Holding

Both respondents were held guilty of contempt of Court for issuing and later cancelling an illegal certificate, thereby violating the Supreme Court’s order, and were fined Rs.2,000 each.

Summary

Mahendra Pratap Yadav (Respondent No.1) had his Intermediate examination result cancelled after using a provisional marksheet to pursue further studies and employment. He challenged the cancellation, and while the Supreme Court set aside the result, it observed that if any rule permitted him to re‑appear, the Board could decide. Relying on this observation, he applied to the Secretary of the Uttar Pradesh Board of High Schools (Respondent No.2) for permission to sit as a private candidate. No rule existed to allow such a re‑appearance, yet the Secretary issued a certificate stating that Yadav had passed the exam, which was later cancelled. Yadav filed a contempt petition alleging that the Board officials disobeyed the Supreme Court’s order. The Supreme Court held that both respondents committed contempt by issuing the illegal certificate and interfering with the Court’s order, and imposed a fine of Rs.2,000 on each. The contempt petition was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the issuance of a certificate declaring the petitioner to have passed the Intermediate examination, in absence of any statutory rule, amounts to contempt of the Supreme Court's order.
Whether the contempt petition is maintainable despite the Supreme Court not having issued a specific direction to the respondents.
Whether the Secretary of the examination board acted ultra vires by permitting the petitioner to appear as a private candidate.
Application of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution in contempt proceedings.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. 129, s. 142
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

Subjects

contempt of courtexamination boardprivate candidateSupreme Court orderContempt of Courts ActArticle 129Article 142illegal certificateeducation lawfraud

Judgment

A RAM PREETI YADAV
v.
MAHENDRA PRATAP YADA V AND ORS.

AUGUST 30, 2007

B [S.B. SINHA AND H.S. BEDI, JJ.J

Contempt of Court-Contemnor-candidate on the basis of withheld
result of examination pursuing further studies and getting employment-
Cancellation of result upheld by Supreme Court-However, Supreme Court
C observing that if rules permitted, the candidate could take the examination---
Contemnor-candidate seeking permission to appear in the examination from
the Examination Board-Contemnor-Secretary ofthe Board issuing certificate
declaring the candidate having passed the examination-Certificate
subsequently cancelled-Cancellation unsuccessfully challenged by the
D candidate-Contempt petition alleging disobedience of the order of Supreme
Court-Held: Contemnors committed contempt of Court-Contemnor- >--
candidate took undue advantage of the observations of Supreme Court-This
;, amounts to interference with the order passed by the Court-Contemnor-
Secretary acted contrary to /aw-Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Constitution
E of India, 1950-Articles 129 and 142.
Respondent No.I-Contemnor had appeared in Intermediate
Examination.His result was withheld. However a provisional marksheet was
issued to him. On the basis of the provisional marksheet, he pursued his
-(-
further studies and subsequently also got employed. The result of Intermediate
F Examination was cancelled. A Writ Petition challenging the order of
cancellation was allowed by Single Jude of High Court Petitioner herein filed
special appeal, which was dismissed by Division Bench of High Court. In
appeal, this Court by its order dated 3.9.2003 reversing the judgment of Single
Judge of High Court, held that the result was liable to be set aside. The Court
also observed that ifthe respondent No.I was entitled to take the Intermediate
G Examination, he might be permitted as per law.
Respondent No. I, taking advantage of the observation in the order dated
3.9.2003, filed an application to the Secretary of the Examination Board-
Contem nor (respondent No.2) seeking permission to appear in the

H 590
RAMPREETIYADAVv.MAHENDRAPRATAPYADAV S91

examination as a private candidate. No action was taken on that Respondent A
No.1 filed a Writ Petition wherein High Court directed the Secretary of1the
Board to pass suitable order on the application in accordance with l,aw.
Respondent No.2-Contemnor, relying on the direction of the High Court, issued
a certificate in terms whereof respondent No.1 was said to have passed the
Intermediate Examination. However, the said certificate was consequently B
cancelled. Legality of the cancellation of the certificate was qu~stioned by
respondent No. I before High Court by filing Writ Petition, and the same
was dismissed. Thereafter the present contempt petition was filed by the
petitioner.

Allowing the petition, the Court c
HELD: 1. There does not exist any rule permitting a candidate to a~pear
at an examination at a later point of time and that too as a private candidate.
Contemnor-respondent No.2 being a Secretary of the statutory board is
expected to act in accordance with law. Before acting on the purported
application filed by Contemnor-respondent No.I, he_should have appliecJ his D
mind to the extant rules. Application of mind on his part was also necessary
on the purport of the order dated 03.09.2003 passed by this Court
(Paras 4 and 12] (593-G; 596-F-G]

2. On a plain reading of the order dated 03.09.2003, it would be evident
that the fraud practiced by the alleged Contemnor-respondent No.I was not E
condoned by this Court His result was declared to be set aside. An obse~ation,
however, was made only to the effect that in the event, any rule permits
Contemnor-respondent No.1 to appear at the examination, the Board would be
free to take a decision thereon. It now stands admitted that there does not
exist any rule in terms whereof, Contemnor-respondent No.I could appear at F·
the examination. Even otherwise his application was confined to only appearing
at the examination. On what basis the certificate was granted has not been
disclosed. It is not an ordinary mistake. The said certificate, if had not been
withdrawn, would have restored the status ofContemnor- respondent No.1.
He would have got back his service. He would have claimed even other benefits
from the College, where he had been serving. The conduct of Conte~nor- G
respondent No.I is, therefore, not free from blemish. He made a representation
before this Court. The basis of said representation, it now transpires, is non-
existent What he could have done was to search out the relevant rule, which
was applicable in this case. He filed a Writ Petition before the High Court
only because no action was taken. He did not inform the High Court that there H
\

-\
592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS , [2007] 9 S.C.R.

