JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, CJ. 1. All the three cases are being disposed of by a common judgment since identical questions are involved. 2. Background of the case,- Two writ petitions being W.P. (C) 124 of 2014 and W.P. (C) 125 of 2014 were filed by Dr. Sukanta Saha and Dr. Mousumi Sarkar in which challenge was laid to the selection of Dr. Anup kr. Laha, Dr. Tushar H. Majumdar and Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik. The issues which arose in the said case were, what was the upper age limit for the in-service candidates, i.e. the candidates serving in the State of Tripura as doctors for being considered for admission to the M.D. courses and whether the State could have granted relaxation in age limit. In-service candidates were entitled to apply in two categories i.e. Open category and Sponsored category. It had been urged by the petitioners in that case, that the upper age limit for In-service sponsored candidates was 42 years and, therefore, the private respondents especially Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik was not eligible for appointment. 3. In that case, Sri Bidhan Bhowmik had appeared. It had been urged on his behalf that in terms of Section 4(1)(d) of the Tripura Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe Reservation Act, 1991, a concession of five years over and above the prescribed age limit was available to candidates belonging to schedule caste. Admittedly Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik belongs to the schedule caste. The State of Tripura had passed an order relaxing the age limit to 45 years for in-service candidates by its communication dated 30.01.2014 on the basis of the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister for Health on 27.01.2014. 4. This Court held that the relaxation could not have been granted and the rules of the game could not have been changed after the selection process had started. This Court further held that the upper age limit in respect of Open category candidates was 45 years and in case of schedule caste, the upper age limit would be 50 years. With regard to candidates Sponsored by the State Government, this Court held that the upper age limit was 42 years and in case of schedule caste candidates by granting them relaxation as per the Act, the upper age limit would be 47 years. With regard to candidates Sponsored by the State Government, this Court held that the upper age limit was 42 years and in case of schedule caste candidates by granting them relaxation as per the Act, the upper age limit would be 47 years. This Court also held that in view of the provisions contained in the information booklet, the candidates could not be permitted to change their category and if a candidate had applied in the Open category he could not be treated as Sponsored category candidate and vice-versa. We, in our judgment also held that Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik had applied as an Open category candidate belonging to the schedule caste and, therefore, he must be considered in that category only. Lastly, we had directed the State Government to redraw the merit by not permitting the candidates to change their category. 5. Though in the judgment, we had clearly held that Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik had applied as an Open category candidate and should not be treated as a Sponsored candidate, he has been selected as an Sponsored category candidate. This selection has been challenged by way of filing a writ petition being W.P. (C) 183 of 2014. The petitioner Dr. Mousumi Sarkar has also filed a Contempt petition alleging that Dr. Basudeb Bhattachariya, Director of Medical Education, has willfully violated the orders of this Court and, therefore, be punished for committing Contempt of Court. 6. During the pendency of the aforesaid two petitions, the State filed an application for review being Review petition No. 09 of 2014 in W.P. (C) 125 of 2014 decided by us and an application for condonation of delay being C.M. Application No. 149 of 2014. 7. The Contempt Petition,- We are first taking up the contempt petition. In the judgment passed in W.P. (C) 124 of 2014, this Court at page 5 of the judgment had noted as follows : ..... As far as respondent No. 5 Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik is concerned he was aged above 42 years and he applied under Open category. It would however, be pertinent to mention that he belongs to the Scheduled Caste community. Thereafter in para 15 of the judgment, this Court held as follows: Dr. Anup kumar Laha and Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik applied as Open candidates. Thereafter, this Court categorically held that a candidate could not be permitted to change his category. It would however, be pertinent to mention that he belongs to the Scheduled Caste community. Thereafter in para 15 of the judgment, this Court held as follows: Dr. Anup kumar Laha and Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik applied as Open candidates. Thereafter, this Court categorically held that a candidate could not be permitted to change his category. Para 16 of the judgment reads as follows: Therefore, the private respondents i.e. Dr. Anup kumar Laha and Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik could not be permitted to change their category. To be fair to Mr. Somik Deb, he has urged that since his client Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik has higher marks than the petitioner the Court should not interfere in the matter. We are not in agreement with this contention. Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik having applied as an open candidate cannot now turn around and claim that he should be treated as a Sponsored candidate. However, if he finds his place in the merit list under the Open category the seat can be offered to him. In para 17 of this judgment, this Court held as follows: In view of the above discussion, we direct the State Government to re-draw the merit list by not permitting the candidates to change their category. This be done latest by 28th April, 2014. 