BALDEV SINGH Vs. CHHABI SHYAM TRIPATHI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec. 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Act No. 75 of 1971) is directed against the judgment and order dated 1st April, 1987 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court holding the appellant Baldev Singh guilty of committing civil contempt of this Court and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 1,550 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad, and also to undergo imprisonment for a period of four months in civil prison. The appeal has arisen in the circumstances hereinafter indicated.

(2.) The appellant, at the relevant time, was the Secretary of the Railway Service Commission (now Railway Recruitment Board), Allahabad. The Commission held a test for selection of candidates for appointment to certain class 111 posts in the Railways. The test comprised a written examination followed by interview of the candidates who qualified at the written examination. The written examination was held on 22nd Feb., 1981 at Paragraph and interview was held at Lucknow on 5th July, 1982. Apart from other candidates, respondents Chhabi Ram Tripathi and Abid Ali were also candidates at the selection. They had qualified at the written examination and were accordingly not reviewed. On 25th Sept., 1983 a list of selected candidates was published in which the name of neither of the two respondents found place. The respondents accordingly filed Writ Petition No. 5768 of 1983 in this Court on 31st Oct., 1983, seeking inter alia, a writ of mandamus to command the respondents in the petition to forthwith declare their result. The respondents in the writ petition were Railway Service Commission, Allahabad through its Secretary and the General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi. These two respondents in the writ petition will hereafter be referred to as the Commission. The petition was admitted the same day. The plea in the writ petition is that the result of all the candidates should have been published simultaneously and publication of the result of only a few candidates is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

(3.) Alongwith the writ petition, the respondents in the present appeal filed an application for interim relief (C.M.A.) No. 12290 of 1983) seeking, inter alia, direction to the Commission to declare the result of the respondents. Notice, returnable in the week commencing 28th Nov., 1983, was directed to be issued. On 23rd March. 1984 the respondents made another application for interim relief (C.M.A. No. 3553 of 1984) again seeking direction to declare the result immediately. In response to the notice issued on this application, counsel for the Commission appeared before a learned Single Judge of this Court on 14th May, 1984 and made statement that the result of all the candidates in respect of all categories of posts had already been declared. The Commission was required to file a short counter-affidavit by 23rd May, 1984 on which date the case was directed to be listed. The Commission filed counter-affidavit dated 22nd May, 1984 in which it asserted that result were announced on 22nd Sept., 1983 and 20th Feb., 1984 and that the respondents had not been selected. On 1st Aug., 1984 the respondents filed an application for summoning the record from the Commission as, according to the respondents, they were successful at the examination. On 17th Dec., 1984 the Commission filed supplementary counter-affidavit in which it was stated that the respondents were found to have indulged in malpractice and therefore the Chairman of the Commission had deleted the names of the respondents from the merit list. In respect of respondent Chhabi Shyam Tripathi, it was stated that two different inks had been used in the answer sheet, it was also stated that marks scored which were in different ink had been scored out and re-written in a different ink and the scoring had been initialled by the examiner in a different ink. Other irregularities in his selection have been pointed out in paragraph 6 of the affidavit. In respect of respondent Abid Ali it was stated that the vigilance inquiry revealed that the hand-writing on his answer sheet was similar to the handwriting on the answer sheet of three other candidates which showed that unfair means had been resorted to.