Case: ASHOK KUMAR Vs. DEPINDER SINGH DHESI

result of test or till 31.07.2018 whichever was later. The benefit of retaining the advantages was thus extended only till the first attempt. Those who could not clear the examination in first attempt or chose not to appear in the examination conducted in May/June, 2018 were not entitled to the concessions extended by the Order. 10. It was, therefore, clear that the candidates who, on the strength of such Degrees awarded through Distance Education Mode, had attained a particular level in their career or were enjoying certain benefits as on the date of the Judgment and if they pass the examination, those benefits would stand restored. If the candidates could clear the examination in the first attempt itself, there would not even be any break in continuous enjoyment of those benefits or facilities. The idea was, candidates should not stand deprived of the status that they were enjoying as on the day of the Judgment provided the candidates could prove their worth and ability. But if, the concerned candidates had not attained any particular status, as on the date when the Judgment was passed, the width of the directions was not to confer any additional advantage which was not even enjoyed as on the date. It was not the idea to hold the candidates to be entitled to certain additional benefits which the candidates were, as a matter of fact, not even enjoying on the date of the judgment. If the degrees stood restored in terms of the directions in the Judgment and the Order, the candidates would certainly be eligible to such entitlements as are available in accordance with law, but ?restoration? would only be of those benefits, which they were enjoying as on the date of the Judgment. In short, the intent was to restore status quo ante and not to confer any additional advantage by the Judgment and the Order. 11. In the present case serious objection has been raised on behalf of Department that the concerned candidates had enrolled themselves in courses leading to Degrees in Engineering through Distance Education Mode without express permission of the Department and/or the Department did not recognise the Degrees in Engineering awarded through Distance Education Mode or that the concerned candidates were not granted any study leave to pursue such courses. If the Degrees were so obtained in violation of the norms and parameters laid down by the concerned Department, the matter assumes completely different complexion. The directions issued by this Court in the Judgment and the Order never directed to confer such advantages which the candidates were otherwise not enjoying on the date when the Judgment and clarificatory Order were passed. If there was serious infirmity in the Degrees so obtained by the candidates, the matter ought to be sorted out either through representation or through properly instituted challenge in that behalf. If the promotion was not granted and was not being enjoyed as on the day when the judgment was passed, there was no violation of any direction issued by this Court. As is evident, the representations made by the Contempt Petitioner claimed conferral of certain status and benefits which they were not enjoying earlier. If there be any grievance on that front, the entitlement needs to be established in proceedings other than a Contempt Petition. 12. Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Senior Advocate, was, therefore completely justified in relying upon the following observations passed by this Court in J.S. Parihar vs. Ganpat Duggar and others (1996) 6 SCC 291 :-?6. The question then is whether the Division Bench was right in setting aside the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to redraw the seniority list. It is contended by Mr S.K. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that unless the learned Judge goes into the correctness of the decision taken by the Government in preparation of the seniority list in the light of the law laid down by three Benches, the learned Judge cannot come to a conclusion whether or not the respondent had wilfully or deliberately disobeyed the orders of the Court as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act. Therefore, the learned Single Judge of the High Court necessarily has to go into the merits of that question. We do not find that the contention is well founded. It is seen that, admittedly, the respondents had prepared the seniority list on 2-7-1991. Subsequently promotions came to be made. The question is whether seniority list is open to review in the contempt proceedings to find out whether it is in conformity with the directions issued by the earlier Benches. It is seen that once there is an order passed by the Government on the basis of the directions issued by the court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. The preparation of the seniority list may be wrong or may be right or may or may not be in conformity with the directions. But that would be a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity of judicial review. But that cannot be considered to be the wilful violation of the order. After re-exercising the judicial review in contempt proceedings, a fresh direction by the learned Single Judge cannot be given to redraw the seniority list. In other words, the learned Judge was exercising the jurisdiction to consider the matter on merits in the contempt proceedings. It would not be permissible under Section 12 of the Act. Therefore, the Division Bench has exercised the power under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance being a judgment or order of the Single Judge; the Division Bench corrected the mistake committed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, it may not be necessary for the State to file an appeal in this Court against the judgment of the learned Single Judge when the matter was already seized of the Division Bench.?13. We, therefore, do not find any violation on part of the alleged Contemnors.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]8. In spite of the conclusion that (a) courses leading to Degrees in Engineering could not be taught through Distance Education Mode without there being express guidelines issued by AICTEpermitting such mode; and (b) the deemed to be Universities in question were not entitled to start courses in Engineering through Distance Education Mode without prior approval under the AICTE, the facility of benefit as detailed in paragraphs 57 and 58 of the Judgment was extended to the students. Though the Degrees obtained through Distance Education Mode were prima facie not in accordance with law, the students enrolled during the academic sessions 2001-2005 were given two chances to prove their worth and it was directed that if they clear the test, they would continue to derive advantages flowing from suchmay be mentioned here that there could possibly be variety of advantages derived by the candidates on the basis of such Degrees awarded at least 10 years before the Judgment was pronounced. During this period some of the candidates might have progressed in career on the basis of such Degree, while some could possibly have acquired Post-Graduate qualifications such as M.Tech and M.B.A. on the strength of such Degrees. It was in this light, that the Court ruled that though from