL.Gandhimathi Senior Counsel for Mr.SA.Kanmani For R1 : Mr.J.Jayamalan For R2 & R3 : Mr.A.V.Bharathi Standing Counsel For R4 : No appearance

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 30.09.2021 passed by the second respondent, thereby cancelling the provisional certificate and the mark sheet of November, 2007, in respect of Registration No.9617546, MBBS Course 1998-1999, issued by the fourth respondent College.

¶20

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the

¶21

materials available on record. 2/12

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

W.P.No.669 of 2023

¶24

The petitioner joined the MBBS course during the Academic Year 1998-1999 in the fourth respondent College. The petitioner appeared for the final MBBS Part-II Examination in November, 2007 and passed in General Surgery and Obstetrics and Gynaecology (OG) subjects. Further, in the month of May 2009, he passed the Paediatric subject and in May 2011, he passed the General Medicine subject. Thereafter, based on the complaint alleging that there was malpractice and tampering the mark sheet, an FIR was registered and the petitioner along with two others were charged for the offences punishable under Section 120(b) read with Sections 420, 468, 471 of IPC and Section 13(2) Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It was further alleged that in the year 2007, malpractice was noticed in the examinations conducted by the Pondicherry University for engineering and medical streams, thereby marks were deliberately inflated to unduly favour certain students, resulting in candidates being declared as passed despite not having scored sufficient marks. After a full-fledged trial, the Trial Court acquitted the petitioner and the two others in C.C.No.1 of 2014, by order dated 28.03.2019.

¶25

3/12

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

W.P.No.669 of 2023 4. The petitioner completed his course by passing all the subjects and

¶28

subsequently underwent internship from 15.07.2011 to 14.07.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner was issued provisional certificate and mark sheet. Subsequently, the petitioner was requested to furnish his mark sheet and CRRI completion certificate and also to produce marks sheet and provisional certificate as required. After following the same, the provisional certificate for the MBBS degree course for the academic year year 19981999 was cancelled on the ground that it was issued based on tampering of the mark sheet.

¶29

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing prior to the cancellation of the provisional certificate. In fact, the petitioner was permitted to undergo his internship and CRRI Training during the period from 15.07.2011 to 14.07.2012. Therefore, the cancellation of the provisional certificate and the direction to surrender the provisional certificate and mark sheet, is arbitrary and unjust. The Trial Court categorically held that the petitioner and the two other accused persons had not tampered the mark sheets and had not made any alterations.

¶30

4/12

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

W.P.No.669 of 2023 Consequently, the Trial Court acquitted the petitioner and the two others from all the charges. In view of the same, the provisional certificate issued in favour of the petitioner ought not to have been cancelled by the second respondent.

¶33

A perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the second and third respondents and the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel, reveals that the petitioner had joined the MBBS Course in the fourth respondent College during the Academic Year 1998 – 1999 and completed his course in the month of May 2011. The petitioner had committed malpractice during his initial appearance in the first year examination held in December 1999 and was consequently debarred for the next two academic sessions. Once again, the petitioner indulged in some malpractice during the examination held in the month of May 2006. Therefore, the second and third respondents cancelled all the papers appeared by the petitioner. In fact, apart from the alleged malpractice, the petitioner was also involved in certain criminal proceedings. In the said criminal case, though the petitioner and two others were acquitted from all the charges, the acquittal was only on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove that the

¶34

5/12

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

W.P.No.669 of 2023

¶37

petitioner conspired with the others and committed offence. The prosecution also failed to prove that the petitioner and two others used whitener to tamper with the mark sheet.

¶38

The answer sheet and OMR sheets for the fourth year examination held in November 2007, in respect of the subjects General Surgery I & II and Obstetrics and Gynaecology were tampered and the marks were inflated. The concerned paper evaluators themselves stated that the marks awarded by them were altered by others. The alteration of the mark sheets and OMR sheets were done in three stages :-

¶39

Stage 1 : Removing the answer scripts from the safe custody and handed over to A3 through Ramadoss ad A2.

¶40

Stage 2 : Altering and tampering the marks in OMR Sheets by applying white fluid in the OMR sheets kept in the safety room.

¶41

Stage 3 : A1 instructed Jayaraman to alter the Date Entry accordingly, he did the alteration in the computer date of TRR.

¶42

Though the Trial Court acquitted the accused, it recorded the

¶43

evidence and the relevant portion of the Judgment reads as follows :

¶44

6/12

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

W.P.No.669 of 2023

¶47

7/12

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

W.P.No.669 of 2023

¶50

Stage III

¶51

Then the marks awarded will be transferred into date TMR then to be transferred to TRR. It is the case of the prosecution A1 has instructed Jayaraman to transfer and alter the marks from 52 to 62 in the TRR sheets thereby cheated the University to declare A3 as pass in those subjects. Data Entry Operator said Jayaraman died mysteriously, the CBI has conducted the investigation as per the order of Hon’ble High Court. So, the Jayaraman is not at all examined.

¶52

It is the case of the prosecution as well as from the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.12, the Jayaraman was incharge of Date Entry Operation in the Engineering Wing wherein, PW9 herein is incharge of medical wing. The TRR sheets is marked as Ex.P21 which is certified by the Selection Officer, thereafter, PW16 has given the certificate as per Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act that is marked as Ex.P31.”

