DHARMENDRA KUMAR Vs. NISHKAM DIWAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two contempt petitions have been filed by the petitioners under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 10, 11, and 12 of the Contempt Courts Act for willful disobedience of judgment dated 23.8.2011 passed by Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Review Petition No. 78 of 2011 arising out of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2175 of 201 and S.B. Civil Review Petition No. 79 of 2011 arising out of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2176/2011. Along with the contempt petitions applications for seeking leave to file contempt petitions were also filed by the petitioners in both the contempt petitions. Mr. Madhav Mitra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners Nisha Sharma and Kshama Awasthi, has submitted that the petitioners participated in Pre-Teachers Entrance Test - 2010. Both the petitioners secured suitable merit and as per their merit both the petitioners were allotted Laxmi Bai Teachers Training College, Jamwa Ramgarh, Jaipur. At the relevant time the aforesaid college was holding recognition by the NCTE. The petitioners pursued their studies and training at Laxmibai Teachers Training College. The University of Rajasthan refused to extend provisional affiliation earlier granted to Laxmi Bai Teachers Training College vide their communication dated 9.2.2011. Laxmi Bai Teachers Training college filed Writ Petition No. 2176/2011 before this Court against the order dated 9.2.2011. The said writ petitions was disposed by this Court on 27.4.2011. This court in the order dated 27.4.2011 observed that the students of Laxmi Bai Teachers Training College, Jaipur shall stand transfer to some other colleges, The Coordinator PTET 2000 Jainarain University Jodhpur issued letter dated 6.5.2011 to both the petitioners informing them to report to Shri Agrasen Mahila T.T. College, Near Kanak Palace Hotel, Bharatpur Road, Mahuwa, Dausa. The petitioners were required to join between 6.5.2011 to 9.5.2011. Meanwhile Laxmi Bai teachers Training College filed Review Petition No. 79/2011, wherein this Court granted interim order on 9.5.2011 to the effect that the students of Laxmi Bai Teachers Training College Jamwa Ramgarh, Jaipur shall not be transferred to any other College. It is stated in the petition that the petitioners came to be transferred to Shri Agrasen Mahila T.T. College Mahuwa, Dausa and they reported in the said college on 9.5.2011. However, after the aforesaid order of this Court dated 9.5.2011 in the review petition the petitioners were advised to continue their studies and training in Laxmi Bai Teachers Training College, accordingly the petitioners continued to pursue their studies and training in Laxmi Bai Teachers College. They have also deposited the prescribed examination fee with the Laxmi Bai Teachers Training College and were waiting for the examination. In other Teachers Training Colleges, examination forms have been sent by the Coordinator, but such forms were not sent to the Laxmi Bai Teachers Training College, on the contrary the petitioners were given to understand that they would not be allowed to appear in B.Ed. Examination. As per the Schedule Final Examination of B.Ed. were scheduled from 24.8.2011 onwards. The petitioners submitted application for impleadment in the aforesaid review petition, the application submitted by the petitioners was heard along with the review petition on 23.8.2011 and this Court observed in the order that the University was not permitting the students, who had been studying in the Laxmi Bai Teachers Training College, Jaipur to appear in the examination. This court observed that if the students are eligible to appear in the examination, the respondent University must permit them to do so. While parting with the order this Court constrained to observed that "it appears from the camour emerging from both the sides that the respondent University is adamant not to permit the students to appear in the examination and they have made it to be their prestigious issue. The Court expects that the University should discharge its function honestly, fairly, impartially and sans and bias, in accordance with the provisions of law and should not embrace it to be personal nor should make it a prestigious issue. The petitioners filed this contempt petition on 25.8.2011 and the examinations have already been commenced from 24.8.2011. Mr. Madhav Mitra, counsel for the petitioners has submitted that by not allowing the petitioners to take examination despite clear cut and unambiguous directions given by this Court, comes within the purview of contempt as defined under the provisions of the contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and all the contemnors are liable to be punished for flouting the order dated 23.8.2011 passed by this Court. The conduct of the contemnors falls within the purview of contempt as defined under Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and they are also liable to be punished adequately for committing contempt of the Courts order.

(2.) Mr. Mohit Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners has almost supported the arguments raised by the counsel for the other petitioners in the contempt petition. The name of the College in which the petitioners are studying is Maharana Pratap Teachers Training College, Basedi, District Dholpur. The petitioners were transferred to join new allotted college by 5.00 p.m. on 9.5.2011 but since the interim order was passed by this Court so the petitioners could not join their new allotted college. It has been submitted by the counsel that the petitioners have been made to run from pillar to post without there being any fault on their part. The petitioners moved application for being impleaded as party respondent along with the application for interim relief in the review petition. The review petitions were disposed without there being any order on the applications of the petitioners. The petitioners have deposited the examination fees and the examination form to the University of Rajasthan. The examination for the B.Ed. Programme for the Session 2010-11 had already commenced from 24.8.2011 and despite being eligible in all respects the respondent only on account of some personal issue has not permitted the petitioners to appear in the first exam. This contempt petition was also presented on 25.8.2011.

(3.) I have heard the arguments of both the counsel and have also gone through the documents submitted by the petitioners.