Contempt of Court – When not – Judgment dtd. 03.11.17 passed in Civil Appeal Nos.17869-17870/2017 and Clarificatory Order dtd. 22.01.18 passed in miscellaneous applications arising from the aforesaid Civil Appeals – Contempt Petitions filed by the candidates (enrolled in academic sessions 2001-05 and attained Degrees in Engineering through Distance Education Mode) presently posted as Junior Engineers in Public Health Engineering Department, alleging that the respondents-contemnors violated the aforesaid judgment and order– As per the petitioners, in terms of the judgment they appeared in the test held by AICTE and qualified in the first attempt, however, they were denied benefits arising from their Degrees which became valid after clearing the examination – It was also alleged that their representations for adding their higher qualification, B.Tech (Civil) and due benefit for promotion at par with junior candidates who obtained their B.Tech Degrees through regular mode, were not considered– Held: Though the Degrees obtained through Distance Education Mode were prima facie not in accordance with law, the students enrolled in the academic sessions 2001-05 were given two chances to prove their worth and it was directed that if they clear the test, they would continue to derive advantages flowing from such Degrees– If the candidates could clear the examination in the first attempt itself, there would not even be any break in continuous enjoyment of those benefits– Idea was, candidates should not stand deprived of the status they were enjoying on the day of the Judgment, provided the candidates prove their worth– Directions did not confer any additional advantage which was not even enjoyed as on the date– In the present case, serious objection were raised by Department that the concerned candidates enrolled in courses in Engineering through Distance Education Mode without express permission of the Department and/or the Department did not recognise Degrees awarded through said mode or that the concerned candidates were not granted any study leave to pursue such courses– If there was serious infirmity in the Degrees obtained by the candidates, the matter ought to be sorted out either through representation or through properly instituted challenge in that behalf – Representations made claimed conferral of certain status/benefits which they were not enjoying earlier – Such entitlement needs to be established in proceedings other than Contempt Petition –If the promotion was not granted and was not being enjoyed as on the day when the judgment was passed, there was no violation on part of the alleged Contemnors, of any direction issued by Supreme Court – Cost of Rs.5000/- imposed on the petitioners to be deposited in the concerned Department within four weeks, failing which the Department to recover the same in accordance with law – Guidelines/Norms/Directions – 2004 University Grants Commission Guidelines.
Dismissing the contempt petitions, the Court
HELD : 1.1 Two kinds of students were before the Court
(i) those who were enrolled during the academic sessions 20012005 and (ii) those who were enrolled after the academic sessions 2001-2005. It was noted in para 23.6 that UGC had issued “2004 UGC Guidelines” in terms of which concept of ex-post facto approval in respect of deemed to be Universities which had started courses in Distance Education without any approval from the concerned authorities was introduced. In accordance with these “2004 UGC Guidelines” some of the deemed to be Universities applied for ex-post facto approval and were granted such approval, as a result of which the students enrolled during academic sessions 2001-2005 stood on a different footing as against those who were enrolled after the academic sessions 2001-2005. Though the Judgment did not approve of the entire exercise undertaken by the concerned authorities, including the grant of ex-post facto approvals, a concession was given to the students who were enrolled during the academic sessions 2001-2005. Though the Degrees obtained through Distance Education Mode were prima facie not in accordance with law, the students enrolled during the academic sessions 2001-2005 were given two chances to prove their worth and it was directed that if they clear the test, they would continue to derive advantages flowing from such Degrees. If any candidate either failed to clear the examination in two attempts or if he chose not to appear in the examination, the Degree would stand annulled completely disentitling the candidate to all the benefits and advantages flowing from such degrees. [Paras 7, 8] [589-D-G; 590-H; 591-A]
1.2 The candidates who, on the strength of such Degrees awarded through Distance Education Mode, had attained a particular level in their career or were enjoying certain benefits as on the date of the Judgment and if they pass the examination, those benefits would stand restored. If the candidates could clear the examination in the first attempt itself, there would not even be any break in continuous enjoyment of those benefits or facilities. The idea was, candidates should not stand deprived of the status that they were enjoying as on the day of the Judgment provided the candidates could prove their worth and ability. But if, the concerned candidates had not attained any particular status, as on the date when the Judgment was passed, the width of the directions was not to confer any additional advantage which was not even enjoyed as on the date. If the degrees stood restored in terms of the directions in the Judgment and the Order, the candidates would certainly be eligible to such entitlements as are available in accordance with law, but “restoration” would only be of those benefits, which they were enjoying as on the date of the Judgment. In short, the intent was to restore status quo ante and not to confer any additional advantage by the Judgment and the Order. In the present case serious objection has been raised on behalf of Department that the concerned candidates had enrolled themselves in courses leading to Degrees in Engineering through Distance Education Mode without express permission of the Department and/or the Department did not recognise the Degrees in Engineering awarded through Distance Education Mode or that the concerned candidates were not granted any study leave to pursue such courses. If the Degrees were so obtained in violation of the norms and parameters laid down by the concerned Department, the matter assumes completely different complexion. If there was serious infirmity in the Degrees so obtained by the candidates, the matter ought to be sorted out either through representation or through properly instituted challenge in that behalf. If the promotion was not granted and was not being enjoyed as on the day when the judgment was passed, there was no violation of any direction issued by this Court. The representations made by the Contempt Petitioner claimed conferral of certain status and benefits which they were not enjoying earlier. If there be any grievance on that front, the entitlement needs to be established in proceedings other than a Contempt Petition. There is no violation on part of the alleged Contemnors. Contempt Petitions are dismissed. Each of the petitioners shall deposit Rs.5000/- by way of costs in the concerned Department within four weeks, failing which the Department shall recover the same in accordance with law. [Paras 10, 11, 13 and 14] [592-G-H; 593-A; 594-C] Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited v. Rabi Sankar Patro and others (2018) 1 SCC 468 : [2017]
13 SCR 921 ; Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited v. Rabi Sankar Patro and others (2018) 2 SCC 298 : [2018] 1 SCR 839 – referred to.
J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar and others (1996) 6 SCC 291 : [1996] 6 Suppl. SCR 110 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.