IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 25TH MAGHA 1929 Con.Case(C).No. 294 of 2006(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.31656/2005 Dated 15/02/2006 .................... : PETITIONER. ---------------------------- ANTONY.P.W. POKKATH HOUSE, PIZHALA P.O. KADAMAKKUDY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. PROF.M.R.UNNI, AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, REGISTRAR, MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM. 2. JANCY JAMES, W/O.JAMES JOSEPH, AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, VICE CHANCELLOR, MAHATMA GNDHI UNIVERSITY, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY SRI.T.A. SHAJI SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ C.O.C.No. 294 OF 2006 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner has filed this contempt case alleging violation of Annexure 1 interim order dated 15.2.2006, in W.P. (C) No.31656/05. The order reads thus: “I heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondent. University at some length. To certain specific queries put to the counsel for the University, it is submitted, in response to that, that an additional affidavit will be filed answering those points. Needful shall be done within two weeks. Since a strong prima facie case is made out by the petitioner I feel that it may not be proper to permit the University to complete the process of selection which is being done now. Standing counsel submits that O.M.R. test is scheduled to be held on 19 th of this month and every step has been taken in that behalf. That being state of affairs, let the Assistant Grade II test take place subject to the result of this writ petition. However subsequent thereto, all further proceedings shall stand stayed until further orders.” The contention of the petitioner is that despite that order in addition to conducting the test, the respondents have valued the C.O.C. No.294/06 2 answer papers also. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating that the valuation was done by the LBS Centre, who has been entrusted with the conduct of the test, which is an OMR test. The LBS Centre is not a party to the writ petition. Since passage of time may damage the OMR answer sheet, it was necessary to value the answer papers urgently. Accordingly the answer papers were valued by the LBS Centre and kept in separate sealed covers. On the above submissions the respondents would contend that there is no attempt for violation of the interim order by the respondents. I have heard both sides, in view of the explanation given by the respondents in the counter affidavit and in view of the fact that the petitioner is in no way prejudiced by the valuation of the answer sheets, I am not inclined to continue proceedings in the contempt case and accordingly the contempt case is closed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd C.O.C. No.294/06 3