Judgment :- Heard Mr. K. Selvaraj, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.G.Sankaran, Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record. 2. The petitioner institution filed a Writ Petition namely, W.P.No.14749 of 2008, on the file of this Court against the first and second respondents herein and the Director of Teacher Education, Research and Training , Chennai for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to approve the admission of the students admitted in the petitioner institution in D.T.Ed. course for the academic year 2007-2008 and consequently direct them to permit the students of the petitioner institution admitted in the academic year 2007-2008, to write practical and theory examinations of the first year. 3. Pending disposal of the Writ Petition, the petitioner institution also prayed for an interim direction by filing Miscellaneous Petition No. 1 of 2008 in W.P.No.14749 of 2008 to permit the students of the petitioner institution to write practical and theory examinations of the first year course scheduled to be commenced on 26. 2008. The said Miscellaneous Petition came to be disposed of by an order dated 26. 2008, which contains the following operative portion:- "Considering the submission of the counsel for both sides and the fact that Government sponsored students were permitted to write examination, the respondents are directed to: i) Permit the students of the petitioner institution to sit for the examination to be held on 26.06.2008, except 6 students whose names were already informed by the respondent, however, the results shall not be declared until further orders. ii) This order is passed subject to the result of the writ petition. iii) This order shall not confer any additional right to the petitioner institution or their students in any manner" 4. Pursuant to the said order, one of the lecturers of the petitioner institution seems to have approached the first respondent on 26. 2008, at about 9.30 a.m. with a plea to permit the students of the said institution to sit for the examination scheduled to be held on 28. 2008 at 10.00 a.m. The first respondent declined the request stating that he could not permit the students to write examinations without roll numbers being assigned in the nominal roll signed by the Director of Government Examinations was received. 5. 2008 at 10.00 a.m. The first respondent declined the request stating that he could not permit the students to write examinations without roll numbers being assigned in the nominal roll signed by the Director of Government Examinations was received. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that though the first respondent had got the knowledge of the order passed by this Court directing the first respondent herein and the other respondents in the Writ Petition to permit the students of the petitioner institution to write the examinations that started on 26. 2008, the failure on the part of the first respondent to permit the students of the petitioner institution to write the examination held on 26. 2008 amounts to willful disobedience and hence the first respondent should be punished for contempt. 6. The first respondent has filed the counter affidavit stating that the nominal roll containing roll numbers assigned by the Director of Government Examinations was received only in the morning hours of 26. 2008 and promptly he allowed the students to write the examinations on 26. 2008 and the subsequent dates. As conflicting statements were made by the first respondent during the course of enquiry regarding availability of fax services in his office and since it was not known as to the mode in which nominal roll was communicated to the first respondent and the time at which the same was despatched from the office of the Director of Government Examinations, this Court deemed it fit to suo motu implead the Director of Government Examinations as the second respondent. Pursuant to the impleadment of the second respondent as co-contemner, the second respondent appeared in person and has also filed a counter affidavit. The Director of Government Examinations, arrayed as the second respondent, has given a clear picture of what transpired on 26. 2008 and 26. 2008 and how the authorities were not in a position to allow the students to write the examination held on 26. 2008. According to the particulars furnished by the second respondent herein, the correspondent of the petitioner institution produced the draft nominal roll along with necessary documents at the office of the Director of Teacher Educational, Research and Training, Chennai on 26. 2008 in the morning. 2008. According to the particulars furnished by the second respondent herein, the correspondent of the petitioner institution produced the draft nominal roll along with necessary documents at the office of the Director of Teacher Educational, Research and Training, Chennai on 26. 2008 in the morning. The same, after verification and counter signature, was transmitted to the office of the Director of Government Examinations and received in the said office at about 12.45 p.m. and within fifteen minutes thereafter, the nominal roll was handed over to the Correspondent of the petitioner institution counter signed by the Joint Director of Government Examinations after assigning roll numbers against each one of the candidates found in the said nominal roll. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that the said nominal roll was sent through the Correspondent of the petitioner school who affixed the signature with date in token of receiving the same from the office of the Director of Government Examinations. 7. A perusal of the above said contentions raised in the counter affidavit of the second respondent shows that the first respondent could not have received the nominal roll on 26. 2008 itself. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that along with the petitioner institution, several institutions who got orders from the Court submitted the nominal rolls on 26. 