AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shri Ajay Mishra, learned Dy. Advocate General has filed affidavit of Shri R.S. Sirohi, Principal Secretary, Govt. of M.P. The order passed by this Court required a detailed affidavit but the affidavit filed is a cryptic one and states that the letter was received on 1st August, 2001 seeking comments of the Govt. of M.P. on the proposal of Govt. of Chhattisgarh. It is stated in the affidavit that since the matter pertained primarily to the Department of Higher Education, Govt. of M.P., this communication was forwarded to them in order to seek their views in this regard. It does not disclose that when it was forwarded. Para 3 further states that another letter was received from Director, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India on 10-8-2001 seeking further comments of the Govt. of M.P. on the proposal of the Govt. of Chhattisgarh and comments were desired by 16-8-2001. Para 4 of the affidavit states that an interdepartmental meeting was convened by the Chief Secretary on 17-8-2001 and a formal reply has been sent on 21-8-2001. The manner in which the Govt. of M.P. has conducted, laxity is writ large. The orders have been passed by this Court from time to time specially on 9-7- 2001, 22-7-2001 and 1-8-2001. When the matter came up for hearing on 1-8-2001, a request was made on behalf of respondent No. 2 that the matter may be listed on 6th August, 2001 as the Advocate General of M.P. was coming on that dale, since this Court had issued notices to Advocate General of both the States to address the Court. Thus, the case was adjourned to 6-8-2001. It is recorded in the order sheet dated 6-8-2001. However, since arguments could not be concluded, we expressed hope that all parties concerned in the matter shall take immediate steps to resolve the dead-lock and if in the meanwhile, the dispute is resolved, liberty was given to the counsel for the parties to mention. On 16-8-2001 counsel for the State of M.P. was heard. Case was immediately listed. He however sought for time. It was granted. He sought further time and as such case was adjourned to 17-8-2001. The orders passed on 17-8-2001 are explicitly clear. The statement of Dy. A.G. for State of M.P. on behalf of Chief Secretary was recorded. In fact, we are surprised to note laxity in which the letter was sent on 21st August, 2001. As stated by counsel for Union of India, it was received at 17.57 hours.
During the course of the arguments, the learned Dy. Advocate General appearing for the State of M.P. made uncalled for comments even on the orders passed by this Court. We had to remind the learned counsel that he is addressing the High Court and is not speaking at a platform. It is the duty of a lawyer to maintain the decorum and dignity of the Court since it is the institution which mattes and all of those who are concerned have to remember it. Before passing any order, we grant opportunity to learned Dy. Advocate General to file his affidavit explaining his conduct.
So far as declaration of result is concerned, we have heard the matter upto 5.35 p.m.
Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 4 submits that they are very much concerned about declaration of result as the students are suffering.
Shri Kanak Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is the State of M.P. which is responsible for causing such delay. He referred to the proceedings and states that the delay is only on their part. It is noted that petitioner No. 2 has appeared in both the examinations in State of Chhattisgarh as well as State of M.P. and petitioner No. 4 had also applied for examinations for State of M.P. and Chhattisgarh, but because of domicile matter, she was permitted to appear only in Chhattisgarh. It is pointed out that the candidates who are residents of erstwhile State of M.P., have appeared in State of M.P. as well as Chhattisgarh and also from through out the country. It is further submitted that so far as other States are concerned, the results have by and large been declared of the examinations conducted by various institutions and professional Boards and withholding of results in that situation is causing loss to all those who have appeared in the examinations.
Shri Mishra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 4 submits that after declaration of results the date of counselling is to be fixed and whole process takes 2 to 3 weeks.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that the results may be declared subject to the decision of this petition.
It is further directed that without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners the Union of India/Central Government may also issue notification u/s 66 of the M.P. Re-organisation Act.
Learned counsel for the State of M.P. states that he does not have record of the case and officer-in-charge of the case and the person filing affidavits dated 16-8-2001 is also not present.
Shri Ajay Mishra, Dy. Advocate General may remain present to explain his conduct. Shri R.S. Sirohi, Principal Secretary and Officer-in-Charge shall remain present with records.
Meanwhile the process of starting and functioning of Medical College at Bilaspur be expedited and report be submitted by State & Union to the Court.