IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 22ND MAGHA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 192 of 2011(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.32176/2010 Dated 04/11/2010 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER IN WPC -------------------------------- JUVAL GEORGE, D/O. GEORGE JOSEPH, AICKARATHAZHATHIL HOUSE, MELAKKAM, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- B.K. VIJAYAN, (AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), THE SECRETARY BOARD OF HIGHER SECONDARY EXAMINATIONS, DIRECTORATE OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, SANTHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPRAM-680001. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.B.RAMANAND THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.T.SANKARAN, J. ----------------------------------- C.O.C.No.192 of 2011 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 11th day of February, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner alleges that the respondent willfully and deliberately disobeyed the directions contained in the judgment dated 4th November, 2010 in W.P.(C) No.32176 of 2010. In paragraph 3 of the judgment, it was held as follows : "A unique situation arises in this case. The question is whether the petitioner should be denied the benefit of improvement for which she appeared in September, 2010. I think the matter can be considered by the first respondent, taking a humanitarian consideration and without treating it as a precedent. The apprehension that if an order is passed permitting a student to appear for the improvement examination not in the same year, but in the subsequent year or COC No.192/2011 2 subsequent years, it would set a bad precedent. Nothing would deter the first respondent from granting the relief to the petitioner as a special case in the peculiar facts and circumstances. The petitioner having appeared for the improvement examination as per the interim order passed by the Lok Ayukta and taking into account the fact that the petitioner was suffering from Hepatitis which disabled her from going to school during the academic year 2009-2010, an appropriate decision shall be taken by the first respondent, making a humanitarian approach to the question and not a technical approach. Any order passed by the first respondent allowing the result of the petitioner to be published for the improvement examination, shall not be treated as a precedent. A decision shall be taken by the first respondent within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment." COC No.192/2011 3 2. The respondent herein passed Annexure B order dated 20.12.2009 rejecting the request of the petitioner to publish the results. The respondent stated in Annexure B order thus : "Against this order the complainant approached before the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble High Court as per judgment dated 4.11.2010 in W.P.(C) No.32176 of 2010 (V) ordered that the matter may be considered by the first respondent (Secretary, Board of Higher Secondary Education), taking a humanitarian consideration and without treating it as a precedent within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. In the above circumstances, the following technical obstacles also considered in detail. The software for the registration of the candidates, for processing the results and for printing the certificates is designed as per the guidelines of the notifications for the examinations in 2010. Using the existing software, the results of the student cannot be COC No.192/2011 4 processed and it is not possible to generate the mark list. The Board of Higher Secondary Examination has no provision to issue mark list and to publish results other than generated by the Software. So the result of the papers written by Kumari Juvel George in the improvement examination, September, 2010 cannot be processed and published. Hence the request to value the answer scripts and to publish the results cannot be considered and the same is rejected. This order issued in compliance with the judgment dated 4.11.2010 in W.P.(C) No.32176 of 2010 (V) filed by Kumari Juvel George." 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by not complying with the specific directions contained in the judgment, the respondent has committed contempt of court. The counsel submitted that this Court directed a humanitarian approach to be taken and to avoid a technical approach. In Annexure B order, the respondent, contrary to COC No.192/2011 5 the directions in the judgment, took a very technical approach and did not take a humanitarian approach. The counsel submits that nothing more is required to hold that there is contempt. 4. I am not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner. It is true that while disposing of the Writ Petition, the respondent was directed to dispose of the matter taking a humanitarian consideration and leaving aside technical approach. It was held that the order need not be treated as a precedent. It is also true that the respondent does not appear to have taken a humanitarian consideration in the matter. But that does not mean that he has committed contempt of court. An order passed by the respondent in the exercise of the jurisdiction vested in him cannot be characterised as an act of contempt. I am of the view that the respondent has not committed contempt of court. If the petitioner is aggrieved, she can very well challenge Annexure B order. The grounds COC No.192/2011 6 on which the challenge against Annexure B could be considered are different from the grounds for holding whether the respondent has committed contempt of court. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that the Contempt Case does not require admission and notice need not be issued to the respondent. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed. K.T.SANKARAN JUDGE csl