8. We have no doubt in our mind that what this Court held was that Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik had applied in the Open category and not as a Sponsored candidate. He belonged to the scheduled caste community and, therefore, the upper age limit would be 50 years, as far as he was concerned. We clearly held in para 16 that if Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik finds place in the merit list under the Open category a seat can be offered to him. What the Director of Health has done is to come to a finding that Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik had applied as a Sponsored category candidate and has granted admission to him as a candidate belonging to the Sponsored candidate. Admittedly he would not be entitled for admission under the Open category. The petitioner alleges that once the Court had clearly held that Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik had applied under the Open category the Director, Medical Education has committed contempt of the orders of the Court and has flouted the orders of the Court by holding that Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik had applied under the Sponsored category. 9. Dr. The petitioner alleges that once the Court had clearly held that Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik had applied under the Open category the Director, Medical Education has committed contempt of the orders of the Court and has flouted the orders of the Court by holding that Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik had applied under the Sponsored category. 9. Dr. Basudeb Bhattachariya filed counter affidavit to the petition and his counter affidavit is to the effect that he had very carefully gone through the judgment and he found that Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik had actually applied under the Sponsored category as per his form and after verifying the form he treated Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik as a Sponsored category candidate and in this behalf he has placed reliance on the application form allegedly submitted by Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik from which it appears that Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik has applied under the Sponsored category. We shall in the later part of the order deal with the question as to whether Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik had applied under the Sponsored category candidate or Open category candidate. 10. For the purpose of this contempt petition, we are assuming that the form which is relied upon is correct. Even if that be true, once the Court had in no uncertain terms held that Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik had applied as an Open category candidate, could the Director of Medical Education sitting in his office set aside this finding of the High Court without even caring to bring the matter to the notice of the High Court? This Court while delivering a judgment may by mistake state a wrong fact. Even assuming that a fact has wrongly been stated, the remedy lies in approaching the court for correction of the error or in approaching the higher Court for setting aside the judgment. A party to the proceedings cannot sit in judgment over the judgment of the Court. An officer of the State Government has to obey the judgment of the High Court whether it be right or wrong. If he is in confusion about the import of the judgment, he should approach the Court for clarification. 11. As far as the present case is concerned, from the perusal of the portions of the judgment we have quoted hereinabove, it is more than amply clear that we had, at least in three different parts of the judgment, held that Dr. 11. As far as the present case is concerned, from the perusal of the portions of the judgment we have quoted hereinabove, it is more than amply clear that we had, at least in three different parts of the judgment, held that Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik had applied in the Open category. In para 16 of the judgment we had gone on to hold that Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik having applied as an Open category candidate cannot now turn around and state that he should be treated as a Sponsored candidate. Dr. Basudev Bhattachariya cannot rely only on para 17 of the judgment and not read the other portions of the judgment. He is one of the senior most officers of the State and we cannot believe that he understood the judgment in the manner which he now claims. There is no ambiguity in the judgment, The judgment is absolutely clear that Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik had applied in the Open category and could not be allowed to change his category. We, therefore, have no doubt in our mind that Dr. Basudev Bhattachariya is guilty of willfully disobeying the orders of this Court and has therefore committed contempt of this court in terms of Section 12 of the Contempt of the Courts' Act. As far as punishment is concerned, we shall deal with it in the later part of the judgment. WRIT PETITION & REVIEW PETITION 12. The next question is whether we had correctly recorded that Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik had applied under the Open category or not. At the outset, we may notice that the earlier judgment was delivered in the open court in the presence of the parties. Counsel for all the parties including counsel for the State and Sri Somik Deb, learned counsel for Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik have clearly admitted before us that no objection was raised by any one of the counsel when we had recorded that Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik had applied as a Open category candidate. What we had noted was on the basis of the averments made before us. 13. Since admissions to the post graduation course are involved, despite the fact that nobody had objected at that time to our recording the finding that Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik had applied under the Open category, we are willing to reopen this question and correct the mistake, if any, made by us. 13. Since admissions to the post graduation course are involved, despite the fact that nobody had objected at that time to our recording the finding that Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik had applied under the Open category, we are willing to reopen this question and correct the mistake, if any, made by us. However, this mistake can only be corrected if we find that the parties claiming correction of the order had approached us with clean hands and there is truth in their statement. 14. Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik was impleaded as respondent No. 5 in W.P. (C) 125 of 2014 after amendment was made to the writ petition. Notice was issued to Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik through the Superintendent of A.G.M.C. & GBP hospital. After notice was served upon the Superintendent, Agartala Government Medical College & GBP hospital (for short hereinafter referred to as A.G.M.C.), Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik put in appearance in Court through his counsel and filed a counter affidavit. In the amended writ petition filed by Dr. Mousumi Sarkar with regard to Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik, who was respondent No. 5, it was clearly alleged in para 16 that private respondent No. 5 had applied for the post graduate seat in the Open category and was treated as an Open category candidate. Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik filed no specific reply to this averment made in para 16. In this counter affidavit, filed by Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik, he has not clearly stated whether he applied as an Open category candidate or a Sponsored category candidate. No doubt, he stated that the State has wrongly forwarded his application under the Open category but he has not clearly stated that he had applied under the Open category or under the Sponsored category. The tenor of the reply appears to be that even if a mistake had been committed in his application it should not have been forwarded under the Open category but should have been forwarded under the Sponsored category. 15. At this stage, we may point out that at that time the main dispute was whether the upper age limit was 42 years or 45 years and the challenge was to the relaxation in age given. The question of there being an automatic relaxation of five years in the age only came up for consideration after Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik was impleaded as a party. The question of there being an automatic relaxation of five years in the age only came up for consideration after Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik was impleaded as a party. We had recorded him to be a candidate of the Open category solely on the basis of averments in the pleadings and the arguments raised before us. 16. Reliance has been placed by the State as well as by Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik on the alleged application form of Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik. On the other hand Sri Arijit Bhowmik, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that there are so many infirmities in the story of the State and Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik, that it stands proved that the State was going out of its way to help Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik and that the form has been replaced at a later stage. 17. At this stage we must note some very disturbing facts. On 30.04.2014 we had issued notice to the respondents including Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik and notice upon Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik was again ordered to be served through the Superintendent, A.G.M.C. & GBP hospital. Admittedly service was made not personally but on the Superintendent of A.G.M.C. & GBP hospital. When Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik was served earlier through the same authority he had immediately put in appearance because his selection had been stayed. Now, since we had permitted the counseling to go on he choose not to put in appearance through counsel. On 04.06.2014 Sri Arijit Bhowmik, had pointed out to us that Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik was in Court. He was questioned by us and admitted that he had been attending each and every hearing of this case and also told us that he had been advised by some counsel that he should not put in appearance since he had not been personally served. We do not expect such behavior from any counsel. 