Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.VENKATRAMA REDDY
SANDEEP, DIRECTOR OF B.ED, HYDERABAD - Appellant
Versus
D.LAXMI - Respondent
Decided On : 10-01-99
Constitution of India - Article 215 - Contempt of Courts Act - Section 12 - Section 19 - seeking admission - Let us notice what was held in W. P. and batch. In those cases, learned Judge held that temporary orad hoc unqualified teachers working in a recognised Institution on consolidated pay or otherwise are entitled to seek admission for B. Ed. Course and D. E. O. cannot refuse countersignatures on service certificates - In operative part of judgment, following directions were given - Court direct Director to take action to publish results of petitioners after obtain ingreport from District Educational Officer with regard to eligibility of petitioners, for seeking admission into B. Ed Course and after satisfying himself that petitioners fulfilled all other conditions for writing final examinations D. E. O. is directed to verify records of Management as well as periodical inspection reports and submit a report to Director of vocational Courses, Osmania University, whether petitioners worked in institution recognised by Government for a period of two years as on date of notification and whether petitioners were actually working on date of notification, but not on any other aspect - Director should take action to publish results of petitioners after obtaining report from D. E. O. with regard to eligibility of petitioners for seeking admission into B. Ed and after satisfying himself that petitioners fulfil all other conditions for writing final examinations - After disposal of writ Petition respondents herein approached district Educational Officer for counter signature on Service Certificates - D. E. O. in turn directed Deputy Inspector of Schools to submit a report whether petitioners have been working for three years - As no action was taken by D. E. O. till last week respondents filed C. C. for non-implementation of order passed in W. P. - According to chronological events furnished by Counsel for respondents, Contempt Case was admitted - By that date, according to learned Counsel for respondents, admissions were closed - However, learned Counsel for appellant submits that admissions were actually closed two months later – Held , Here is a case in which appellant was in fact found guilty of Contempt of Court - As far as punishment is concerned, learned Judge took a lenient view - Instead of sentencing appellant to imprisonment or payment of fine, learned Judge administered a warning to appellant - In such a situation, it cannot but be said that High Court passed order in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt - Punishment need not necessarily be in form of imprisonment or fine - Finding a party guilty of contempt of Court and following it up by admonition or warning or award of exemplary costs or like is an instance of High Court exercising its jurisdiction to punish respondents for Contempt - Amplitude of expression jurisdiction to punish for contempt in our view, cannot be unduly restricted so as to confine it only to cases of imprisonment and for imposition of fine - Words employed are a Contempt of Court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to Rs. 2,000/- or with both - Words may be punished are important maximum extent which Court can go for punishing a person for Contempt is indicated therein - It does not mean that if any thing short of it is done after finding a person guilty of contempt - High Court exercises jurisdiction otherwise than jurisdiction vested in read with provisions of Contempt of Court Act - Appeal is disposed of
( 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. ". . . . . . . HENCE, I direct the Director to take action to publish the results of the petitioners after obtain ingreport from the District Educational Officer with regard to the eligibility of the petitioners, for seeking admission into B. Ed. (VCE) Course and after satisfying himself that the petitioners fulfilled all other conditions for writing the final examinations". "the D. E. O. is directed to verify the records of the Management as well as the periodical inspection reports and submit a report to the Director of vocational Courses, Osmania University, whether the petitioners worked in the institution recognised by the Government for a period of two years as on the date of notification and whether the petitioners were actually working on the date of notification, but not on any other aspect; (2) The Director should take action to publish the results of the petitioners after obtaining the report from the D. E. O. with regard to the eligibility of the petitioners for seeking admission into B. Ed. (VCE) and after satisfying himself that the petitioners fulfil all other conditions for writing final examinations". After disposal of writ Petition No. 5266 of 1998, the respondents herein approached the district Educational Officer for counter signature on the Service Certificates on 29-8-1998. The D. E. O. in turn directed the Deputy Inspector of Schools to submit a report whether the petitioners have been working for three years. As no action was taken by the D. E. O. till the last week of Oct. , 1998, the respondents filed C. C. No. 1689 of 1998 on 26-10-1998 for non-implementation of the order passed in W. P. No. 5266 of 1998. According to the chronological events furnished by the Counsel for the respondents, the Contempt Case was admitted on 28-10-1998. By that date, according to the learned Counsel for the respondents, admissions were closed. However, the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that admissions were actually closed on 28-12-1998, i. e. , two months later. While so, on 20-11-1998, the D. E. O. sent the Service certificates with countersignatures to the University authorities. By that time, the first phase of the course was over on21-1-1999. The first contact programme cl
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
