JUDGMENT V.D. Misra, C.J.—For the academic year 1982-83 for under-graduate (M.B.B.S) course’ of the Himachal Pradesh Medical College, Shimla, (the College) three seats were reserved to be nominated by the Chief Minister at his discretion. The then Chief Minister, Shri Ram Lal Thakur, nominated three students. One was Shri Kavinder Lal, s/o Shri Mohinder Lal, Deputy Commissioner, Shimla. The second was Shri Hirak Dass Gupta, whose father is a Professor of Medicines\in this College. The third was Shri Pravin Rai, s/o Dr. Ramji Rai, a Scientist in the National Physical Laboratory, New Delhi. The first two had tried their luck in the competitive examination known as "Pre- Medical Test1 conducted by the Himachal Pradesh University. They secured very less marks. 2. Some of the unsuccessful candidates challenged, amongst others, the nominations made by the Chief Minister/In Civil Writ Petition No. 201 of 1982, Shri Rahul Verma and another v. Himachal Pradesh University and others, decided on November 19, 1932, the nominations were struck down by this Court. We had recommended that a consequence of the striking down of the three nominations made by the Chief Minister, three seats fell vacant which should be allotted to candidates who competed for the seats in the open category according to their positions in the merit list. The names of the nominated candidates were struck off the records and they were discharged by the Principal of the Medical College on 22nd November, 1982, Thereafter these candidates made an application C.M.P. No. 4521 of 1982 for suspension of the operation of the order for 15 days or till such time as the Supreme Court may order to enable them to file an appeal in the Supreme Court. Though this application was opposed by the successful petitioners, the Advocate General supported the application on behalf of the State. On 25th November, 1982 a short order was passed. It was to the effect that "the petitioners be allowed to attend the College till 3rd December, 1982. The fact that the petitioners have been allowed to attend the College under this order would not give them any right to claim any benefit out of such admission and would also not cause any prejudice to the other candidates who may be eligible to be admitted to the College. The petitioners, in fact, would he attending these classes at their own risk and costs," 3. The petitioners, in fact, would he attending these classes at their own risk and costs," 3. Another Civil Writ Petition No. 343 of 1982 was filed by S/Shri Ved Kumar and Ajay Kumar Datta praying for a direction to the respondents to grant the petitioners admission against the vacant seats as a result of the judgment of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 201 of 1982. It was stated that the nominated candidates, whose nomination was struck down by this Court, had filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court. The State had also filed a separate Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court. It was averred that when the matter came up before the Supreme Court it was adjourned and no stay of the operation of the judgment of this Court was granted. It was, inter-alia, alleged that despite the judgment of this Court the nominated candidates were allowed to attend classes even after 3rd December, 1982. The return was duly filed by the State. It was stated that it was on 26-11-1982 that the notice of discharge of the nominated candidates was withdrawn and they were allowed to attend classes Without stating as to how long they were allowed to attend the classes, it was stated : "The three nominees of the Honble Chief Minister have, however, been finally discharged from the Medical College on 21-12-1982. The ; intations of the petitioners are under consideration with the Government and final action thereon can be taken on the verdict of the Honble Supreme Court of India, which is likely to come up for hearing in the first week of January, 1983". It was, inter-alia, stated that in case a decision to admit fresh three students (petitioners in that writ petition) was taken at that stage, the Special Leave Petition would become infructucrus. 4. While admitting the petition me Division Bench passed a long speaking order. It was noticed that whereas the Principal of the Medical College had filed the return on behalf of the State as well as the College in the first writ petition, C.W.P. No. 201 of 1982, he, did not choose to file any reply to the Writ Petition No. 343 of 1982. It was noticed that whereas the Principal of the Medical College had filed the return on behalf of the State as well as the College in the first writ petition, C.W.P. No. 201 of 1982, he, did not choose to file any reply to the Writ Petition No. 343 of 1982. It was also noticed that Shri M.L. Sood, Under Secretary (Education) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, had filed his affidavit on the basis of the records and that it did not even reply to the averments made in the writ petition as to what happened in the Supreme Court. It was further noticed that there was an effort on behalf of the State and other respondents to flout the order of this Court in order to ensure that the three nominated candidates continued to reap the advantage of their illegal nominations. It was, therefore, decided to issue a notice to the State as well as to the Principal of the Medical College to show cause why action under the Contempt of Courts Act should not be taken against them for disobeying the orders of this Court. These proceedings were separated and registered as Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 1 of 1983, Court on its own motion v. State of Himachal Pradesh and two others. 