PROF SANDEEP OSMANIA UNIVERSITY Vs. D LAXMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal under Section 19 of Contempt of Courts Act arises out of the order of the learned single Judge in C.C.No. 211 of 1999 dated 8-3-1999. That Contempt Case was filed alleging that the appellant herein violated the order of this Court in W.P.No. 5266 of 1998 dated 27-4-1998. In Writ Petition No. 5266 of 1998 dated 27-4-1998, the respondents herein prayed for a writ directing the appellant to permit them to appear for the entrance test for B.Ed., (Vocational Course in Education) Entrance Test, 1998-99. They also challenged the action of the 2nd respondent in the writ petition (District Educational Officer, Hyderabad) in refusing to forward their applications to the appellant herein on the ground that the writ petitioners' appointments were not against sanctioned posts and they were not approved by him. Pending the writ petition, interim orders were granted by this Court to receive the applications of the writ petitioners without insisting on the countersignature of the D.E.O. The writ petitioners then appeared for the entrance test. Further interim orders were granted on 15-5-1998 to declare their results in the entrance test. The main writ petition was disposed of on 24-7-1998 "in forms or The judgment in W.P.No. 1642 of 1994 and batch dated 13-9-1995".

(2.) Let us notice what was held in W.P.No. 1642 of 1994 and batch. In thosecases, the learned Judge held that the temporary orad hoc unqualified teachers working in a recognised Institution on consolidated pay or otherwise are entitled to seek admission for B.Ed. (VCE) Course and the D.E.O. cannot refuse the countersignatures on the service certificates. In the operative part of the judgment, the following directions were given.

(3.) The Contempt Case No. 1689 of 1998 was closed on 21-1-1999. As regardsthe first respondent in the Contempt Case (appellant herein) the learned Judge specifically observed that the allegations in the Contempt Case did not disclose that he disobeyed the orders of the Court. Hence, the Contempt case as far as first respondent (appellant) is concerned, was dismissed. As regards the 2nd respondent (D.E.O., Hyderabad) who is not a party to the present Contempt Case, the learned Judge did not consider it necessary to proceed against him under the Contempt of Courts Act in view of the fact that the service certificates were countersigned and forwarded to the University on 23-11-1998. The Contempt Case was closed against the D.E.O.