IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP. No. 1459 of 2009 Date of Decision: 14.7.2011. Paramjit Kaur --Petitioner Versus Shri Pawan Kumar & another --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. P.K.S. Phoolka, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for respondents. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) These contempt proceedings have been initiated against the respondents for alleged violation of order dated 21.12.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by a Division Bench of this Court. The Hon'ble Division Bench while accepting the plea of the Association of Education Colleges (Self Financing) of Haryana to make admissions to B.Ed Course in various member colleges of the Association, issued directions to be complied with by such colleges while making admissions. The relevant directions issued by this Court are reproduced as under:- “(i) the Colleges duly recognized by NCTE and affiliated to the Universities in the States of Punjab and Haryana and those, who have been included in the list of Colleges eligible for admitting students by the University holding the CET, shall be free to fill up the seats that are lying vacant by admitting suitable candidates eligible for such admissions to the B.Ed Courses; ii) Admissions against the excess seats shall be made only on the basis of merit of the candidates in the qualifying examination. In the event of seats being less than the number of candidates seeking admission to any College, the College shall grant admission strictly in accordance with the inter-se merit of the COCP. No. 1459 of 2009 -2- candidates; (iii) the College shall conclude the admission process and submit a list of the candidates admitted by them to the University concerned latest by 5th December, 2008. We make it clear that the Institutions shall not grant any admission to any candidate after 5th December 2008 for the academic session 2008-09. In the event of violation of these directions, the University concerned and NCTE shall initiate proceedings for withdrawal of recognition and for deaffiliating the defaulting College/ Colleges; iv) Such of the Colleges as make admissions against the excess seats pursuant to this order, shall take steps to ensure that special classes are held by them so that the candidates are in a position to complete 180 working days and other requirements of attendance and practice teaching etc. The Universities shall not, by reason of this order, relax its academic standard stipulated for the Courses in any manner whatsoever; (v) the admissions granted shall not exceed the intake capacity of the Colleges. Any default thereof, shall expose the College to risk of de-recognition and withdrawal of affiliation; (vi) the affiliating University shall for the future examine and take an appropriate decision regarding the mechanism to be adopted for filling up of unfilled excess seats in the Institutions for the session 2009-10 onwards. They shall consider whether Colleges can be allowed to fill up the remaining vacant seats of their own after the admissions through CET had been completed within the time frame stipulated for this purpose and if so, the terms on which and safeguard subject to which this can be done. The University concerned shall also be free to devise any other mechanism for filling up unfilled seats considered appropriate. The parties are left to bear their own costs.” The present petitioner claims to have applied to Swami Dayanand College of Education, Village Lehra Bagga, Distt. Bathinda in the State of Punjab for admission to B.Ed Course for the academic session commencing in the year 2008. Eligibility of the petitioner is indisputed. COCP. No. 1459 of 2009 -3- The only dispute is whether the petitioner applied to the said college within the prescribed time and her candidature was not considered by the college in compliance with the directions of the Court. It is alleged that petitioner sent her application through registered post vide postal receipt No.2240 dated 27.11.2008 and her application was delivered in the office of respondent no.2 on 28.12.2008. Despite eligibility and merit the petitioner has been denied the admission and thus one year of the petitioner has been wasted. In support of the allegations that the petitioner applied within time and her application was duly received by the college, the petitioner has relied upon an inquiry allegedly made by the A.D.C (Development), Bathinda. Copies of the letter of the A.D.C to the Registrar, Panjab University and the Chairperson, N.C.T.E have been placed on record. It is stated in the aforesaid communication that as per the inquiry report submitted by the A.D.C (Development), Bathinda the college has violated the order passed, however, copy of such inquiry report has not been placed on record. Respondents denied the allegations made by the petitioner. It is further stated that the postal receipt No.2240 dated 27.11.2008 said to be in respect to application sent by the petitioner to the college is in fact postal receipt no.2540. It is, however, stated that through the aforesaid postal receipt the registered letter was addressed to the Principal, D.A.V. Public School and not to the Principal, Swami Dayanand College of Education. Respondents have placed on record information in the form of the copy of the register of the Postal Department, Bathinda. This document reveals that some document was sent by registered post on 28.11.2008 under postal COCP. No. 1459 of 2009 -4- receipt no.2540. The registered envelope was addressed to the Principal, D.A.V. Public School, Bathinda. On the basis of the aforesaid documentary evidence, it is pleaded on behalf of the respondents that no such document containing the application of the petitioner was received and the application having been addressed to the Principal, D.A.V. Public School, Bathinda could not have been received by the respondents and thus the entire claim of the petitioner is based upon the manipulated facts. Respondents have filed another affidavit dated 10.11.2010 pursuant to the order of this Court, wherein it is specifically mentioned that the deponent is running S.T. College of Education in village Lehra Bagga and have no concern with the D.A.V Public School at Bathinda. It is further mentioned that D.A.V Public School, village Lehra Bagga is a different institution than respondent- Swami Dayanand College of Education, Bathinda. Vide order dated 21.3.2011 petitioner was asked to produce the copy of the application forwarded to the college. Vide subsequent order dated 21.4.2011 this Court further directed that on the failure of the petitioner to produce the copy of application, adverse inference would be drawn against her. Despite aforesaid order the petitioner has failed to produce the application. The directions issued by this Court are not disputed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The only disputed question is whether the petitioner applied within time and her candidature was not considered by the respondent- college for admission to B.Ed Course in the session 2008. The petitioner has placed reliance upon some inquiry said to be made by the A.D.C. (Development), Bathinda. Except a communication no report of the inquiry COCP. No. 1459 of 2009 -5- has been produced. It is also not disclosed whether such an inquiry was held in presence of the respondents or not. The document secured by the petitioner under R.T.I Act reveals that a registered document was sent on 28.11.2008 addressed to the Principal, D.A.V. Public School, Bathinda. To the contrary the petitioner's case is that she sent the registered document on 27.11.2008, however, neither the copy of the application sent to the respondent nor the original postal receipt issued by the Postal Department has been produced, to substantiate the allegations that any registered document was sent on 27.11.2008 and was received by the respondent- college on 28.11.2008. The allegations having not been established, this contempt petition is liable to be dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 14.7.2011. lucky