LexRAM PREETI YADAV versus MAHENDRA PRATAP YADAV AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A RAM PREETI YADA V v. MAHENDRA PRA TAP YADA V AND ORS. AUGUST 30, 2007 B [S.B. SINHA AND H.S. BEDI, JJ.J Contempt of Court-Contemnor-candidate on the basis of withheld result of examination pursuing further studies and getting employment- Cancellation of result upheld by Supreme Court-However, Supreme Court C observing that if rules permitted, the candidate could take the examination--- Contemnor-candidate seeking permission to appear in the examination from the Examination Board-Contemnor-Secretary of the Board issuing certificate declaring the candidate having passed the examination-Certificate subsequently cancelled-Cancellation unsuccessfully challenged by the D candidate-Contempt petition alleging disobedience of the order of Supreme Court-Held: Contemnors committed contempt of Court-Contemnor- candidate took undue advantage of the observations of Supreme Court-This ;, amounts to interference with the order passed by the Court-Contemnor- Secretary acted contrary to /aw-Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Constitution E of India, 1950-Articles 129 and 142. Respondent No.I-Contemnor had appeared in Intermediate Examination.His result was withheld. However a provisional marksheet was issued to him. On the basis of the provisional marksheet, he pursued his further studies and subsequently also got employed. The result of Intermediate F Examination was cancelled. A Writ Petition challenging the order of cancellation was allowed by Single Jude of High Court Petitioner herein filed special appeal, which was dismissed by Division Bench of High Court. In appeal, this Court by its order dated 3.9.2003 reversing the judgment of Single Judge of High Court, held that the result was liable to be set aside. The Court also observed that ifthe respondent No.I was entitled to take the Intermediate G Examination, he might be permitted as per law. H Respondent No. I, taking advantage of the observation in the order dated 3.9.2003, filed an application to the Secretary of the Examination Board- Contem nor (respondent No.2) seeking permission to appear in the 590 >-- -(- RAMPREETIYADAVv.MAHENDRAPRATAPYADAV S91 examination as a private candidate. No action was taken on that Respondent A No.1 filed a Writ Petition wherein High Court directed the Secretary of1the Board to pass suitable order on the application in accordance with l,aw. Respondent No.2-Contemnor, relying on the direction of the High Court, issued a certificate in terms whereof respondent No.1 was said to have passed the Intermediate Examination. However, the said certificate was consequently B cancelled. Legality of the cancellation of the certificate was qu~stioned by respondent No. I before High Court by filing Writ Petition, and the same was dismissed. Thereafter the present contempt petition was filed by the petitioner. Allowing the petition, the Court c HELD: 1. There does not exist any rule permitting a candidate to a~pear at an examination at a later point of time and that too as a private candidate. Contemnor-respondent No.2 being a Secretary of the statutory board is expected to act in accordance with law. Before acting on the purported application filed by Contemnor-respondent No.I, he_should have appliecJ his D mind to the extant rules. Application of mind on his part was also necessary on the purport of the order dated 03.09.2003 passed by this Court (Paras 4 and 12] (593-G; 596-F-G] 2. On a plain reading of the order dated 03.09.2003, it would be evident that the fraud practiced by the alleged Contemnor-respondent No.I was not E condoned by this Court His result was declared to be set aside. An obse~ation, however, was made only to the effect that in the event, any rule permits Contemnor-respondent No.1 to appear at the examination, the Board would be free to take a decision thereon. It now stands admitted that there does not exist any rule in terms whereof, Contemnor-respondent No.I could appear at F · the examination. Even otherwise his application was confined to only appearing at the examination. On what basis the certificate was granted has not been disclosed. It is not an ordinary mistake. The said certificate, if had not been withdrawn, would have restored the status ofContemnor- respondent No.1. He would have got back his service. He would have claimed even other benefits from the College, where he had been serving. The conduct of Conte~nor- G respondent No.I is, therefore, not free from ble
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.