5. During the course of proceedings the relevant records of the State as well as of the Medical College were also summoned. It was also decided to issue notice to Shri A.N. Vidyarthi, Secretary (Health), who was stated to be responsible for implementation of the directions of this Court. Shri M.L. Sood, Under Secretary (Education), who had filed an affidavit on behalf of the State and other officials of the State in Civil Writ Petition No. 343 of 1982, stated in the Court that he had verified his affidavit on the basis of the copies of some records which were placed before him and he had no occasion to see the original records Shri C.D. Parseera, Secretary (Education), who was also present in the Court on 14-1-1983, stated that in fact he had nothing to do with the implementation of the orders of this Court nor with the holding of the Pre-Medical Test. 6. 6. Another fact which came to notice during the course of proceedings was that Shri A.N. Vidyarthi, Secretary (Health), had written a letter to the Indian Medical Council for addition of three seats in which the last sentence of the Supreme Court order was omitted. Mr. Kapil Dev Sood, learned counsel on behalf of the complainants, submitted that this was purposely done since every responsible official of the State was out to ensure the admission of the three nominated candidates at all costs. At my suggestion the learned counsel for the parties filed written submissions and thereafter they were heard at length. I propose to deal first with the facts as the learned counsel for the parties have stated in their submissions. Needless to say that the important facts have been taken out of the records. Since by and large the learned counsel for the parties did not raise any objection to the correctness of the facts stated in the submissions, it was hardly necessary for me to verify the same from the records produced by the respondents. 7. It appears that the then Chief Minister was taking personal interest in the matter relating to the candidates nominated An order dated 25-11-1982, by the Secretary (Health) shows that infor" was being asked for by the Chief Minister. On 28-11-1982 the Special Secretary to the Chief Minister put the following note : "Secretary (Health, C.M. would like to know why the first order was issued at all. Please inquire into the circumstances personally and send a report for information of C.M.” In other words, the order passed by the Principal of the Medical College in obedience to the order passed by us in Civil Writ Petition No. 201 of" 1982 on 19-11-1982 was being questioned. It may record that the Principal was absolutely correct in passing an order of discharge of the three nominated candidates on 23-11-1982 and he was not required to consult any other authority since no executive authority could have in any manner whatsoever modified our judgment. It may be that there was a communication gap between the Chief Minister and the other responsible persons who might have given the impression to the Chief Minister that the Principal could not have carried out our orders. 8. It may be that there was a communication gap between the Chief Minister and the other responsible persons who might have given the impression to the Chief Minister that the Principal could not have carried out our orders. 8. Note No. 26 dated 29-11-1982 reveals that the case has been discussed by the Secretary (Health) with the Chief Minister as a result of which a letter dated 29-11-1982 was sent to the Principal of the Medical College telling him that it will not be proper and expedient to accept the recommendations of the High Court at this stage since seats for the nominated candidates will be lost in case the Supreme Court sets aside the judgment of the High Court. It was also stated that the new candidates will not be able to complete the course and fulfil the requirements of attendance since an affidavit on these lines had already been filed on 18-10-1982. 