AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
-ORDER
By way of this intra-court appeal, the appellant institution, said to be a teachers training college at Bharatpur, seeks to question the order dated 20.12.2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11337/2013 (Sajal Bansal @ Sapna Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.). The relevant background aspects of the matter are that the respondent No. 4 herein, described as "Sajal Bansal @ Sapna W/o Rahul Bansal D/o Bhagwat Sharan Mittal" has filed the writ petition aforesaid stating the grievance that despite her having cleared the PTET and having been allotted the college, i.e., the appellant herein, she was not being accorded admission in B.Ed. Course with reference to the discrepancy in the name, as appearing in the educational certificates, i.e., "Sapna"; and the name in which she had taken the examination and cleared the same, i.e., "Sajal". The writ-petitioner has submitted that she had changed her name as "Sajal" from "Sapna" a few years back, made a public announcement in that regard and furnished an affidavit too. She has also referred to her Passport, PAN Card, Driving License, AADHAR Card etc., all carrying the name "Sajal".
It has also been submitted that want of gazette notification could not have deprived her of the right to pursue her studies and, in fact, she made a submission that she would be producing the official gazette notification wherefore the appropriate authorities have already been moved. It has been submitted that there was no dispute about the identity and if deprived of admission, she would suffer irreparable injury.
It appears that the said writ petition remained pending for want of service on the respondents Nos. 1 & 4, the State of Rajasthan, as also, the present appellant but the matter was taken up on 18.10.2013 by a learned Single Judge and the following order was passed.
Though the notice has not been served upon the respondent No. 1 and 4, the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated the urgency and argued that though the name of the petitioner has been changed in requisite documents such as PAN Card, Passport, Driving License and Adhar Card but her name has not been changed in the educational certificates in the absence of Gazette Notification and the respondent No. 4-college is not providing admission to the petitioner only on the ground that the information regarding change of her name has not been published in official Gazette.
It is also stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already applied for publishing the information regarding change of her name in the official Gazette but the same has not been published by the Government. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner is ready to undertake that in case the information regarding change of name is not published in the Gazette Notification within a period of two months from today the college may reject her admission.
In view of the above submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner the respondent No. 4 is directed to provide admission to the petitioner in the B.Ed. Course subject to the condition that the petitioner will furnish an undertaking to the effect that if she fails to provide a copy of the Gazette Notification declaring the change of her name, within a period of two months from the date of giving her admission the respondent-college may cancel her admission in the B.Ed. Course.
It appears that even after passing of the said order, the appellant college still did not accord the writ-petitioner admission in the B.Ed. Course and instead, moved an application seeking vacation of interim order. It appears further that the matter was considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 19.12.2013 and 20.12.2013; and taking exception on the stance of the appellant, proceeded to pass the order on 20.12.2013 as follows:
Yesterday, upon assurance given by learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 � institution that admission will be provided to the petitioner by tomorrow in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court on 18.10.2013, the matter was posted today. But today, none present on behalf of the respondent No. 4 � institution.
Upon perusal of the interim order dated 18.10.2013 passed by this Court, it is abundantly clear that a direction was issued to the respondent No. 4 institution to provide admission to the petitioner in B.Ed. course subject to the condition that the petitioner will furnish an undertaking to the effect that if she fails to provide a copy of the Gazettee Notification declaring the change of her name, within a period of two months from the date of giving her admission, the respondent � College may cancel her admission in the B.Ed. course.
It appears from the facts that the said order has not been complied with and on the contrary an application has been filed by the respondent No. 4 institution under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacating the interim order dated 18.10.2013, which was passed in presence of counsel for Coordinatory, PTET, Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur.