2008 itself and that while the students of all other institutions were able to write the examination held on 26. 2008, the students of the petitioner institution alone were singled out and denied the said benefit. The learned Special Government Pleader has also produced a copy of the letter addressed by the Deputy Director, Directorate of Teacher Education, Research and Training to the Director of Government Examinations to the effect that the nominal roll was received at the office of the Director of Teacher Education, Research and Training at 11.45 a.m. On 26. 2008; that immediately thereafter verification of the students list was done and that the nominal roll was sent to the Directorate of Government Examinations at about 12.45 p.m. on the very same date. 2008; that immediately thereafter verification of the students list was done and that the nominal roll was sent to the Directorate of Government Examinations at about 12.45 p.m. on the very same date. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the nominal roll on approval should have been communicated to the first respondent either over phone or through fax, there is no evidence to show that there was such a communication either sent by the Directorate, Teacher Education, Research and Training or received in the office of the first respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner made an attempt to contend that the nominal roll should have been approved much before 10.00 a.m. on 26. 2008 and communicated to the first respondent by fax and that despite such a communication, the first respondent refused to allow the students of the petitioner institution to write the examination held on 26. 2008. The learned counsel for the petitioner, also drew the attention of the Court to the averment found in the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent in an attempt to show that despite having such knowledge the first respondent refused to allow the students to write the examination on 26. 2008. The said averment found in the counter affidavit of the first respondent shows that he was informed by a lecturer of the petitioner institution that such an order was passed and that the first respondent gave a reply to the said lecturer that the students could not be allowed to sit for the examination unless the nominal roll was received. It also transpires from the said averment that the first respondent in the presence of the said lecturer contacted the office of the Directorate of Teacher Education, Research and Training and ascertained that the correspondent of the petitioner school was present in the said office with the nominal roll for the approval. It also transpires from the said averment that the first respondent in the presence of the said lecturer contacted the office of the Directorate of Teacher Education, Research and Training and ascertained that the correspondent of the petitioner school was present in the said office with the nominal roll for the approval. The same will go to show that the nominal roll should not have been sent to the Directorate of Government Examinations after approval by the Director of Teacher Education, Research and Training before 9.30 a.m. It makes the contention of the second respondent that the nominal roll with the counter signature of the Deputy Director of Teacher Education, Research and Training reached the office of the Director of Government Examinations at 12.45 p.m. and within 15 minutes thereafter, the same was approved and handed over to the correspondent of the petitioner school after assigning roll numbers seems to be quite probable. 8. In the above said background of facts, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has not made out a case that the nominal roll did reach the first respondents office before the expiry of 30 minutes after examination started on 26. 2008. The contention of the first respondent that the nominal roll handed over to the correspondent in the office of the Director of Government Examinations was handed over to the first respondent only in the morning hours on 26. 2008 seems to be quite probable. In these circumstances, this Court is not in a position to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that despite the receipt of communication of the nominal roll approved by the Directorate of Government Examinations by fax or on any other mode of communication the first respondent refused to allow the students of the petitioner institution to write the examination on 26. 2008. 9. Turning to the other aspect of the case, viz. whether the refusal on the part of the first respondent to allow the students of the petitioner institution to sit for the examination on 26. 2008 even after having a knowledge that the Court had directed the respondents in the Writ Petition to allow the students to sit for the examination on 26. whether the refusal on the part of the first respondent to allow the students of the petitioner institution to sit for the examination on 26. 2008 even after having a knowledge that the Court had directed the respondents in the Writ Petition to allow the students to sit for the examination on 26. 2008, this court is of the considered view that though such act on the part of the first respondent may have the effect of defeating the object sought to be achieved by the order passed by this Court, such an act cannot be termed a willful disobedience of the order of this Court. The first respondent could not have allowed a number of students to sit for the examinations without the roll numbers being assigned. Therefore this court is of the considered view that the petitioner institution has failed in its attempt to show that the first respondent has committed contempt of court. 10. For all the reasons stated above, this Court comes to the conclusion that neither the first respondent nor the second respondent committed any act of contempt. Accordingly the Contempt Petition is closed.