- (1.) This contempt petition has been filed on the ground of the alleged disobedience to the following order passed by a Bench of this Court of which I was a member : - "Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, we find that the controversy, which eventually crystallised, was whether the petitioner is entitled to claim the benefit of his sessional, practical and project completed by him for the year 1983-84 towards 1984-85 examination. It is the case of the petitioner that on a true and proper interpretation of the relevant Statutes and the facts of the present case he should not be compelled to appear at the Sessional, Practical and Project again for the 1984-85 session. The learned counsel for the University, on the other hand, submitted that it being a case of re-admission, the petitioner had to appear again at the sessional and practical and submit a fresh Project and that he cannot rely on the Sessional, Practical and Project at which he had already appeared earlier in the 1983-84 session. It is, however, not necessary to resolve this legal controversy as, in our opinion, in view of the very special circumstances of the case arising from the undisputed fact that the petitioner was not able to continue his studies at the B.Sc. Engineering Course after 1980-81 until 1983-84 due to loss of his vision on account of accident, we have found a via media so that the petitioner does not become victim of an unfortunate circumstance, which was entirely beyond his control. The learned counsel for the University Sri B. D. Agarwal has also very fairly stated that if the Court issues a direction on the lines, which we propose to do hereunder, the University shall not take any exception to it in view of the peculiar and special facts of the case, provided this case is not treated as a precedent. We accordingly direct that the Sessional, Practical and Project already completed by the petitioner for the year 1983-84 Session be treated as the Sessional, Practical and Project for the session 1984-85 and the marks be awarded therein, if not already awarded, and his result be declared for the 1984-85 session after he appears at the viva voce examination for the Project and Practical and after he appears at the supplementary examination of the year 1985-86 in the necessary papers in accordance with the rules applicable to Supplementary Examinations and is declared successful therein. We, however, wish to make it absolutely clear that these directions have been given in the special circumstances of the case and the same may not be treated as a precedent in regard to the similar cases, which may arise in future. The petition is disposed of accordingly without any order as to costs. Sd/ A.N.V. Sd/- S.K.D. 17-3-1986."
(2.) The contempt petition was filed on May 19, 1986 arraying Sri Hashim Ali, the Vice-Chancellor of the Aligarh Muslim University as well as the Controller of Examinations of the said University, namely, Sri N. Moinuddin. While admitting the petition on the same date this Court directed the respondents to be personally present in the Court on July 28, 1986. The respondents put in appearance in the petition which remained pending for some time before the learned single Judge (Hon'ble A. N. Dikshita, J.) who was hearing contempt petitions. The case was listed on several dates but could not be disposed of for one reason or another. It appears that the respondents felt aggrieved by this Court's not dispensing with their personal presence and by the continued pendency of the petition here. Consequently they approached the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition which has been disposed of with the following directions : - "The personal attendance of the petitioner in the contempt petition is dispensed with. The contempt petition will be heard by Justice A. N. Varma whose order is said to have not been complied with. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of accordingly."
(3.) That is how the matter is before me. In order to appreciate the rival contentions it seems necessary to briefly set out the background in which the aforesaid directions were issued by this Court while disposing of the aforesaid writ petition No.15201 of 1984. The petitioner was a student of Vth Year B.Sc. (Engineering) in the 1983-84 session in the Aligarh Muslim University. He was, however, detained from appearing at the examination because of shortage of attendance. Before the order of detention was passed he had already appeared at the Sessional and Practical examination and had also submitted his Project Report. He challenged the order detaining him by means of a petition No.6181 of 1984 which was dismissed by this Court on July 19, 1984 whereupon he sought and was granted re-admission as a regular student in the next academic session i.e. 1984-85. However, after having secured his re-admission he again filed a petition (No. 15201 of 1984) on Nov. 13, 1984 challenging the order detaining him for the session 1983-84 and claiming certain reliefs and obtained an interim mandamus from this Court on Mar. 22, 1985 whereby he was provisionally permitted to appear at the annual examination to be held in May 1985. It appears that he failed in some papers and was consequently permitted to appear at the supplementary examination, held in Sept./Oct., 1985. The case of the respondent University is that he was found resorting to the use of unfair means at the supplementary examination as a result of which his supplementary examination for the year 1984-85 was cancelled and he was debarred from appearing at the annual examination for 1985-86.;