¶53

Thus, it is clear that the marks and the OMR Sheets of the

¶54

petitioner were tampered by applying white fluid and put pass mark to the

¶55

petitioner. The evaluator also categorically deposed that there was alteration in the coding sheets for the General Surgery papers. However, the prosecution failed to prove that the accused were responsible for such corrections and alterations. Therefore, the Trial Court acquitted the accused persons on the ground that the prosecution had failed to establish the case beyond any reasonable doubt. The accused were found not guilty and the benefit of doubt was extended in their favour.

¶56

8/12

¶57

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶58

W.P.No.669 of 2023 10. Further, the petitioner had committed malpractices during the examination held in the month of May 2006. Consequently, the second respondent cancelled all the papers appeared by the petitioner. However, the petitioner completed his internship during the period from 15.07.2011 to 14.07.2012 along with other students, without a provisional certificate issued by the second respondent. In fact, before commencing internship, the registration of the provisional pass certificate is mandatory. However, without even registering the provisional pass certificate, the petitioner underwent CRRI Training, thereby cheating the National Medical Council and the Tamil Nadu Medical Council. Further, the petitioner had given false statements upon joining the course, claiming to have completed the course without any complaint. The petitioner had also committed malpractice during his initial appearance of the first year examination held in December 1999 and as such, he debarred from appearing for the next two sessions. That apart, he indulged in malpractice in May 2006, leading to the cancellation of all papers wrote by him by the second respondent. Though the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case, such acquittal does not imply that he passed all the examinations. Admittedly, OMR answer sheets were tampered and the mark sheets of the petitioner were altered.

¶59

9/12

¶60

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶61

W.P.No.669 of 2023 Therefore, all the above facts clearly established that the petitioner has a habitual of committing malpractices and used dubious tactics to obtain his degree through misrepresentation during his course of study.

¶62

Though the first accused was acquitted from the criminal charges,

¶63

during departmental proceedings, the gravity of charges against the first accused was proved, who involved in misconduct of tampering the marks of the MBBS examination. In order to maintain academic standards and uphold the integrity of the institution, second respondent was duty bound to initiate disciplinary action. Consequently, the first accused was imposed major penalty of dismissal from service.

¶64

Though the petitioner sought permission to write the examination once again, he never made any request so far. The petitioner joined in the medical course during the Academic Year 1998-1999. After a lapse of twenty five years, the petitioner cannot be permitted to re-write the examination. The petitioner was habitual of indulging in all sorts of malpractice during his studies to obtain the MBBS degree. Therefore, the second respondent, after following the due process of law, rightly cancelled the provisional certificate and directed the petitioner to surrender the provisional certificate and mark sheet of November 2007.

¶65

10/12

¶66

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶67

W.P.No.669 of 2023

¶68

In view of the above, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in

¶69

the order dated 30.09.2021 passed by the second respondent. Thus, the writ petition lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶70

19.09.2025

¶71

Neutral citation :Yes/No Index:Yes/No Lpp To

¶72

1.The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Medical Council, New No.914, Old No.569, Poonamallee High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 106.

¶73

2.The Registrar Pondicherry University, R.Venkataraman Nagar, Kalapet, Puducherry.

¶74

3.The Controller of Examinations, Pondicherry University, R.Venkataraman Nagar, Kalapet, Puducherry.

¶75

11/12

¶76

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶77

W.P.No.669 of 2023

¶78

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

Lpp

W.P.No.669 of 2023

19.09.2025

12/12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 30.09.2021 in No.PU/med/MBBS/E5/2021/579 cancelling the petitioner's provisional certificate and mark sheet of November 2007 (Registration No.9617546, MBBS Course 1998-1999, fourth respondent college) on the ground that the certificate was issued based on tampering of the mark sheet, and directing surrender of the provisional certificate and mark sheet.¶16
The Registrar, Pondicherry University (second respondent) · 30.09.2021
Prior proceeding
FIR registered on complaint alleging malpractice and tampering of mark sheet; petitioner and two others charged with offences under S.120(b) read with Ss.420, 468, 471 IPC and S.13(2)/S.13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 over inflated marks in Pondicherry University engineering and medical stream examinations of 2007.¶24
Prior proceeding
Trial Court acquitted the petitioner and the two others in C.C.No.1 of 2014 by order dated 28.03.2019; acquittal recorded as being because the prosecution failed to prove the accused responsible for the corrections/alterations, i.e. benefit of doubt.¶24
Prior proceeding
Grounds of acquittal: prosecution could not show the accused effected the alterations to coding sheets for General Surgery papers; accused found not guilty with benefit of doubt.¶55
Prior proceeding
Per counter affidavit of second and third respondents, petitioner had earlier committed malpractice in the first-year examination held in December 1999 and was debarred for the next two academic sessions, and again indulged in malpractice in May 2006 leading to cancellation of all papers appeared by him.¶33
Prior proceeding
Petitioner underwent internship/CRRI training from 15.07.2011 to 14.07.2012, after which provisional certificate and mark sheet were issued, before their later cancellation on the tampering ground.¶28
Prior proceeding
Departmental proceedings against the first accused established the charge of tampering MBBS examination marks; he was imposed the major penalty of dismissal from service.¶63

S.S.Prabhu v. The Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.S.Prabhu v. The Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D.Sangupathi Vs The Collector

Kumari G Vs The District Revenue Officer

C.Palanisamy Vs The Revenue Divisional Officer

N.Shanmugam, Vs The District Collector

C.Sridharan Vs The Government of Puducherry

M. Asia Begam Vs The Tahsildar