Civil Application No. 9387 Of 2012 vs State Of Gujarat & 3 ­

CA/9385/2012 1/8 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9385 of 2012 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1373 of 2012 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9451 of 2012 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1380 of 2012 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1380 of 2012 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9241 of 2012 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 971 of 2012 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9454 of 2012 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1383 of 2012 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1381 of 2012 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9394 of 2012 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1733 of 2012 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9457 of 2012 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1384 of 2012 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9458 of 2012 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1385 of 2012 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9453 of 2012 In HC-NIC Page 1 of 8 Created On Sat Oct 17 02:39:10 IST 2015 CA/9385/2012 2/8 ORDER SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1381 of 2012 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9240 of 2012 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 972 of 2012 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9396 of 2012 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1382 of 2012 With CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9387 of 2012 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1374 of 2012 To CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9392 of 2012 In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 1379 of 2012 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1383 OF 2012 TO SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION 1385 OF 2012 ========================================================= KAMESHWAR KELAVANI SEVA TRUST ­ Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 ­ Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance :

MR BP GUPTA for Petitioner(s) : 1,MR HARDIK B GUPTA for Petitioner(s) : 1, RULE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1,3 ­ 4. MR YC CONTRACTOR for Respondent(s) : 2 ­ 4. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI HC-NIC Page 2 of 8 Created On Sat Oct 17 02:39:10 IST 2015 CA/9385/2012 3/8 ORDER Date : 05/09/2012 COMMON ORAL ORDER

1. On 3.7.2012, this Court in S.C.A. No.971 of 2012 and allied matters has passed following order:­ Rule returnable on 15.10.2012.

In the meantime, the impugned orders passed by the respondent­University are stayed only qua 20 per cent of the total Management Seats.

It is, however, made clear that if any Management Seat/s is/are already allotted during the admission process, then such number of Seat/s shall be deleted and for that purpose, the respondent­University shall file appropriate Civil Application for modification of this order. Direct service permitted.

2. Thereafter, this Court in Civil Application No. 7724 of 2012 filed in S.C.A. No. 973 of 2012 has passed following order:­ Rule. Mr. Y.C. Contractor learned counsel waives service on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

1. By way of this application, the applicants have prayed to issue appropriate directions to the HC-NIC Page 3 of 8 Created On Sat Oct 17 02:39:10 IST 2015 CA/9385/2012 4/8 ORDER respondent­University to accept the Enrollment Forms, Eligibility Forms and Examination Forms of the students and to issue Hall­Tickets to them for appearing in the Examination which is to commence from 10.07.2012 and also to declare the results of such students.

2. When the captioned petition was earlier listed before this Court on 03.07.2012, it was extensively heard and the Court had passed the following order;

"Rule returnable on 15.10.2012.

In the meantime, the impugned orders passed by the respondent­ University are stayed only qua 20 per cent of the total Management Seats.

It is, however, made clear that if any Management Seat/s is/are already allotted during the admission process, then such number of Seat/s shall be deleted and for that purpose, the respondent­ University shall file appropriate Civil Application for modification of this order. Direct service permitted."

3. By the aforesaid order, the impugned communications were stayed only qua 20 per cent of the total Management Seats. In pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 03.07.2012, it is clarified that the students named in the document annexed as Annexure­I to the main petition, at page­58, from Sr. No.01 to 20, totaling 20, shall appear in the examination, which is to commence tomorrow, i.e. on 10.07.2012.

4. In view of the same, the respondent­University is directed to accept the candidature of the said 20 students by completing all requisite formalities, whose names have been mentioned at Sr. No.01 to 20, in the document annexed as Annexure­I to the main petition, by today evening and to complete all the requisite formalities so that they could appear in the Examination tomorrow, without any difficulty.

5. It is, however, clarified that if it is practically not possible for the respondent­University to complete the requisite formalities in respect of the said 20 students, then in the alternative, the respondent­ University shall make necessary arrangement for conducting the Examination of the said 20 students from 06.08.2012 onwards. However, looking to the allegations made against the respondent­University in the captioned petition, the Examination Papers of such Exam shall be prepared by the Professors / Lecturers of some other University based either in the State of Maharashtra or Gujarat, in which case, the name of such University shall be selected by the respondent­University. Further, the Answer Sheets of the students appearing in such Examination shall be checked by Professors / Lecturers of University, other than that of the respondent­University, whose names shall also be suggested by the respondent­University.

6. The aforesaid arrangement has been made in order to ensure that a free and fair examination is conducted and the career of the students is not put in jeopardy.

7. With the above observations and directions, the application stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the above extent. Direct service today.

3. On 28.8.2012, this Court in Civil Application No. 9235 of 2012 filed in S.C.A. No. 973 of 2012 and allied matters has passed following order:­

1. Learned counsel Mr. Y.C. Contractor, appearing on behalf of the respondent­University, states he had a Meeting with Dr. Kumudavalih - Registrar, Dr. Kesarkar - B.C.U.D., Dr. Kamat - Vice­Chancellor and Dr. Chakravarty - P.V.C. of the respondent­ University in the preceding week at Churchgate, Mumbai and in the said Meeting, a decision was taken and he was instructed to inform this Court that unless and until the requisite papers for verification of eligibility are received by the respondent­University from the concerned Colleges, exams of the students could not be conducted and that only after the concerned Colleges dispatch the relevant papers, exams could be taken as per the directions that may be issued by this Court.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants submit that the applicants undertake to submit the xerox copies of the Enrollment Forms, Eligibility Forms and the Mark­sheets of Graduation of the students concerned to the respondent­ University on or before 31.08.2012. All such copies shall be attested by the Principal of the Institution / HC-NIC Page 6 of 8 Created On Sat Oct 17 02:39:10 IST 2015 CA/9385/2012 7/8 ORDER Secretary of the Trust and in future, if required, the originals of such documents, shall be called for from the students concerned for necessary verification.

3. To come up on 05.09.2012. Direct service today.

4. When the matter was taken up for hearing learned senior counsel Mr. Sudhir NanavatI stated that the respondent­ University did not collect the requisite documents from the concerned colleges as per the directions issued by this Court in the earlier order. Considering the fact that the long time has elapsed and the future of the students is in jeopardy, a suggestion was put by the Court to learned counsel Mr. Y.C. Contractor appearing on behalf of the respondent­University to prepare a fresh schedule of examination and produced the same before this Court on 7th September, 2012, keeping in mind the larger interest of students. Instead of co­operating with the Court, learned counsel for the respondent­University expressed his inability to accept the said suggestion. This matter is lingering since long. It was expected from the respondent­University that it would not take a rigid stand so as to endangering the career of students since the controversy essentially revolves around the verification of requisite documents.

HC-NIC Page 7 of 8 Created On Sat Oct 17 02:39:10 IST 2015 CA/9385/2012 8/8 ORDER

5. It may be noted that this Court had passed the earlier order on the specific instructions received by learned counsel Mr.

Contractor in the meeting of the responsible officers of the respondent­University. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that the respondent­University has committed willful disobedience of the earlier order of this Court. In my opinion, the action of the respondents is liable to attract consequences under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

6. In view of the above, Registry is directed to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings against the officers of the respondent­University and implead them as party to the proceedings. Thereafter, place the matter before the Division Bench on 10th September, 2012. Direct service is permitted.

th

7. To be listed on 25 September, 2012.

(K.S.JHAVERI,J.) pawan HC-NIC Page 8 of 8 Created On Sat Oct 17 02:39:10 IST 2015