DAULAT RAM SEMWAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an Application (CLMA No. 8836 of 2014) to recall/review our order dated 08.08.2014. We would think that our order, which is sought to be recalled/reviewed, is self -explanatory.

(2.) LEARNED Advocate General would submit that the earlier order of this Court dated 11.04.2014 gives an indication that the problem that afflicted higher education sector needs to be set right from the year 2015 -16. He would submit that on account of the peculiar historical background obtaining in the State of Uttarakhand, excess intake of students has been a phenomenon, which has plagued the State for quite some time and, all of a sudden, from this year, if the Court does not permit the situation to continue till 2015 -16, it will create injustice and rob the students concerned of their right to education. He would submit that the respondent University, in fact, misunderstood the scope of this Court's order dated 11.04.2014, when it issued the communication (Annexure -9). He referred the said document and contended that the University was in contempt in not noticing that the University had not been ordered to ensure compliance of the provisions relating to the maximum number of students, who could be admitted from 2014 -15 and what was in the mind of the Court as evidenced from the order dated 11.04.2014, was 2015 -16. Learned Advocate General would remind us that this is a public interest litigation and while it may be true that there was a situation, which left much to be desired obtaining in the higher education field, with the public interest litigation, the eyes of the Government has been opened and it is doing all that is needful and what is possible within the financial constraints within which it works. He would submit that the matter can be monitored by this Court on a fortnightly basis and by 2015 -16, he assures this Court that the situation would be improved to the point, where there will be no problem of excess intake of students.

(3.) PER contra, interestingly, the learned counsel for the University would submit that no contempt has been committed by it and, on the contrary, he rests his case with reference to the earlier order of this Court dated 07.04.2014. The earlier order of this court reads as follows: