OM PRAKASH DWIVEDI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This special appeal has been filed by the eighth respondent, who is the officiating Joint Director of Education, Varanasi Region, Varanasi against an order of the learned Single Judge dated 25 November 2013 which reads as follows:-

(2.) The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the twelfth and thirteenth respondents to this appeal, who are respectively the Committee of Management, Ganga Din Ram Kumar Inter College, Ramgarh Barawan, Jaunpur and Virendra Kumar Pandey, its Manager. The petition seeks a writ of certiorari calling for the records of an alleged election held on 23 October 2011 and for quashing and setting aside the election and an order of the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur dated 29 October 2011, attesting the signature of Smt. Vimla Tripathi (respondent 11 in the writ proceedings and respondent 10 in the present appeal). The petition was initially put up as a fresh matter before a learned Single Judge on 6 February 2012 and thereafter was adjourned from time to time until 15 March 2012 when the learned Single Judge (Justice A.P. Sahi) directed that the petition be placed before a Bench of which he is not a Member after obtaining a nomination from Hon'ble the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice, on 16 March 2012, directed that the petition should be placed before Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dilip Gupta before whom the petition appeared on board on 12 April 2012, 10 May 2012, 2 July 2012, 18 September 2012, 3 October 2012, 10 October 2012, 21 November 2012, 29 November, 2012, 22 March 2013 and 5 April 2013. Eventually on 5 April 2013, the learned Single Judge directed that since he was now sitting in a Division Bench, the matter may be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate orders. Accordingly, the Hon'ble the then Chief Justice issued a direction on 9 April 2013 to the effect that the petition may be laid/listed before the appropriate Bench. Accordingly, on 9 May 2013, the petition was listed before the learned Single Judge in accordance with the prevailing roster of work. On that day, the order sheet records that the petition was heard in part and on the request of the counsel for the eleventh respondent (in the writ proceedings) who sought an adjournment to study the matter, the petition was directed to be placed on 13 May 2013. On 20 May 2013, the petition appeared on board before the learned Single Judge. While referring to the fact that the petition had been heard "at length on 9 May 2013", the learned Single Judge directed the petition to stand over to 29 May 2013 peremptorily. The petition was not heard on 29 May 2013.

(3.) The admitted position is that the assignments of work under the roster prepared under the directions of Hon'ble the Chief Justice changed after the summer recess of 2013. However, the same learned Single Judge, who had heard the matter on 9 May 2013 and 20 May 2013, heard the proceedings on 10 July 2013. For the first time, notice was issued on that date when the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1 to 7 and the counsel representing respondents 11 and 12 accepted notice. The appellant, being an officer of the Education Department, the learned Standing Counsel was directed to take notice on his behalf. A further direction for listing the matter on 25 July 2013 was issued. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge heard the petition on diverse dates between 25 July 2013 and 10 October 2013. Eventually, on 25 November 2013, an order was passed by the learned Single Judge observing that the Court was satisfied that there had been an attempt on the part of the then Regional Joint Director of Education to overreach the directions issued by this Court in a judgment dated 22 October 1997 and to bring disrepute to the final judgment. Consequently, the then Regional Joint Director of Education was prima facie held liable for contempt and his presence has been directed to be secured before the Court on 18 December 2013 for framing of charges.