18. These facts clearly show that Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik was aware about the case. Somebody in the department was informing him about the date of the case and he was attending the Court on every hearing keeping watch on the proceedings. When served through the Superintendent, A.G.M.C. & GBP hospital he had put in appearance in the earlier writ petition but this time for reasons best known to him, he choose not to do so. 19. When served through the Superintendent, A.G.M.C. & GBP hospital he had put in appearance in the earlier writ petition but this time for reasons best known to him, he choose not to do so. 19. Here we would also like to make reference to the order dated 06.05.2014 passed in the Contempt petition no. 15 of 2014 which reads as follows: Sri Arijit Bhowmik has pointed out to us the certificate to be furnished by the employer. We have also seen the original which has been produced before us. In the first part of the page consists of a certificate to be furnished by the employer for in-service candidates applying in open category. That certificate is signed by some gentleman on 24th January, 2014. The bottom part of that page contains a format of a certificate to be furnished by the employer only for sponsored in-service candidates. This certificate has been signed by the same gentleman who has signed the first certificate but this certificate is written 29th January, 2014. Why was the first certificate scored off and why the second certificate was issued? This fact shall be explained by the State and also by the gentleman who has signed the certificate. Whether there is any noting on the file relating to the change of the certificates? The State shall also explain why there is no receipt on the application form giving the date on which it was submitted. When an application requires to be submitted before the last date for submission of application forms, there must be a receipt affixed on the application forms itself which should indicate what was the date of receipt of the application. The State also shall inform us by the next day whether any register or file is being maintained wherein all the applications are entered as and when they are filed. Supposing the applications are invited over a period of 10 (ten) days, then the application which is entertained on the first day must be entered first and the application which is entered the second day, must be entered thereafter. The application which has been filed later cannot be mentioned at an earlier serial No. Is the State maintaining any record showing the date of receipt of applications, the category in which the candidate has applied, i.e. under reserved category, open category, sponsored category, general category, etc. The application which has been filed later cannot be mentioned at an earlier serial No. Is the State maintaining any record showing the date of receipt of applications, the category in which the candidate has applied, i.e. under reserved category, open category, sponsored category, general category, etc. We expect that in cases relating to grant of jobs, admission to colleges, the State must have a transparent system whereby everything can be checked up at a later stage. The State shall categorically inform us whether such system is being followed or not. All the application forms received for the post-graduate course, whether in open category, sponsored category or by other candidates who are not in service, shall all be produced before us on that day. They shall be produced in the same condition in which they are lying in the department and they shall not be taken out separately from their files to be produced before us. The application of Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik, Sri S. Chakraborty produced before us, is retained in Court. The Court Master is directed to keep the same in a sealed cover and produce it before us on the next day. The State is also directed to produce the answer scripts of Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik. The State should also explain as to why Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik was treated to be an open category candidate, if he had applied under the sponsored category. Copy of the order be supplied to Sri S. Chakraborty. 20. We, had therefore, gone through the record. We are shocked by the manner in which the record had been kept. All the applications had been kept in a loose file. No application has been registered or entered in any diary or received register. There is actually no proof of date on which the form was submitted. The application forms and booklets were to be distributed/sold between 01.01.2014 to 13.01.2014. The last date for receipt of the completed applications was 13.01.2014 and in the notice it is clearly mentioned that the last date for submission of completed application form at PG cell, A.G.M.C. & GBP hospital is 13.01.2014 (4.00 p.m.). 21. Para 2.1.1.A. of the information booklet reads as follows : 2.1.1.A. Candidate having MBBS degree recognized by MCI, applying for Government Sponsored State Quota Seats will have to follow instruction detailed in para 6. 21. Para 2.1.1.A. of the information booklet reads as follows : 2.1.1.A. Candidate having MBBS degree recognized by MCI, applying for Government Sponsored State Quota Seats will have to follow instruction detailed in para 6. Candidate who is in regular service of Government of Tripura is entitled to apply provided such candidate is sponsored by Government of Tripura". Para 6.1. of the information booklet reads as follows : 6.1. In-service Candidates who are sponsored by the Govt. of Tripura are eligible for admission to the Govt. sponsored seats. Fifty percent (50%) of Degree seats of State Quota will be reserved for Medical Officer employed by Government of Tripura. Degree seats of State Quota will be reserved for the Govt. Sponsored Candidate as per Government training reserved rules of Govt. of Tripura. Government Sponsored Candidates are required to produce Sponsorship certificate from the appropriate authorities of Government of Tripura before being considered for admission. 22. It has been urged by Sri Somik Deb, that because para 6.1 talks of the production of the sponsorship certificate at the time of consideration for admission, the certificate is not required at the time when the application form is filed. We are unable to accept this argument. Para 2.1.1.a. clearly states that any candidate applying against the government sponsored quota seats is entitled to apply provided such candidate is sponsored of government of Tripura. Therefore, the entitlement to apply under this category only arises after the State has sponsored the candidate. Therefore, we are clearly of the view that this sponsorship certificate by the appointing authority should be issued before the last date of submission. Having held so we must notice that in all the cases, the sponsorship certificate has been issued at a later stage. 