RAM PREETI YADAV v. MAHENDRA PRATAP YADAV AND ORS

Citation: [2007] 9 S.C.R. 590

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: S.B. SINHA, H.S. BEDI

Case summary

RAM PREETI YADAV v. MAHENDRA PRATAP YADAV AND ORS.pdf

Judgment text

RAM PREETI YADAV v. MAHENDRA PRATAP YADAVAND ORS. AUGUST 30, 2007 [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 ofresult upheld by Supreme Court-However, Supreme Court observing that ifrules permitted, the candidate could take the examination--- Contemnor-candidate seeking permission to appear in the examination from the Examination Board-Contemnor-Secretary ofthe Board issuing certificate declaring the candidate having passed the examination-Certificate subsequently cancelled-Cancellation unsuccessfully challenged by the candidate-Contempt petition alleging disobedience ofthe order ofSupreme >-- Court-Held: Contemnors committed contempt of Court-Contemnorcandidate took undue advantage ofthe observations ofSupreme Court-This ;,amounts to interference with the order passed by the Court-Contemnor- Secretary acted contrary to /aw-Contempt ofCourts Act, 1971-Constitution 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 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 ofSingle 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 Examination, he might be permitted as per law. 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 RAMPREETIYADAVv. MAHENDRAPRATAPYADAV S91 examination as a private candidate. No action was taken on that Respondent 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 ofthe 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 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 HELD: 1. There does not exist any rule permitting a candidate to a~pear at an examination at a later point oftime 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 mind to the extant rules. Application of mind on his part was also necessary on the purport ofthe order dated 03. 09. 2003 passed by this Court (Paras 4 and 12] (593-G; 596-F-G] 2. On a plain reading ofthe order dated 03. 09. 2003, it would be evident that the fraud practiced by the alleged Contemnor-respondent No. I was not 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 · 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~norrespondent No. I is, therefore, not free from blemish. He made a representation before this Court. The basis ofsaid representation, it now transpires, is nonexistent What he could have done was to search out the relevant rule, which was applicable in this case. He filed a Writ Petition before the High Court only because no action was taken. He did not inform the High Court that there \ -\ [2007] 9 S. C. R. did not exist any rule. Therefore, the Court is ofthe opinion that Contemnorrespondent No.

2 must have issued the certificate on extraneous consideration. Contemnor- respondent No. I is a beneficiary of the said illegal and fraudulent certificate. It is not a case where apology tendered by the alleged Contemnors should be accepted. (Paras 13 and 141 (596-G-H; 597-A-EI 3. It cannot be said that the contempt petition is not maintainable against respondent No. 1, as taking undue advantage of the observations made by this Court also amount~ to interference with the order passed by this Court in imparting justice. It is well-settled that what cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly. (Paras 15 and 161 (597-E, F, GJ I . I ~ 4. Apart from the. provisions ofthe Contempt ofCourts Act, this Court has a constitutional duty in terms of Article 129 as also Article 142 of the • Constitution of India to issue such directions, as are necessary for the ends ofjustice. Contemnor-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are guilty ofcommission of contempt of this Court.

(Para 1711597-G; 598-AJ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Contempt Petition No. (C) 512 of 2004. IN C. A. No. 4034 of2001. Y. P. Singh, C. Sidharth, P. Pumima, N. B. Aggarwal and Debasis Misra for the Petitioner. Dinesh Dwivedi, Shirish Kr. Misra, Z. K. Faizan, B. U. Burqi, Goodwill Indeevar, Niranjana Singh, K. L. Janjani and Kamakshi S. Mehlwal for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S. B. SINHA, J. I. This application for initiation ofa contempt proceeding has been filed for alleged disobedience of this Court's order dated 03. 09. 2003, relevant portion whereof reads as under : "We are al. so unable to issue any direction to the first respondent -~to allow the third respondent to sit at the lntennediate Examination at this stage; having regard to the fact that relevant rules in this regard have not been-placed. We may, however, observe that if he is entitled to take the said Examination in law, he may be pennitted. " 2. Respondent No.

