PRATAP CHANDRA MOHANTY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Consequent upon surrender of P.G. (Medical) seats of the central quota by the Central Government to the State Government, a number of writ petitions (which have been disposed of today) were filed in this Court by different candidates praying for a direction to the State Government and its officials to make those seats available to them on the basis of their merit position after holding counseling. On 3-5-1996 when some of the writ petitions came up for consideration this Court (vide order No.6 dated 35-1996 in OJC No. 3580 of 1995) observed that writ petitions filed for the self-same relief after 2-5-1996 will not be entertained. On 17-8-1996 (vide order No.4 dated 17-5-1996 in OJC No. 776 of 1996) we directed the selection Committee to hold counseling of the concerned petitioners and submit the result thereof on the next date of hearing (25-6-1996). It was made clear by that order that the counseling would be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the opposite parties. On that day, the learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that it was immediately not possible to hold counseling because Selection Committee was busy in finalising the admission to State quota seats for the session 1996-97. Accordingly, counseling was rescheduled to be held on 10-6-1996. When the writ petitions were listed on 25-61996 for final disposal, the learned Additional Government Advocate stated that no counseling was held on the scheduled date of 10-6-1996 and this application was filed to modify the order dated 17-5-1996 passed in OJC No. 776 of 1996 by which counseling was directed to be held. As no counseling was held on the scheduled date, this Court was of the prima facie view that the Director, Medical Education and Training (hereinafter referred to as the D.M.E.T.) and the Governor, P.G. Selection Committee, 1995 who were to conduct the counseling committed contempt of Court and they were called upon to appear in person and show cause as to why they would not be suitably dealt with for having violated the Courts order dated 17-5-1996. Pursuant to the said direction, the D.M.E.T. and the Governor appear in person on 26-6-1996. The learned Advocate General stated in Court that the action (or inaction?) of the concerned officers in not holding the counseling on scheduled date is unpardonable and assured that counseling would be held on 1-7-1996. Accordingly the counseling was held on 1-7-1996.

(2.) The D.M.E.T. and the Governor filed their respective show cause reply on 2-7-1996. On 3-7-1996, learned counsel for the petitioners brought to our notice a copy of the letter No. 20232 dated 8-6-1996 written by the Under-Secretary of the Health and Family Welfare Department to the D.M.E.T. directing to cancel the counseling scheduled to be held on 10-6-1996. As the said direction contained in the letter was contrary to and in violation of the Courts order, we called upon the Secretary of the Department and the Under Secretary to appear in person and file their show cause replies. Both of them appeared in person and filed their show cause replies.

(3.) It is an admitted fact that counseling was directed to be held on 10-6-1996 and the same was not done on the scheduled date. It was done on 1-7-1996 only when further order was passed on 26-6-1996 in the matter as aforesaid. In the circumstances, it is, therefore, necessary to examine, if the aforesaid four officers have deliberately violated this Courts order thereby committed contempt of this Court.