A party cannot sit in judgment over the correctness or justification of a judicial direction or order but must comply with the same even if he/she believes the order to be wrong or unjustified till it is set aside.

Manjula Chellur, J.

1. This appeal is directed under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 challenging the judgment dated 24.08.2015 passed by Learned Single Judge of this Court holding the appellant/contemnor guilty of committing contempt of Court under Section 12 sub-section 1 of the Contempt of Courts Act of 1977 and imposing a cost of Rs.2,000 to be paid by the contemnor to the respondent/writ petitioner and further directing Registrar, University of Calcutta to take steps for recovery of the said amount from the salary of the appellant/contemnor.

2. It would be just and proper to narrate the background in which the present appeal is preferred. The respondent/writ petitioner claimed reservation under category other backward classes (OBC-B). Apparently, she had secured 40% (out of best of four subjects, excluding Environmental Education) in Higher Secondary Examination. She sought admission for B.A. LL.B course, a five year course for the academic session 2014-2015 in the University of Calcutta. Admittedly, applicant had endorsed in the application form that she belongs to the category of OBC. According to her, the University ought to have made reservation for OBC candidates in the process of admission under the provisions of the West Bengal State Higher Educational Institutions (reservation in admission) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 2013) and the West Bengal State Higher Educational Institution (reservation in admission) rules, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the rules of 2014) framed thereunder but had illegally failed to do so.

3. Admittedly, the University authorities treated the respondent/writ petitioner as a general category candidate and refused to give 'Admit Card' as she did not have requisite marks of 45% in Higher Secondary Examination as stipulated for general category candidates. Aggrieved by such action of the University, the respondent/writ petitioner approached this Court in the instant writ petition, inter-alia, seeking intervention of the Court that she may be issued 'Admit Card' for the aforesaid Entrance examination and a direction to the University Authorities to fill up the existing vacancy under OBC-B category for the above said fiver year B.A. LL.B course.

4. By order dated 27.06.2014 the learned Single Judge of this Court after hearing the parties directed as interim relief that the respondent/writ petitioner be issued with Admit Card and be allowed to appear in the Entrance examination which was to be held on 05.07.2014. It is contended by the respondent/writ petitioner, notwithstanding above said interim direction of the Court and although she was an OBC candidate, University authorities compelled her to take the Entrance examination as a general candidate which is illegal and her name appeared in the merit list of general candidates at rank No. 1346.

5. Counselling of the said candidates for admission to the above said course was fixed on and from 14th July, 2014 till 17th July, 2014. It appears, on 14th July, 2014 respondent/ writ petitioner had given notice to the University authorities complaining that she was compelled to take the examination as a general candidate instead of OBC candidate. She filed CAN No. 6971 of 2014 and application for appropriate order. After hearing the parties the learned Judge passed the following order:

"Mr. Bari, Learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submits that the writ petitioner appeared at the test as O.B.C. candidate. However, the counselling process is going on. According to him, the writ petitioner should be allowed to take part in the counselling process, otherwise the entire proceeding would be infructuous.

Mr. Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing for the University submits that the petitioner's claim is in O.B.C. category and he also submits that the petitioner can participate in the counselling process.

Considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, the concerned