1. Whether a statement, made in or outside the court by or on behalf of T, that 'X has been discriminated against 'Y, while appointing 'Y to a particular post in public employment, in preference to 'X', on the ground that 'Y belongs to a particular religion, can be regarded as a communal statement ? This is the moot question, which this miscellaneous application has raised.

2. Connected with the above question is the question as to whether a court shall make 'disparaging remarks' against a counsel, if the counsel had made the statement, as indicated above, on the basis of written instructions received from his client, particularly, when the instructions are supported by affidavit of the client. Yet another question, which has arisen for determination in this application, is: Whether it is open to a court to make 'disparaging remarks' against a counsel even if the counsel has withdrawn the submission or statement made by him.

3. Before I come to the factual background, wherein the above questions have arisen for determination, imperative it is to point out, at the very outset, that this court, while dealing with the present miscellaneous application, is not sitting as a court of appeal; rather, this court has to treat the order, which has been the subject of the present miscellaneous application, seeking expunction of the remarks made, in an order, against the counsel, as if the order was passed by this court.

4. With the prefatory remarks made above, let me turn, now, to the background facts.

Background facts

5. In order to understand the background of this present Misc. Application, the events, which preceded the making of the remarks against the present applicant in the judgment and order, dated 9.11.2005, passed in WP(C) No.4400/1999 [Saleha Begum v. State of 'Assam and Ors., 2006 (1) GLT 86] are necessary to be recalled. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment and order, dated 9.11.2005, 'aforementioned are, therefore, extracted below:

"(1) The challenge made in this writ petition is in respect of termination of the services of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher (honorary basis) by the Managing Committee of the school.

(2) The petitioner was first appointed as assistant Teacher on honorary basis in the school in question by the Managing Committee of the school by its order dated 22.1.1989 in response to the application submitted by the petitioner on 8.1.1989. According to the petitioner she was the second senior most teacher of the school after one Sri Anser Ali. Upon his resignation from the post of Headmaster of the school with effect from 26.3.1998 accepted by the Managing Committee on 25.5.1998, she was under expectation to be appointed as in-charge Headmistress of the school. However, contrary to such expectation, the Managing Committee circulated an advertisement on 12.5.1998 confining the candidatures only to the male candidates. According to the petitioner, same was done with a view to deprive her from the post of Headmistress.

(3) In the aforesaid situation, the petitioner approached this court by filing a writ petition being Civil Rule No. 28137/1998 and by interim order dated 10.6.1998 the advertisement was stayed. Later on, the petitioner withdrew the writ petition on 11.8.1999. In between, the Managing Committee of the school terminated her service by its resolution adopted on 27.6.1998. It is the case of the petitioner that the Managing Committee, being annoyed with her in view of her filing the aforesaid writ petition, adopted such a course of action.

(4) The petitioner filed the instant writ petition on 26.8.1999 making a challenge to the impugned order of termination, dated 27.6.1998, i.e.', after about 15 months of such termination of service. In the writ petition, the petitioner has not even obliquely stated about the subsequent developments that took place in respect of the post earlier being held by her. While entertaining the writ petition, an interim order was passed directing the respondents to allow the pe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document