Upon perusal of the reply filed by the respondents, it appears that the respondent denied admission to the petitioner while alleging that she has concealed the material fact that seat is vacant whereas no seat was vacant on 18.10.2013. In the opinion of this Court when counsel for PTET � Mr. P.R. Singh was heard at the time of passing the interim order on 18.10.2013 in which he did not inform the Court that there is no seats vacant in the institution, more so, only ground was raised with regard to change of name of the petitioner for which specific direction was issued by this Court. Meaning thereby, the private institution is not only disobeying the orders passed by this Court but has filed an application for vacating the interim order passed by this Court knowingly well that the name of the petitioner was allotted by the PTET to the institution being meritorious student.
In view of above, issue notice to the respondent No. 4 � Mother Teresa Ladies Teachers Training College, Bharatpur, returnable on 07.1.2014 why suo motu contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him for disobedience of the order passed by this Court on 18.10.2013.
Seeking to question the order dated 20.12.2013, the learned counsel for the appellant college has strenuously argued that the college had the sanctioned capacity of 100 seats which had already been filled up before the order was passed by this Court on 18.10.2013; and the college finds itself rather in a perplexing situation because no specific vacant seat is available for the writ-petitioner. The learned counsel further submits that the college is bound by the instructions of the NCTE and when the Co-ordinator, PTET did not permit admission of the writ-petitioner and endorsed the requirement of obtaining official gazette notification, in the totality of the circumstances, the appellant college cannot be considered to be standing at fault. It is also submitted that apparently, the fact about filling up of all the seats in the appellant college before passing of the order on 18.10.2013 was not brought to the notice of this Court and if such a fact was brought to the fore, this Court would have moulded and modified the relief so as to avoid any prejudice being caused to either of the parties.
The submissions as made on behalf of the appellant, in our view, do not make out a case for interference in this intra-court appeal. This Court has, time and again, observed that grant or refusal of an interim relief or passing of an interim order is essentially a matter within the jurisdiction and discretion of the learned Single Judge dealing with the writ petition and, ordinarily, such an order on the interim matters does not call for interference unless a specific case of gross irreparable injury or failure of justice is made out.
In the present case, it is but apparent that the writ-petitioner had been able to make out a prima facie case worth consideration. The learned Single Judge, while passing the order dated 18.10.2013, has taken note of all the relevant factors and even while passing the said order, put the writ-petitioner to the condition of furnishing an undertaking that she would provide a copy of the gazette notification declaring the change of her name within a period of two months from the date of her being given admission failing which, the college might even cancel her admission.
We have noticed the fundamental fact that the writ-petitioner was one of those candidates who had been allotted the appellant college in the very first counselling and she had reported thereat and if there was any doubt about the requirements of law as regards change of name; and the matter was taken up with PTET by the appellant college, in our view, the writ-petitioner could not have been put to prejudice on that basis alone. Even if it be assumed that at the time of passing of the order dated 18.10.2013, third counselling had also been concluded and all the seats were filled-up, the writ-petitioner could not have been denied adequate and reasonable relief. Thereafter, how the things were to be put in order was essentially the matter for the college and PTET to sort out and in case of any difficulty, the Court could have been approached for appropriate further directions. However, and in any case, we are not at all persuaded with the submissions of the appellant that merely for it having allegedly filled-up all the 100 seats, the cause of the writ-petitioner could have been considered redundant.
In the given set of facts and circumstances and more particularly, when the order dated 18.10.2013 was passed in the presence of the learned counsel appearing for the PTET, obviously, the appellant could have asked for appropriate orders from PTET so as ensure compliance of the order passed by this Court. Neither the appellant nor the other respondents could be permitted to avoid compliance of the order passed by this Court in the name of something remaining incomplete between or amongst themselves.
In the given facts and circumstances, the learned Single Judge appears to have taken serious exception in the matter where the order passed way back on 18.10.2013 remained to be complied with even two months thereafter. However and yet, it is always open for the appellant college to make appropriate submissions before the learned Single Judge for consideration and appropriate orders. So far this intra-court appeal is concerned, we find no reason to interfere. The appeal fails and is dismissed, subject to the observations foregoing.