Court No. - 4
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 114 of 2021 Applicant :- Smt Anita Kumari Opposite Party :- Sarvendra Vikram Singh Director Of Education And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Arti Raje
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
List has been revised. No one has appeared on behalf of the applicant to press the present contempt application.
Learned Standing Counsel is present.
The applicant has preferred the present contempt application for non-compliance of the interim order dated 03.09.2020 passed in Special Appeal No. 532 of 2020 (Ranjeet Bharti & others v. State of U.P. & others).
A bunch of Special Appeals including the aforesaid Special Appeal arising out of the judgement of learned single Judge dated 29.4.2020 whereby the writ petition filed by the applicant was dismissed has already been disposed of by a Division Bench vide judgement and order dated 26.2.2021 passed in the leading Special Appeal No. 326 of 2020 (Kiran Lata Singh v. State Of U.P. Through Secretary, Department Of Basic Education & 5 Others) (reported in 2021(3) ADJ 1118). The operative portion of the aforesaid judgement is reproduced below :
"In the light of the discussion made above, we dispose of all these appeals with following directions substituting the judgment of learned Single Judge-:
(1) No interference is made in the order of termination/cancellation of appointment of those who obtained service based on fake mark-sheets other than those whose writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge. The direction aforesaid would apply not only to 2823 candidates whose mark-sheets/degrees were cancelled by the University by order dated 07.02.2020 but remaining 814 candidates also other than those excluded by the learned Single Judge and one Km. Anita Maurya D/o Bhola Singh of T.R.K. College, Aligarh and Vijay Singh S/o Hari Singh of K.R.T.T. College, Mathura. This direction would further exclude seven other candidates, viz. (i) Surendra Kumar S/o Sri Mauji Lal; (ii) Rajiv Singh Yadav S/o Sri Ram Ladait Yadav; (iii) Sudeep Kumar S/o Sri Ajay Pal Singh; (iv) Smt. Reeta Gautam D/o Sri Ram Gautam; (v) Reeta Yadav D/o Sri Janki Lal Yadav; (vi) Anuradha D/o Sri Rajendra Singh; (vii) Rekha Lavania D/o Sri Vijendra Singh. The respondent-State and University are directed to reconsider the case of above named seven candidates in the light of the documents submitted by them pursuant to the liberty given by this Court in these appeals. It would be in coordination. Necessary exercise in regard to those candidates would made within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If their admission in the college coupled with appearance in the examination is found proved, then the termination order would be recalled in reference to them. For a period of one month, those candidates would continue in service subject to outcome of the direction given above. List of 812 candidates out of 814 is enclosed as Schedule-I. Their order of termination of 812 candidates has been examined independently by the Court. It was not otherwise made dependent by the State to the order to be passed by the University for 814 candidates.
(2) So far as the challenge to the order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the University is concerned, no interference therein is made. Extensive arguments against the said order were made even before the learned Single Judge without a formal challenge to it but arguments so made were then dealt with by the learned Single Judge. The finding recorded therein does not suffer from error and even no argument to challenge the finding has been made other than to state that no opportunity was given to challenge the order dated 07.02.2020 ignoring that extensive arguments were made by the learned counsel. The finding in regard to it has been recorded by this Court also.
(3) The judgment of learned Single Judge is interfered in regard to the direction to the concerned District Basic Education Officer to effect the recovery of benefits obtained pursuant to the interim order of the Court. The liberty given by the learned Single Judge to the District Basic Education Officer for recovery is set aside.
(4) So far as the termination orders in reference to tampered mark-sheets are concerned, as urged by the learned counsel for the appellants, the University is directed to complete the exercise, as directed by the learned Single Judge, after observance of the provisions of law referred in the judgment and otherwise directed by this Court in the case of Tilak Singh (supra). The order in reference to those candidates would be made within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The order of termination/cancellation of appointments would be governed by the outcome of the order passed by the University, as agreed by the learned counsel for the appellants. If the University hold mark-sheets to be genuine instead of tampered of any of the appellants, the order of termination/cancellation of appointments, those would stand set aside. However, if the University records a finding about any of the candidates holding tampered mark-sheets, then the order of termination/cancellation of appointments would have effect but it would be from the date of the order passed by the University and accordingly for a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment by the University, the order of termination/cancellation of appointments of the candidates holding tampered mark-sheets is kept in abeyance. Those candidates would be allowed to work with payment of salary.
It is, however, made clear that in case any of the candidate fails to participate in the proceedings initiated by the University or delays it, this order would not be to their benefit and accordingly, the direction herein above would remain operative only for a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order by the University. On the expiry of the period given above, the order of termination/cancellation of appointments would become effective and thereby the University is directed to complete the exercise within the period given above. In case any candidate fails to cooperate with them, then a separate order for it can be passed but University would not, in any case, delay the process and for that no extension would be given by this Court rather default of the University to comply the direction aforesaid would have consequences of stoppage of salary of those who have to take action and to pass order in pursuance to the direction of this Court. The Vice Chancellor of the University would monitor compliance of this order and in case of delay, he would not be entitle to salary.
The University would be at liberty to make inspection of the marks folio lying with the Registrar, High Court or the S.I.T. for the purpose of verification, if so required and accordingly Registrar, High Court as well as S.I.T. is directed to cooperate with the University for it.
(5) The list of 2823 students has been enclosed along with the impugned judgment and list of remaining 812 candidates is enclosed as schedule I to this judgment.
All the appeals are disposed of with the aforesaid."
In this view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that no further orders are required to be passed in the present Contempt Application.
The Contempt Application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.10.2021/nd