9. On 4-12-1982 the Principal wrote a letter to the Advocate General asking his advice whether the nominees may be discharged from the College after 3-12-1982 and whether the consequent vacancies be filled from the open quota candidates on merits as recommended by the High Court. It appears that the Chief Minister did not like the action taken by the Principal to discharge the nominated candidates as is apparent from a note of the Secretary (Health) (Note No. 149) dated 28-12-1982. It reads : "A note was received from the Principal Secretary to C.M. in which it was desired that the whole issue with regard to the discharge of three MBBS nominees by the Principal, Medical College, Shimla, be inquired into and reported. Papers were given to you for immediate necessary action. Please put up the position by 31st December, 82." It is marked to Deputy Secretary (Health), 10. It may be noticed that the Principal of the Medical College had asked the advice of the Advocate General which was duly tendered. The Principal also communicated this advice to the Secretary (Health) on 10-12-1982. The Advocate General had advised that the stay granted by the High Court had expired by 3-12-1982 and the main order, in the writ petition had become operative. The record shows that the Principal of the Medical College was extra cautious arid was seeking advice from the Advocate Gene al on the legal questions involved. The Advocate General had advised that the stay granted by the High Court had expired by 3-12-1982 and the main order, in the writ petition had become operative. The record shows that the Principal of the Medical College was extra cautious arid was seeking advice from the Advocate Gene al on the legal questions involved. The Ministry of Health was also seized of the same and one Shri P.C. Sharma on 13-12-1982 had categorically stated in his note that the three candidates on the merit list had to be admitted and the implementation of the judgment of the High Court could not be ignored until the Supreme Court directs otherwise. A note dated 18-12-1982 by Shri A.N. Vidyarthi, Secretary (Health), is to the effect that there was no option but to discharge the three candidates nominated by the Chief Minister in view of the clear orders of the High Court. It may be noticed that the Special Leave Petitions were finally dismissed by the Supreme Court on 21-1-1983. 11. After obtaining the approval of the Chief Minister a letter was sent by the Secretary (Health) to the Secretary, Medical Council of India, on 8th February, 1983 requesting the latter to increase three seats in pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court. I have seen a copy of that letter. What has been done is that the last sentence from the last para of the order of the Supreme Court has been dropped, This sentence was indeed of great importance. It reads : "But we make no recommendation. With these observations, both the Special Leave Petitions are dismissed.” In other words, the absence of this sentence "but we make no recommendation" mutates the whole of the last para. For ready reference I would like to reproduce the whole para and underline the portion which was not sent to the Secretary, Medical Council of India : "Dr. L.M. Singhvi, with his usual persuasiveness invited us to make a direction that the three nominees whose admission would stand cancelled may be accommodated if the State Government and the Medical College Authorities persuade Indian Medical Council to permit three additional seats. If this can be brought about, this order will not come in the way of its being done. But we make no recommendation. If this can be brought about, this order will not come in the way of its being done. But we make no recommendation. With these observations, both the Special Leave Petitions are dismissed.(emphasis supplied) Obviously if this important line is omitted, the Supreme Court judgment will amount to a recommendation being made and the recommendation of the Supreme Court cannot be lightly brushed aside or ignored. That this omission was done intentionally and was not accidental, is apparent from the records in the file "Health-E (3)-9/82-Loose-(Part-II), subject-Contempt Petition" which has been produced by the State, has a certified copy of the order of the Supreme Court on pages 21, 22, and 23. On page 23 the last para, reproduced above, is marked Z in ball-pen. A line on the margin has been drawn. However, in the same ball-pen the portion reproduced has been marked with prominent ball-pen dots. The first dot is in the beginning of this para whereas the second dot is against the word done’. In other words, the other sentences were specifically and knowingly omitted. The question now arises as to who has done it ? It is not apparent from the record, Mr. Vidyarthi shows his ignorance about the same This draft has passed through various hands though it seems to be in the handwriting of one Shri P.C. Sharma. However, one thing is glaring. It is this that one or more persons in the Health department were to ensure that even the Indian Medical Council is hoodwinked and they allow the three additional seats so that the nominated candidates are admitted. Of course, the parents of the nominated candidates were influential but we cannot blame them in any manner whatsoever about the order of the Supreme Court being mutilated. Though this draft seems to have passed through various hands according to the record, I will not be justified to impute them with the knowledge of the Supreme Court judgment having been mutilated. 