Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Pursuant to the direction given on the second occasion, respondents again passed an order holding the petitioner to be ineligible for obtaining two degrees simultaneously without adhering to the requirement of attendance to the extent of 75 percent. The said order has been challenged by the petitioner by maintaining third writ petition which is still pending.

After the judgment on the second writ petition matter was processed to consider it in accordance with law. The petitioner non-appellant was held to be ineligible in view of two degrees taken simultaneously.

During the pendency of third writ petition, the Contempt Court while passing the order dated 18.1.2020, made comment on the merits of the order by which the petitioner was held ineligible on obtaining two degrees simultaneously. It is going beyond the jurisdiction vested in it in the light of the judgment of Apex Court in J.S.Parihar vs. Ganpat Duggar and others (1996) 6 SCC 291. Para 6 of the judgment supra is quoted hereunder :

"The question then is whether the Division Bench was right in setting aside the direction issued by the learned single Judge to redraw the seniority list. It is contended by Mr.S.K. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that unless the learned Judge goes into the correctness of the decision take by the Government in preparation of the seniority list in the light of the law laid down by three benches, the learned Judge cannot come to a conclusion whether or not the respondent had willfully or deliberately disobeyed the orders of the Court as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act. Therefore, the learned single Judge of the High Court necessarily has to go into the merits of that question. We do not find that the contention is well founded. It is seen that, admittedly, the respondents had prepared the seniority list on 2.7.1991. Subsequently promotions came to be made. The question is: whether seniority list is open to review in the contempt proceedings to find out, whether it is in conformity with the directions issued by the earlier Benches. It is seen that once there is an order passed by the Government on the basis of the directions issued by the Court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. The preparation of the seniority list may be wrong or may be right or may or may not be in conformity with the directions. But that would be a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity of judicial review. But that cannot be considered to be the willful violation of the order. After re-exercising the judicial review in contempt proceedings, afresh direction by the learned single Judge cannot be given to redraw the seniority list. In other words, the learned Judge was exercising the jurisdiction to consider the matter on merits in the contempt proceedings. It would not be permissible under Section 12 of the Act. Therefore, the Division Bench has exercised the power under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance being a judgment or order of the single Judge, the Division Bench corrected the mistake committed by the learned single Judge. Therefore, it may not be necessary for the State to file an appeal in this Court against the judgment of the learned single Judge when the matter was already seized of the Division Bench."