ORDER

1. Special leave granted.

2. The Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Planning by its order dated 20-1-1976 approved the West Bengal Governments proposal for upgrading the Postgraduate Training and Research Department (Kayachikitsa) on certain conditions including that the college should be affiliated to a recognised university, the upgraded Department should have an all-India character and 50% seats should be reserved for outside candidates, if forthcoming. With a view to maintaining a high standard, the Department decided to admit candidates strictly on merit to be determined on academic achievements and results in written and viva voce tests for selection. A committee of experts was entrusted the task of selecting the candidates for admission. That Committee had accepted minimum 50% marks as the norm for selection.

3. In 1988-89, for six seats advertisement was issued and intending candidates applied. The respondent who hailed from outside the State applied in the quota reserved for such candidates. All the outside State candidates competed for the three seats reserved for them and appeared for the selection test. None of those who appeared met the minimum requirement. In order that the three seats may not go waste, the minimum marks were reduced from 50% to 30% and the Selection Committee undertook a review to ascertain how many met this diluted norm. It was found that two candidates from the State and one candidate studying in West Bengal but otherwise from outside the State qualified. The respondent did not qualify even according to the reduced standard. Surprisingly, even before the final selection list was out, he moved a writ petition in the High Court. The High Court by its order dated 22-11-1990 ordered his admission in the quota for outside students provided he succeeded in the selection test. The respondent was not successful. He moved a second writ petition. A learned Single Judge by an interim order dated 22-2-1991 directed his provisional admission. On the present appellants making an application for vacating the said interim order, the learned Single Judge by order dated 3-4-1991 directed notice to issue (suo motu) to show cause why action for contempt should not be taken. Being aggrieved, the appellants filed an appeal FMAT No. 1036 of 1991 questioning the interim order of 22-2-1991. The Division Bench admitted the appeal and stayed the operation of the said interim order.

4. Pending the above appeal, the original writ petition was finally heard on 11-11-1991 by the learned Single Judge and the judgment was reserved. However, without notice to the counsel for the appellants herein, the learned Single Judge passed an interim order on 15-1-1992 requiring the Department to examine the writ petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal FMAT No. 285 of 1992 was carried to the Division Bench. Thereafter, the writ petition was finally disposed of on 21-1-1992 holding that the refusal to grant admission was illegal and unjustified and directed that the candidate be admitted forthwith. Against the said mandate, an appeal FMAT No. 392 of 1992 was filed before the Division Bench. The appeal was admitted and stay granted.

5. During the pendency of the three appeals, the original writ petitioner moved for vacating the interim order on the plea that the Calcutta University had issued a notice dated 30-8-1993 inviting applications for admission to the three-year MD course in Ayurveda and he was likely to get admission if the interim order was vacated. The said application was fixed for hearing on 13-3-1995. Since the Bar Association had given a call for strike, neither the advocate for the appellant nor for the respondent could appear, but the Division Bench heard the candidate in person and modified the order of stay. Thereafter, the candidate moved a contempt petition, CR No. 711 of 1995, for violation of the said order. The rule was made returnable on 23-6-1995 and Appellant 1 herein was directed to person