12. It is explained by Mr. Vidyarthi, Secretary (Health), that the moment he came to know about this mutilation, he sent another letter to the Indian Medical Council. It is stated that the mistake was noticed when a note was prepared in connection with an Assembly question which was fixed for 11-3-1983. 12. It is explained by Mr. Vidyarthi, Secretary (Health), that the moment he came to know about this mutilation, he sent another letter to the Indian Medical Council. It is stated that the mistake was noticed when a note was prepared in connection with an Assembly question which was fixed for 11-3-1983. A meeting was held in the evening on 10-3-1983 in which the Principal of the Medical College and the dealing Assistant were present and it was at that time that the mistake was detected. It was, therefore, decided on 11-3-1983 (as is apparent from the records) to send a full copy of the judgment of the Supreme Court to the Indian Medical Council. The revised letter rectifying the mistake was in fact sent on 11-3-1983. Note No. 72 dated 11-3-1983 signed by one Shri P.C. Sharma does not show that any mistake was detected in the first letter sent to the Indian Medical Council. I have seen the letter of 11-3-1983 in which it has been specifically stated that a material portion could not inadvertently be added which was reproduced again. Now, it may be noticed that on 10-3-1993 one Surinder Kumar Sharma had represented to the Government that/they had purposely omitted a portion of the judgment of the Supreme Court in order to accommodate the nominated candidates I have seen this application which is on page 105 of the record relating to Selection of Candidates for admission in MBBS Course in H.P. Medical College. It is diarised on 15-3-1983 though the first signature bear the date of 11-3-1983. This is addressed to Secretary (Health), the Indian Medical Council, and the Principal, H.P. Medical College. It appears that the students, who were seeking admission to the College and were opposing the nominated candidates, were keeping a very close watch on the goings on in the Ministry of Health, Though it may be that the Secretary (Health) noticed this application on 11-3-1983, as stated by him, I am sure that this came to the notice of the clerks concerned much earlier, that is on 10th March, 1983 and that is the reason that on that day it was decided to send a full copy of the order. It may also be that the clerk concerned, who had put up the first draft omitting the material portion, was clever enough to cover up his mischievous acts by suddenly becoming fair Be that as it may, I have no reason to hold the Secretary (Health) responsible for this since he is only technicially responsible. I hope the Secretary (Health) will look into the matter himself to find out the person(s) responsible for this mischievous action and take action according to law in order to ensure that the work in the department goes on honestly. 13. Another fact which has been noticed is that though it is stated that the nominated candidates did not attend the classes after 3-12-1982, there is nothing on the record to that effect. The Principal has not filed any affidavit to say that he had verbally directed Dr. Mishra not to allow the nominated candidates to attend the classes on 3-12-1982, Moreover, though this Court had allowed the nominated candidates to attend the classes on 3-12-1983, it never asked the authorities concerned not to discharge the candidates. There was thus no occasion to revoke the order of discharge passed by the Principal. And then there was no reason for not discharging the students from the Medical College immediately on 3-12-1982. It may be recalled that according to the averments made by the respondents, the students were discharged on 21-12-1982. Why this long delay ? It only shows that various forces were trying to over-reach this Court in an attempt to circumvent the order passed by it. Various attempts have been made at various stages to show that the nominated candidates had been on the rolls of the Medical College for a very long period in order to gain the sympathies of the Court. Our attention has also been drawn to another writ filed by these candidates in the High Court of Delhi asking for directions to the Medical College to admit these students. Full advantage has been taken at all stages by these candidates about the fact that they were not discharged from the Medical College for a long time. Our attention has also been drawn to another writ filed by these candidates in the High Court of Delhi asking for directions to the Medical College to admit these students. Full advantage has been taken at all stages by these candidates about the fact that they were not discharged from the Medical College for a long time. The letter written by the Secretary (Health) to the Secretary, Medical Council