Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 15 (GAU)

MANALI SINHA v. SHIV LAL SINHA

2014-01-06

A.M.SAPRE, UJJAL BHUYAN

body2014
JUDGMENT (A.M.Sapre, CJ) Heard R.C. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. B.C. Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This contempt petition has been filed under sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Court’s Act, 1971 read with the provisions of Contempt of Court (Gauhati High Court) Rules, 1977 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India alleging willful and deliberate violation of judgment and order dated 15.03.2012 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (C) No.5376 of 2009. 3. The operative part of the judgment and order rendered in the Writ Petition (C) No.5376 of 2009, reads as follows: “9. It is no doubt true that it is not the function of this Court to go into the technical aspects and to determine as to which of the answers was correct or incorrect. This Court is certainly concerned with the fairness in administrative action which has now become part of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Having regard to facts and circumstances, if a student consulted a textbook and attempted a question accordingly, even if there was a difference of opinion and a different answer may also be correct, it may be unfair to deny the benefit to the student,. The student is certainly entitled to rely on an available authoritative textbook and if there is difference of opinion, the student may be entitled to benefit of one of the acknowledged correct answer. In case of margin of one mark if a student's eligibility is affected, such a candidate may be entitled to be considered eligible. If the petitioner had the option to say none of the four options was correct, on the basis of the textbook relied upon, her answer could have been none. The examining authority has a duty not to create any confusion and to select questions in multiple choice papers which may have either correct answers or offer choice whereby one of the two correct answers can be accepted. 10. In view of our above discussion, the petitioner is entitled to be awarded one extra mark in the paper of Computer Fundamentals in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11. Accordingly, this petition is allowed with a direction that the petitioner be awarded one extra mark in the paper “Computer Fundamentals”. 10. In view of our above discussion, the petitioner is entitled to be awarded one extra mark in the paper of Computer Fundamentals in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11. Accordingly, this petition is allowed with a direction that the petitioner be awarded one extra mark in the paper “Computer Fundamentals”. In view of interim order dated 28.9.2011 that any further appointment was to be subject to decision of the main case, if any appointment has been already made prior to 28.9.2011, such appointment will not be affected; but if as a result of one extra mark the petitioner is entitled to be considered, she should be considered for the advertised vacancy in accordance with law.” 4. Counsel for the petitioner, however, in this contempt petition complains that despite petitioners serving a copy of the order on the respondents, the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioners. 5. Mr. B.C. Pathak, learned counsel for the respondents accept notice on behalf of the respondents instead of sending notice through Court process and to avoid time. On our request they have accepted notice and addressed the Court. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents, on advance copy, we are inclined to dispose of this contempt petition by extending the period fixed in the order dated 15.03.2012 for its implementation by a further period of 3(three) months from to-day, as an outer limit provided no appeal is filed by the respondents and no stay is obtained of the order impugned therein. In other words, if no appeal is filed by the respondents and if filed and yet no stay is obtained, judgment and order dated 15.03.2012 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (C) No.5376 of 2009 shall have to be complied with in letter and spirit by the respondents within 3(three) months from the date of this order. In case if order is not complied with even within the extended period fixed by the Court subject to what is discussed above, the respondents and all other authorities responsible for ensuring compliance shall be held guilty for committing contempt of this Court’s order and appropriate order(s) imposing punishment as provided under the Contempt of Courts’ Act would be passed against each of them. 7. Subject to the aforesaid, this contempt petition stand disposed of. 8. 7. Subject to the aforesaid, this contempt petition stand disposed of. 8. The learned counsel for the respondents is requested to forward a copy of this order along with the copy of the original judgment and order dated 15.03.2012 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (C) No.5376 of 2009 to the respondents, i.e. the officials concerned to enable them to ensure compliance as directed. No costs.