23. Relaxation was granted in case of seven officers including Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik. There was some confusion as to whether the age is 42 years or 47 years in case of in-service candidates. The forms of all the candidates clearly show that they had applied under the Sponsored category. However, we find that the State did not treat any of the seven candidates as Sponsored category candidates and in all the forms except that of Dr. The forms of all the candidates clearly show that they had applied under the Sponsored category. However, we find that the State did not treat any of the seven candidates as Sponsored category candidates and in all the forms except that of Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik, we find that first there is a tick in the space meant for Sponsored candidates then there is a cross across the tick and then either there is a tick or 'O' written in the place meant for Open category candidates. We also find that on 24.01.2014 all these seven candidates were treated as in-service candidates applying in Open category. Thereafter this certificate has been scored off and the certificate below that certificate has been filled in on 29.01.2014 whereby the candidates had been sponsored as in-service candidates. As far as Dr. Mousumi Sarkar is concerned, she had applied as a Sponsored category candidate, as is apparent from her form and on 21.01.2014 she was treated as a Sponsored In-service candidate from the beginning. 24. What has shocked and surprised us is that whereas in the forms of Dr. Anup kumar Laha, Dr. Binita Chakma, Dr. Arghya Pratim Debnath, Dr. Uttam kumar Das, Dr. Narendra Chandra Das and Dr. Gautam Debbarma in whose cases the options were changed, the same is clearly reflected in first page of the form where 'Sponsored category' had been scored off and 'Open' had been entered. This is not so in the case of Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik. This gives rise to a strong suspicion that this form of Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik had been changed at a later stage to show that he had applied only under the Sponsored category. 25. In the amended writ petition filed by Dr. Mousumi Sarkar with regard to Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik, who was respondent No. 5, it was clearly alleged that private respondent No. 5 had applied for the post graduate seat in the Open category and was treated as an Open category candidate. Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik filed no specific reply to this averment made in para 16. Therefore, it means that he admitted that he had applied under the Open category. 26. While taking this view, we are fortified by the letter dated 30.01.2014 wherein the names of Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik, Dr. Anup kumar Laha, Dr. Binita Chakma, Dr. Arghya Pratim Debnath, Dr. Uttam kumar Das, Dr. Narendra Chandra Das and Dr. Therefore, it means that he admitted that he had applied under the Open category. 26. While taking this view, we are fortified by the letter dated 30.01.2014 wherein the names of Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik, Dr. Anup kumar Laha, Dr. Binita Chakma, Dr. Arghya Pratim Debnath, Dr. Uttam kumar Das, Dr. Narendra Chandra Das and Dr. Gautam Debbarma are mentioned and its clearly stated that these candidates should be treated to be Sponsored candidates instead of Open category candidates. 27. As pointed out by us above, in the case of all other six candidates the tick in the block against the word 'Sponsored' was cut and, thereafter entry made in the space against the word 'Open'. But in the case of Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik, this is not done. This casts a serious doubt as to whether his form has been changed or not. 28. In the case in hand, we find that documents could have been interpolated at any stage. In all the other applications placed before us we find that the letter which had been addressed to the Director, Medical Education is on the first page and it bears a serial number in thick marker pen. While perusing the application of these seven candidates, we find that except in the case of Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik the letter addressed to the Director, Medical Education is on the first page. In most of the cases this is the letter of the officials through whom the letter has been sent. These letters contained a serial number (15 in the case of Dr. Anup kumar Laha, 32 in the case of Dr. Binita Chakma, 24 in the case of Dr. Arghya Pratim Debnath, 54 in the case of Dr. Uttam kumar Das, 39 in the case Dr. Narendra Chandra Das, 31 in the case of Dr. Gautam Debbarma and 20 in the case of Dr. Mousumi Sarkar). But there is no such serial number on any of the pages of the form of Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik. 29. Normally we expect the State to act in a legal and valid manner. There is a presumption under the Indian Evidence Act that all acts of the State are done properly. Mousumi Sarkar). But there is no such serial number on any of the pages of the form of Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik. 29. Normally we expect the State to act in a legal and valid manner. There is a presumption under the Indian Evidence Act that all acts of the State are done properly. However, as far as the present case is concerned, there are the following glaring omissions,- (i) There is no authentic record of the date when the forms were submitted; (ii) No entry is made in any register with regard to the date of receipt of the forms; (iii) There is no register maintained separately showing the date of receipt of the forms; (iv) In the absence of a specific register the forms should have been entered in the receipt/diary/dispatch register maintained in the department. That has not been done; (v) In the form of Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik only in the covering letter addressed to the Director of Medical Education, there is a receipt of the Superintendent, A.G.M.C. & GBP hospital but there is no number of the receipt though the date is given as 13th January, 2014, that receipt is only on the covering letter but there is no receipt on the main form; (vi) There is no record maintained by the department with regard to the submission of the forms and all the forms have been kept in loose files; (vii) The manner in which the files are maintained also leaves much to be desired. 