D. Laxmi and another vs Prof. Sri Sandeep

This Contempt Case is filed to punish the respondent herein for violation of the orders of this Court dated 24-7-1998 in WP No.5266/98 whereunder a direction was given to admit these two petitioners in B.Ed. (Vacation Course) for the year 1998-99. The case is having a long history.

The respondent herein issued notification on 24-1-1998 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for admission into B.Ed. Vacation Course for the year 1998-99. One of the conditions stipulated therein was that the concerned District Educational Officer has to certify that the candidate is working in a recognised School and the candidate is working in a post sanctioned by the Department. This clause was questioned by the petitioners herein in WP No.5266/98. Following an earlier Judgment of mine I directed the respondent not to insist that one should work in an approved post.

To complete the narration of facts, pursuant to the notification, written test was conducted in the last week of February, 1998 and the petitioners herein secured ranks 181 and 25 respectively. After disposal of the Writ Petition on 24-7-3998 the petitioners seemed to have approached the District Educational Officer for issuance of the certificate. But, inspite of the Judgment of this Court, the District Educational Officer did not give the certificate within the time, with the result the petitioners were compelled to file Contempt Case No. 1689/98 on 26-10-1998 as the respondent herein notified that 28-10-1998 could be the last date for admissions into this course. Admittedly, after receiving the notice in the Contempt Case, the District Educational Officer, issued the necessary certificate on 23-11-1998. As the District Educational Officer has complied with the order, this Court closed the Contempt Case.

Now the respondent refused to admit the petitioners into the course on the ground that the admissions were over on 28-10-1998. It is not his case that there are no seats to accommodate the petitioners. The respondents tried to justify their action on the ground that not only admissions were closed on 28-10-98, but also on the ground the first contact programme was over on 23-11-1998 where 50% of the theory was covered and 100% of the practical were also over and the second contact programme is going to commence on 2-5-1999. Further, they also placed reliance on the instructions given by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) in proceedings No. F.SRO/NCTE/ 98-99/3458 dated 9-12-1998. I have gone through the proceedings. That proceedings would not come in the way of admission of the petitioners. This communication from NCTE is with regard to the revised guidelines for conducting programme through distance education, but nowhere NCTE directed not to admit the candidates after the last date for admission is over. It is useful lo extract the communication of NCTE:

"You are requested not to make admissions for the course until a decision is taken by SRC-NCTE on your application. Your kind attention is also drawn to the letter No.F. 10-9/96 Vol.II/ 37 of NCTE Dated 12-1-98 of Sri S.K.Grover, Deputy Secretary, addressed to Sri Sriramamurthy, the then Director (incharge) wherein it has been clearly clarified that all Universities are to formulate their programmes in accordance with the guidelines and run the programme after taking due approval from the Regional Committees of NCTE in accordance with the provision of the NCTE Act."

From this it is evident that firstly the NCTE directed the University not to make any admissions until a decision is taken by the Regional Committee of NCTE on their application to commence the course. � That condition has nothing to do with the facts of the case. Secondly, the NCTE made it clear that the Universities are at liberty to formulate their own programmes and run the programmes after taking due approval of the Regional Committee. In other words, what the respondents are expected to do is after finalisation of the programme they have to take approval of the Committee. Except stating so the NCTE never came in the way of the respondents in admitting the candidates after the last date is over, more so when the students are not at fault, and the officers involved in the process of selection are at fault.

The question that arises for consideration in this Contempt case would be, whether the respondent can deny legitimate expectation of a candidate in seeking admission lo this course at the vagaries of the Officers concerned for no fault of him.

Admittedly, in this case, this Court on an earlier occasion declared that the respondents cannot insist that one should work in an approved post. Even then for reasons best known to the University Authorities they issued a notification incorporating the same condition. Again this Court has to interfere and came to the rescue of the petitioners and directed the respondents to admit the petitioners to the course. But the District Educational Officer who has to perform a statutory duty failed in his duty and inspite of the Judgment of this Court, the Officer concerned failed to discharge the dudes attached to the post. This is happening in this country because there is no accountability of the part of the Officers concerned in committing the misdeeds. It is nothing but grave misconduct on the part of the District Educational Officer, who failed to comply with the orders of this Court, leave apart non discharge of the duties attached to his office. Admittedly, after the Contempt Case was tiled he issued the certificate and this court condoned the lapse on the part of the Officer concerned and ultimately instead of getting punishment he got a premium for the misconduct. Now this Contemnor says "that as the admissions were closed on a particular date, I will not admit them even if he is eligible for admission because it is my prerogative to admit a candidate or not"; forgetting the fact that the petitioners are driven from pillar to post by questioning the illegal orders passed by them time and again though they are eligible to get admission on the basis of their performance in the written test. It is not only abdication of duties and functions attached to the posts of the officers concerned, but also showing disrespect to the orders passed by a Competent Court. If the Officers are honest in discharging their duties, they would have seen that by the time their contact programme commenced in November, 1998 as per their own version, the District Educational Officer has given the certificate. The only hitch is that the certificate was not produced before the last date for admission. In the peculiar circumstances and in a hard case of this nature, had they viewed the problem with humane outlook, nothing would have come in their way in admitting the petitioners in the course. Once again because of the unhelpful attitude of the Contemnor herein, the petitioners have lost the first contact programme for no fault of theirs. I am left with no option except to hold that the Contemnor committed clear Contempt of Court.

Keeping the fact that the respondent came to adverse notice for the first time, though I held that he committed contempt, I am leaving him off with a warning with a hope and trust that it will have its own effect on him in future. As the Contemnor is present in the Court he is given 24 hours time to admit the petitioners in the course.