2026:JHHC:22753 Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI WP(C) No.4148 of 2020 ----- Priyarani, D/o Sailesh Kumar Mishra, R/o Sarda Colony, Power House Road, Chutia, P.O. & P.S.-Chutia, Dist.-Ranchi … Petitioner(s). Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Dist.-Ranchi 2. Secretary, Higher & Technical Education Department, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, Dist.-Ranchi 3. Spl. Secretary, Higher & Technical Education Department, Government of Jharkhand, Nepal House, P.O. & P.S.-Doranda, Dist.-Ranchi 4. Controller of Examination, State Board of Technical Education, Jharkhand Science & Technology Campus, Sirka Toli, Namkom, P.O. & P.S.-Namkom, Dist.-Ranchi … Respondent(s). CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Sahni, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ashwini Bhushan, AC to Sr. SC-II For the University : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, Advocate …...... 11 /29.07.2026: In compliance with the order dated 11.06.2026, the counsel for the respondents submits photocopies of the petitioner's 5th and 6th Semester Tabulation Registers and Answer sheets to the Court. 2. These documents are taken on record. 3. Heard the learned counsel representing the petitioner and the learned counsel representing the respondents. 4. By filing this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for following relief: - “For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus of any other appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/Direction commanding upon the respondent No.2 to consider and to decide the representation of the petitioner (Annexure-7) in the shape of an appeal against the so- called reasoned order dated 02.09.2016 (Annexure-5) and within a specified period and for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ/order for quashing the reasoned order dated 02.09.2016 (Annexure-5) whereby and whereunder the respondent No.4 purported to have cancelled the Mark-Sheet of 5th and 6th semesters, Original Diploma passing Certificate and Migration 2026:JHHC:22753 Page | 2 Certificate issued to her.” 5. The case of the petitioner as appears from the records and from the arguments, is that the petitioner was a student of Xavier Institute of Polytechnic & Technology, Namkum. She had completed her course from the said institute, however, one student namely Sneha Kumari made a complaint to the Hon'ble Chief Minister alleging irregularities in the preparation of marks-sheet of the petitioner. The office of the Hon'ble Chief Minister forwarded the said complaint to the Department of Higher & Technical Education, Govt. of Jharkhand and on the basis of the complaint the answer-sheet of the petitioner and the Tabulation Register was compared. On such comparison it was found that the allegations were correct. The Tabulation Register reflected more marks against the name of the petitioner, as compared to the corresponding answer-sheets. Further, transpired that the petitioner was the daughter of Shri Shailesh Kumar Mishra, who was posted in the State Board of Technical Education, Ranchi, the Board which conducted the examination, as Head Clerk. At the relevant time of preparation of result, the Tabulation Register had been outsourced to a private agency namely M/s. Meverick Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. 6. An F.I.R. was instituted against M/s. Meverick Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. against its proprietor Rohit Raman, Vikash Kumar (employee of the agency), Sri Navlesh Kumar (Principal of XIPT) and Arshad Ahmad, Assistant in Examination Department. Show cause (Annexure-3) was issued to the petitioner as to why her result of the 5th Semester be not cancelled. After due consideration of the reply, her result of the 5th and 6th semester has been cancelled by the order dated 02.09.2016 (Annexure-5) passed by the respondent No.4-Controller of Examination, State Board of Technical Education, Jharkhand. 7. Mr. A.K. Sahni, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was a regular student for the Sessions 2011-14. She appeared in each and every Semester and passed 2026:JHHC:22753 Page | 3 examinations. Mark sheets were issued by the Examination Controller and thereafter Migration Certificate was also issued. There is no dispute with regard to the Mark sheets of the petitioner issued till 4th Semester. Subsequently, by the impugned letter dated 02.09.2016, the Examination Controller cancelled the Mark sheets issued to the petitioner for 5th and 6th Semesters as a result whereof her educational certificate became of no use. Even assuming, for sake the of argument, if the allegations made against the petitioner to be true on its face value, then also the Examination Controller was required to issue Mark sheets on the basis of actual marks obtained by the petitioner then also the petitioner passed the said Semester. There was no jurisdiction on the part of the respondents to cancel her entire Mark sheet and Migration Certificate. It is further submitted that as per hierarchy, respondent No.2-Secretary, Higher, Technical Education and Skill Development Department, Government of Jharkhand is the higher authority of the Examination Controller under the State Board of Technical Education. He thus, submits that a direction may be issued to the respondent No.2 to consider and to decide the representation of the petitioner (Annexure-7) in the shape of an appeal against order dated 02.09.2016. 