of India, (Annexure-RD) does reveal that it was brought to the notice of the Medical Council that the nominated candidates "have already pursued the studies for about four months." It is not disputed that they were admitted on 6/7 September, 1982 (Annexure RC). That would show that they were allowed to attend classes right upto January, 1983. If this is a fact, then admittedly the concerned respondents were wilfully disobeying the orders of this Court. If that is not a fact, then they were out hoodwink the Medical-Council of India, In either view of the matter I must strongly condemn the conduct of the Secretary (Health) who had written this letter, 14. It appears that the Principal of the Medical College, Dr. A N. Mehrotra, was pilloried so much for doing the right thing of following our judgment and discharging the three nominated candidates that on 25-11-1982 he put up a note which reads : "Discussed the case with Secretary (Health). He has advised that telephonic conversation should be noted down in file. He further desired that we should meet the Honble C.M. and clear our position.” Another note dated 26-11-1982 is to the effect that the nominated candidates have not been regular in attendance and only 10% of the course had been covered. Another note dated 6-12-1982 is to the effect: "Discussed C.M. Nominees case with the Secretary (Health) on 6-12-1982 who directed that whatsover the directions are received from the Government in writing be carried out and implemented. He further directed even to act on the advice of Advocate General after obtaining approval of the Government." In other words, the Principal was being pressurized to obey the orders of the Government. 15. He further directed even to act on the advice of Advocate General after obtaining approval of the Government." In other words, the Principal was being pressurized to obey the orders of the Government. 15. Under Section 2 (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, civil contempt means : "wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court." A Division Bench of this Court in Madan Lal Malhotra v. M/s. Clarkes Hotel Pvt. Ltd. and another, [ILR 1982 HP 362], quoted with approval a Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court in Kuldip Rastogi and another v. Vishva Nath Khanna,[AIR 1979 Delhi 202], that wilful has the same meaning in the law of contempt as in the other branches of the law- It was further observed : "............in deciding whether the interference with the due course of justice is substantial or not, what one is required to look at is the nature of the contempt. While weighing the pros and cons, it had further to be remembered that the interference need not be actual. A mere tendency in that direction is sufficient. However, this kind of surface analysis of the section does not take one very far. It only serves to fix the points of reference when dealing with a concrete case." 16. The facts referred to above show that an attempt was in fact made to disobey the orders of this Court in the manner discussed above. The Secretary (Education) was not concerned with it, Shri M, I Under Secretary (Education), seems to have been made to file the affidavit in reply to Civil Writ Petition No. 343 of 1982 though he had nothing to do with the case nor was he ever- shown the original records on the basis of which he was swearing the affidavit. The conspicuous absence of the affidavit by the Principal, Dr. A.N. Mehrotra, shows, that perhaps he was not willing to give any affidavit which was not strictly in accordance with the record. The Secretary (Health) or any other responsible person in the Health department conveniently failed to file any affidavit. The nominated students were not discharged till perhaps January, 1983 which was in direct disobedience to the orders of this Court. The Secretary (Health) or any other responsible person in the Health department conveniently failed to file any affidavit. The nominated students were not discharged till perhaps January, 1983 which was in direct disobedience to the orders of this Court. The reference to the Medical Council of India was obviously not bona fide and the correction seems to have been made when the mistake had been found out by the aforementioned Sari Surinder Kumar Sharma. Dr. A.N. Mehrotra was unnecessarily being suspected of doing a wrong thing and being called upon to satisfy the Chief Minister who was undoubtedly interested in the nominated candidates. Shri M.L. Sood, Under Secretary (Education), should never have sworn the affidavit unless he had personally verified the facts from the official record. Of course, he was at liberty to say in the verification that he was verifying from the copies of the record shown to him by the particular person. He is warned not to repeat it in future, 17. Shri A.N. Vidyarthi, Secretary (Health), in his reply has tendered apology. He is warned to be careful in future. The notices issued to all the respondents are hereby discharged. Petition allowed.