30. In W.A. 17 of 2012 this Court had noted with concern that the files were not being properly maintained and the copy of that judgment was sent to the Chief Secretary of the State of Tripura who was directed to ensure that instructions are issued to all officials in the State to maintain files properly containing both communications and noting sheets. That judgment was delivered by us on 13.02.2014. We are again constrained to observe that files in the State are not maintained properly. We, therefore, direct as follows:- (i) That in future every file in the State of Tripura should be maintained in a transparent manner; (ii) The files should be maintained in such a manner that there is no chance of any interpolation in the file; (iii) Each file should consist of two parts. We, therefore, direct as follows:- (i) That in future every file in the State of Tripura should be maintained in a transparent manner; (ii) The files should be maintained in such a manner that there is no chance of any interpolation in the file; (iii) Each file should consist of two parts. The first part being the noting sheet and the second part being the communication/order/memorandum/receipt/issue sent on the basis of the notifications; (iv) When a fresh file is opened it shall be noted as to why a new file has been opened and reference shall be given to the communication/order/memorandum on the basis of which the file has been opened; (v) Each file should be numbered separately; (vi) Each noting by an official shall be numbered separately and if a noting deals with 2/3 issues then the noting should be made parawise and each part of the noting should be treated as a different noting and numbered accordingly; (vii) The noting sheet should also bear pagination in consecutive numbers; (viii) As far as the communication part of the file is concerned, the same shall be maintained in a chronological order and the oldest communication/memorandum/order should be paged as page-1 and chronologically each letter or communication shall be entered and paged; (ix) Notings on the noting sheet should make reference to the number and date of the communication referred to on the communication file; (x) The file should be secured and tagged in such a manner that there is no chance of insertion of any document; (xi) When a file is closed it shall be tagged and sealed in such a manner that it cannot be opened without disturbing the whole file. We make it clear that in future if any file is found wanting in this regard then no reliance on the same shall be placed. 31. As far as the Director of Medical Education is concerned, we issue the following directions with regard to all tests and examinations held by it,- (i) The department shall maintain a record of all the tests conducted by it and separate file shall be maintained for each test; (ii) Application forms are normally downloaded from the internet and, therefore, record of the same cannot be maintained. However if forms are sold they should be serially numbered and in a register entry shall be made showing the name of the purchaser of the form; (iii) When an applicant submits a form, the same should be entered in a register specifically opened for that test of that year and this register shall be maintained serial wise; (iv) If the form is not to be downloaded or uploaded from the internet and is a numbered form then the number of the application form, the date of the application form, the particulars of the candidate, the category of the candidate, i.e. Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe/General, the reservation category if any, whether the candidate is applying as a Open category candidate or Sponsored candidate shall all be mentioned clearly in the register; (v) The details of the manner of submission of the admission fees along with bank statement shall also be entered; (vi) In the case of forms where sponsorship has to be done, the sponsorship certificate should be obtained before the last date of filling of the form; (vii) The sponsorship certificate must be obtained by the candidate and it is not the duty of the department of Medical Education to obtain this sponsorship certificate and the form must be complete in all respects before submission. Thereafter scrutiny of all the forms should be done and forms which are found to be incomplete should be rejected and such rejection conveyed to the candidates; (viii) The Director, Medical Education may also lay down any further guidelines consistent with the directions given hereinabove. We make it clear that if this system is not followed and files are not properly maintained, then we will have no option but to set aside all the selections made on the basis of such selections where no proper record is maintained. 32. As stated above, Dr. Mousumi Sarkar in her affidavit had stated that Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik had applied under the Open category, which allegation was not specifically admitted or denied by Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik. At the time of hearing it was clearly pointed out to the Court that Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik had applied under the Open category and while dictating the judgment in open court we had noted this fact in many portions of the judgment. Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik. At the time of hearing it was clearly pointed out to the Court that Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik had applied under the Open category and while dictating the judgment in open court we had noted this fact in many portions of the judgment. Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik till date has neither applied for review of the judgment passed in the earlier writ petition No. 124 of 2014 nor has he filed an affidavit that under what category he had applied. 33. After the judgment was passed neither the department nor Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik approached this Court that there was error in the judgment. As pointed out above, there are glaring contradictions in the form which is alleged to have been filled in by Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik. Whereas in the case of other six doctors in whose cases relaxation of age was granted, the category was specifically changed from 'Sponsored' to 'Open'. There is no explanation why this has not happened in the case of Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik. We had specifically put this question to the counsel and the officers of the Director of Medical Education when they had appeared before us. None could give any answer, whatsoever for this glaring contradiction in the forms of similarly situated candidates. 34. In the case of Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik there is another glaring inconsistency. As pointed out above whereas the forms of all the other six candidates and also the form of the petitioner Dr. Mousumi Sarkar bears a serial number which has been entered with a thick marker pen. There is no such marking in the form of Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik, In the answer sheet also Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik has been shown to be an Open category candidate. 35. The Director, Medical Education sat over the judgment of this Court and treated Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik as a Sponsored candidate despite clear cut findings of this Court to the contrary. 36. All the aforesaid factors read together along with the conduct of Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik clearly lead to the conclusion that Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik had applied as an Open category candidate initially but his form has been interpolated or changed at a later stage to show him to be a Sponsored candidate. We have perused the original answer sheet of Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik, where also his status has been shown to be Open scheduled caste and not to be as a Sponsored candidate. We have perused the original answer sheet of Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik, where also his status has been shown to be Open scheduled caste and not to be as a Sponsored candidate. 37. In view of the detailed discussion above, we reject the review application and find no reason to change our original finding that Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik had applied as a Open category candidate. There is no error on the face of the record and, therefore, without going into the technical objection of limitation, we hold that Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik had applied as a Open category and could not be treated as Sponsored category candidate. 38. In view of the above discussion, we allow the writ petition, set aside the selection of Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik as a Sponsored category candidate and direct that the person next in merit in the Sponsored category list be granted admission against the post and the seat allotted to Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik in terms of our order dated 06.05.2014. 39. We also hold Dr. Basudev Bhattachariya guilty of contumacious contempt of the orders of this court. We are not willing to accept his apology because the apology is an afterthought and given at the end as a conditional apology. We are clearly of the view that the Director, Medical Education was aware that this court had held that Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik had applied as a Open category candidate and he wrongly, illegally and with malafide intention held that Dr. Bidhan Bhowmik was a candidate belonging to the Sponsored category. 40. As far as the question of sentence is concerned, since this is the first case of its type in the State of Tripura, we impose sentence of fine of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) only upon Dr. Basudev Bhattachariya. It is made clear that this fine has to be paid out of his own pocket and shall not come out from the coffers of the State. 41. The fine be deposited in the Registry of this Court within 50 days from today. In case the fine is deposited, the same shall be handed over to the High Court Legal Services Authority. In case of default of payment of fine, the contemnor Dr. Basudev Bhattachariya shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. 42. The Review petition is dismissed on merits. 43. All the applications stand disposed of. Send down the LCRs forthwith. 44. In case the fine is deposited, the same shall be handed over to the High Court Legal Services Authority. In case of default of payment of fine, the contemnor Dr. Basudev Bhattachariya shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. 42. The Review petition is dismissed on merits. 43. All the applications stand disposed of. Send down the LCRs forthwith. 44. The original record which was retained is returned to the learned Government Advocate.