the date of the Judgment all the advantages and benefits flowing or arising from such Degrees would stand suspended, the benefits or advantages would get revived after the candidates had cleared the examination, spoken of in said paragraphs 57 and 58. If any candidate either failed to clear the examination in two attempts or if he chose not to appear in the examination, the Degree would stand annulled completely disentitling the candidate to all the benefits and advantages flowing from such degrees.Some candidates approached this Court submitting that if in terms of the Judgment the benefits or advantages were to be withdrawn and could be regranted or restored only after the candidates had cleared the examination, it may entail some prejudice to the candidates. Some of the candidates who had obtained Post-Graduate Degrees and were employed on the strength of such Degrees would be required to surrender such benefits; and even if they were to pass the examination in the first attempt, it may still require restoration of the benefits leading to situations of inconvenience and prejudice. The directions in the Judgment were therefore modified to a certain extent in the Order. It was, therefore, laid down by way of further concession in the Order that all the candidates who desired to appear in the upcoming examination could retain all the advantages and benefits till one month after declaration of the result of test or till 31.07.2018 whichever was later. The benefit of retaining the advantages was thus extended only till the first attempt. Those who could not clear the examination in first attempt or chose not to appear in the examination conducted in May/June, 2018 were not entitled to the concessions extended by the Order.It was, therefore, clear that the candidates who, on the strength of such Degrees awarded through Distance Education Mode, had attained a particular level in their career or were enjoying certain benefits as on the date of the Judgment and if they pass the examination, those benefits would stand restored. If the candidates could clear the examination in the first attempt itself, there would not even be any break in continuous enjoyment of those benefits or facilities. The idea was, candidates should not stand deprived of the status that they were enjoying as on the day of the Judgment provided the candidates could prove their worth andif, the concerned candidates had not attained any particular status, as on the date when the Judgment was passed, the width of the directions was not to confer any additional advantage which was not even enjoyed as on the date. It was not the idea to hold the candidates to be entitled to certain additional benefits which the candidates were, as a matter of fact, not even enjoying on the date of the judgment. If the degrees stood restored in terms of the directions in the Judgment and the Order, the candidates would certainly be eligible to such entitlements as are available in accordance with law, but ?restoration? would only be of those benefits, which they were enjoying as on the date of the Judgment. In short, the intent was to restore status quo ante and not to confer any additional advantage by the Judgment and the Order.In the present case serious objection has been raised on behalf of Department that the concerned candidates had enrolled themselves in courses leading to Degrees in Engineering through Distance Education Mode without express permission of the Department and/or the Department did not recognise the Degrees in Engineering awarded through Distance Education Mode or that the concerned candidates were not granted any study leave to pursue such courses. If the Degrees were so obtained in violation of the norms and parameters laid down by the concerned Department, the matter assumes completely different complexion. The directions issued by this Court in the Judgment and the Order never directed to confer such advantages which the candidates were otherwise not enjoying on the date when the Judgment and clarificatory Order were passed. If there was serious infirmity in the Degrees so obtained by the candidates, the matter ought to be sorted out either through representation or through properly instituted challenge in that behalf. If the promotion was not granted and was not being enjoyed as on the day when the judgment was passed, there was no violation of any direction issued by this Court. As is evident, the representations made by the Contempt Petitioner claimed conferral of certain status and benefits which they were not enjoying earlier. If there be any grievance on that front, the entitlement needs to be established in proceedings other than a Contempt Petition.Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Senior Advocate, was, therefore completely justified in relying upon the following observations passed by this Court in J.S. Parihar vs. Ganpat Duggar and others(1996) 6 SCC 291  The question then is whether the Division Bench was right in setting aside the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to redraw the seniority list. It is contended by Mr S.K. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that unless the learned Judge goes into the correctness of the decision taken by the Government in preparation of the seniority list in the light of the law laid down by three Benches, the learned Judge cannot come to a conclusion whether or not the respondent had wilfully or deliberately disobeyed the orders of the Court as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act. Therefore, the learned Single Judge of the High Court necessarily has to go into the merits of that question. We do not find that the contention is well founded. It is seen that, admittedly, the respondents had prepared the seniority list on 2-7-1991. Subsequently promotions came to be made. The question is whether seniority list is open to review in the contempt proceedings to find out whether it is in conformity with the directions issued by the earlier Benches. It is seen that once there is an order passed by the Government on the basis of the directions issued by the court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. The preparation of the seniority list may be wrong or may be right or may or may not be in conformity with the directions. But that would be a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity of judicial review. But that cannot be considered to be the wilful violation of the order. After re-exercising the judicial review in contempt proceedings, a fresh direction by the learned Single Judge cannot be given to redraw the seniority list. In other words, the learned Judge was exercising the jurisdiction to consider the matter on merits in the contempt proceedings. It would not be permissible under Section 12 of the Act. Therefore, the Division Bench has exercised the power under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance being a judgment or order of the Single Judge; the Division Bench corrected the mistake committed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, it may not be necessary for the State to file an appeal in this Court against the judgment of the learned Single Judge when the matter was already seized of the Division Bench.We, therefore, do not find any violation on part of the alleged Contemnors.