I herein appeared as a private candidate in the Intennediate Examination conducted by U. P. Board of High Schools. & Intennediate Education from Janta Inter College, Azamgarh (U. P. ). His result was withheld. A provisional mark-sheet was purported to have been issued to him without showing that his result for Intennediate Examination had been withheld. On the basis of the said purported provisional mark-sheet, he pursued further studies and completed his Graduation as also Post Graduati9n. He was also employed as a teacher. The Principal ofthe College infonned him that his result in the Intennediate Examination has been cancelled. Questioning the said order, a writ petition was filed. The said writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court. Aggrieved, the petitioner herein preferred a special appeal before a Division Bench which was summafily dismissed. Petitioner herein approached this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution ofIndia. In Civil Appeal No.

4034 of2001 arising out ofthe said special leave petition, this Court in its judgment dated 03. 09. 2003, while allowing the same made the aforementioned observations. 3. Indisputably, taking advantage of the said observations, Respondent- Contemnor No. I filed an application on 28. 09. 2003 before the Contemnor- Respondent No. 2 with a prayer to pennit him to appear at the Intennediate Examination as a private candidate. No action was taken thereupon. He filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court which was marked as CMWP No. 2088 of 2004. The same was finally disposed of, directing : "Having heard Sri S. K. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Respondent nos. l and 2 and on perusal of the record, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Secretary, U. P. Board of High Schools and Intennediate Education, Allahabad, Respondent no.

2, to pass suitable order on the application ofthe petitioner dated 28. 09. 2003 in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period oftwo months from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order along with a copy of the application dated 28. 09. 20-03 before the said Respondent no. 2. " 4. It is not in dispute that there does not exist any rule pennitting a candidate to appear at an examination at a later point of time and that top as -- 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 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, as was submitted by Me. Dwivedi. The said certificate, if had not been withdrawn, would have restored the status ofContemnor-Respondent No. l. He would have got back his service.

He would have claimed even other benefits from the College, where he liad been serving. The conduct ofContemnor-Respondent No. I is, therefore, not free from blemish. He made a representation before this Court. The basis of said representation, it now transpires, is non-existent. What he could have done was to search out the relevant rule, which was applicable in this case. He filed a writ petition before the High Court only because no action was taken. He did not inform the High Court that there did not exist any rule. We, therefore, are of the opinion that Contemnor-Respondent No. 2 must have issued the certificate on extraneous consideration. Contemnor-Respondent No. I is a beneficiary of the said illegal and fraudulent certificate. __.. { 14. The certificate was issued on 14. 05. 2004. The decision had been taken only by the Examination Board to cancel the said certificate.

We, therefore, are of the opinion that it is not a case where apology tendered by the alleged Contemnors should be accepted. 15. Submission of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Contemnor-Respondent No. l that the contempt petition is not maintainable is not con-ect. Although no direction had been issued by this Court, evidently - ,,.. the earlier certificate was directed to be cancelled. Ifthat be so, Contemnor- Respondent No. I could not have been indulged in any act which would amount to act of camouflage of the record thereof. Taking undue advantage of the observations made by this Court also amounts to interference with the order passed by this Court in imparting justice. 16. It is well-settled that what cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly. ... ~ 17.

·Apart from the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, this Court has a constitutional duty in terms of Article 129 as also Article 142: of the Constitution of India to issue such directions, as are necessary for the ends ofjustice. We, therefore, are ofthe opinion that Contemnor-Respondent Nos. I and 2 are guilty of commission of contempt of this Court. 18. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that the interest ofjustice would be subserved, if both of them are directed to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each. They shall deposit the amount of fine in the Registry of this Court within four weeks from date, failing which appropriate action shall be taken. 19. Contemnor-Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 admittedly are not parties to the aforementioned order. Rule against them is discharged; while making the rule absolute against Contemnor-Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 20. This Petition is allowed with the aforementioned directions. K. K. T.

Contempt Petition allowed. ,. __ -(-