8. Per contra, Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, learned Counsel for the University on the complaint of Susri Sneha Kumari to the Hon’ble Chief Minister, Govt. of Jharkhand vide order dated 18.01.2016 an enquiry has been initiated, wherein it is found that marks obtained in Answer sheets and that of mentioned in Tabulation Registers of the petitioner in 5th and 6th Semesters are not same. Thereafter, vide order dated 05.08.2016 show-cause was issued to the petitioner to which she submitted her explanation on 17.08.2016. On finding her reply unsatisfactory, her Marks sheet 5th and 6th semesters, original diploma passing certificate and Migration Certificate of the petitioner cancelled by the respondent No.4. He also referred photocopies of the Answer Sheets and Tabulation Registers of subject “Principles of Comp. Arch. & Maint.” (code 2026:JHHC:22753 Page | 4 12186) and “Industrial Electronics” (code 12189) of 5th semester and “Management” (code 12219) & “Control Systems” (code 12270) of the 6th Semester and submits that the petitioner’s marks have been enhanced in the Tabulation Register by playing fraud therefore marks in Tabulation Register reflected more marks as compared to the Answer sheet. Thus, he submitted that since the petitioner was the beneficiary of immoral act and unfair means adopted in the preparation of marks-sheet, appropriate action has been taken against her. 9. After considering the submissions of the parties and perusing the records specially the Answer sheets and Tabulation Registers of 5th and 6th Semester of the petitioners, I find that marks reflected in the answer sheet of subject “Principles of Comp. Arch. & Maint.” (code 12186) and “Industrial Electronics” (code 12189) of 5th semester is 60 and 20 whereas in Tabulation Register it is showing 66 and 40 respectively. Further, answer sheets of subject “Management” (code 12219) & “Control Systems” (code 12270) of the 6th Semester showing Marks 40 and 43 whereas in Tabulation Register it is made 60 and 57 respectively. Thus, the allegation that marks of the petitioner was fraudulently enhanced in the Tabulation Registers of 5th and 6th Semester, is correct. Commission of this type of fraud stakes the foundation of a strong education system of this Country. These cracks in the system needs to be plugged without and sympathy. Faith of people in the education system and sanctity of education cannot be allowed to erode by any means. 10. It is well settled that fraud vitiates every solemn act. In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that “Property grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court-process a convenient lever to retain the illegal gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, who's case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.” 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vishnu Vardhan v. State 2026:JHHC:22753 Page | 5 of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1501 has summaries law on fraud as follows: 1. In Nidhi Kaim v. State of Madhya Pradesh, a three-Judge Bench of this Court emphatically asserted “… stated simply, nothing … nothing … and nothing, obtained by fraud, can be sustained, as fraud unravels everything.” 2. At the end of the last century, this Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath noticed the growing trend of abuse of the process of law by dishonest litigants playing fraud on courts. Fraud was held to be an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another: a deception in order to gain by another's loss. The opening paragraph of such decision reads as follows: “Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal” observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three centuries ago. It is the settled proposition of law that a judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of law. Such a judgment/decree — by the first court or by the highest court — has to be treated as a nullity by every court, whether superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings. This Court then warned that: 5. The principle of “finality of litigation” cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court- process a convenient lever to retain the illegal gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, who's case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. 3. “Fraud unravels everything” was famously said by Lord Denning in Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley3, emphasising that fraud can invalidate judgments, contracts and all transactions. The principle highlights the importance of honesty and transparency in legal proceedings and transactions. However, it is a cardinal principle of law that fraud has to be pleaded and proved. Order VI Rule 4, of the Civil Procedure Code, 19084 may be referred to ordaining that particulars, inter alia, of fraud have to be stated in the pleadings. 4. From the multiple decisions of this Court on ‘fraud’, what follows is that fraud and justice cannot dwell together, the legislature never intends to guard fraud, the question of limitation to exercise power does not arise, if fraud is proved, and even finality of litigation cannot be pressed into service to absurd limits when a fraud is unravelled. 5. The issue of fraud unravelling everything is pertinent here due to the nature of dispute we are tasked to adjudicate; hence, its reference at the beginning of our judgment. 6. The primary parties involved in these proceedings are the appellant-writ petitioner-applicant, Vishnu Vardhan5, and the respondent no. 7, Reddy Veeranna6. Vishnu has alleged that fraud has been played by Reddy on courts to reap benefits behind Vishnu's back. The tangled facts involved in these proceedings, the complex web of activities of the primary parties and their associates and the relief claimed in the civil appeal as well as the writ petition by Vishnu would have to be examined in great depth to ascertain 2026:JHHC:22753 Page | 6 whether fraud, as alleged by him, is established; and, if so, how it has affected the flow of judicial proceedings and the manner in which the same has to be dealt with. In the process, other petitions/applications that are on record would also require due consideration. 12. Further, contention of the petitioner is that a direction may be issued to the respondent No.2 to consider and to decide the representation of the petitioner (Annexure-7) in the shape of an appeal against order dated 02.09.2016. Refuting this the counsel for the respondents submits that there is no provision of appeal hence the prayer of the petitioner to consider her representation (Annexure-7) in appeal against order dated 02.09.2016 cannot be accorded. 13. In the light of what has been held above, I find that no ground is made out to interfere with the order dated 02.09.2016 (Annexure-5) passed by the respondent No.4-Controller of Examination, State Board of Technical Education, Jharkhand which are under challenge. Further, this Court cannot give a direction to the respondent No.2 to consider and to decide the representation of the petitioner (Annexure-7) in the shape of an appeal against order dated 02.09.2016 in absence of any provision of appeal. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 15. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 29.07.2026 S.K.D./CP-2 A.F.R. Uploaded on 03.08.2026