A did not exist any rule. Therefore, the Court is of the opinion that Contemnor-
respondent No.2 must have issued the certificate on extraneous consideration.
Contemnor- respondent No. I is a beneficiary of the said illegal and fraudulent
certificate. It is not a case where apology tendered by the alleged Contemnors
should be accepted. (Paras 13 and 141 (596-G-H; 597-A-EI

B 3. It cannot be said that the contempt petition is not maintainable against
respondent No.1, as taking undue advantage of the observations made by this
Court also amount~ to interference with the order passed by this Court in
imparting justice. It is well-settled that what cannot be done directly, cannot
be done indirectly. (Paras 15 and 161 (597-E, F, GJ
c I . I ~

4. Apart from the.provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, this Court
has a constitutional duty in terms of Article 129 as also Article 142 of the •
Constitution of India to issue such directions, as are necessary for the ends
of justice. Contemnor-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are guilty of commission of
contempt of this Court. (Para 1711597-G; 598-AJ
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Contempt Petition No. (C) 512 of
2004.
IN
C.A. No. 4034 of2001.
E
Y.P. Singh, C. Sidharth, P. Pumima, N.B. Aggarwal and Debasis Misra
for the Petitioner.

Dinesh Dwivedi, Shirish Kr. Misra, Z.K. Faizan, B.U. Burqi, Goodwill
Indeevar, Niranjana Singh, K.L. Janjani and Kamakshi S. Mehlwal for the
F Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.B. SINHA, J. I. This application for initiation of a contempt proceeding
has been filed for alleged disobedience of this Court's order dated 03.09.2003,
G relevant portion whereof reads as under :

"We are al.so unable to issue any direction to the first respondent -~-
to allow the third respondent to sit at the lntennediate Examination at
this stage; having regard to the fact that relevant rules in this regard
have not been-placed. We may, however, observe that if he is entitled
H
RAMPREETIYADAVv. MAHENDRAPRATAPYADAV(S.B. SINHA,J.] 593

to take the said Examination in law, he may be pennitted." A
2. Respondent No. I herein appeared as a private candidate in the
Intennediate Examination conducted by U.P. Board of High Schools.&
Intennediate Education from Janta Inter College, Azamgarh (U.P.). His result
was withheld. A provisional mark-sheet was purported to have been issued
to him without showing that his result for Intennediate Examination had been B
withheld. On the basis of the said purported provisional mark-sheet, he
pursued further studies and completed his Graduation as also Post Graduati9n.
He was also employed as a teacher. The Principal of the College infonned him
that his result in the Intennediate Examination has been cancelled. Questioning
the said order, a writ petition was filed. The said writ petition was allowed by C
a learned Single Judge of the High Court. Aggrieved, the petitioner herein
preferred a special appeal before a Division Bench which was summafily
dismissed. Petitioner herein approached this Court under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India. In Civil Appeal No. 4034 of2001 arising out of the said
special leave petition, this Court in its judgment dated 03.09.2003, while D
allowing the same made the aforementioned observations.

3. Indisputably, taking advantage of the said observations, Respondent-
Contemnor No. I filed an application on 28.09.2003 before the Contemnor-
Respondent No.2 with a prayer to pennit him to appear at the Intennediate
Examination as a private candidate. No action was taken thereupon. He filed E
a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court which was marked as CMWP
No. 2088 of 2004. The same was finally disposed of, directing :

"Having heard Sri S.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner
as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Respondent
nos. l and 2 and on perusal of the record, this writ petition is disposed F
of with a direction to the Secretary, U.P. Board of High Schools and
Intennediate Education, Allahabad, Respondent no. 2, to pass suitable
order on the application of the petitioner dated 28.09.2003 in accordance
with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two
months from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order along G
with a copy of the application dated 28.09.20-03 before the said
Respondent no. 2."

4. It is not in dispute that there does not exist any rule pennitting a
candidate to appear at an examination at a later point of time and that top as
H
594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 9 S.C.R.
--<'-
A a private candidate.
5. Relying on or on the basis of the said purported observations by the
High Court of Allahabad, a certificate was issued by Contemnor-Respondent
No.2 on or about 14.05.2004; in terms whereof Respondent No. llis said to
have passed the said Intermediate Examination and was· placed :in Second
B Division. Individual marks in individual subjects, however, were not assigned.

6. It, however, appears that the said certificate was cancelled by an
order dated 22.11.2004. A notice, in this behalf, was also published in the
newspaper, which is in the following terms :
c "General Public is informed that the certificate No. INT-002557 for
Intermediate Examination for the Year of 1984 issued earlier to the
-
examinee Mahendra Pratap Yadav bearing Roll No. 575203 - Dist.
Ajamgarh is cancelled.

D Use of the cancelled certificate will be illegal and will be punishable
offence." ).__.

7. Legality of the said 'order was questioned by Contemnor-Respondent
No.1 before the Allahabad High Court by filing a writ petition, which was
marked as CMWP No.2012 l of 2004. By reason of a judgment and order dated
E 06.082004, the High Court dismissed the said writ petition, stating : ·1 1 "Jr

" ... Taking advantage of observations. of the Supreme Court that he
may be permitted to appear in intermediate examination, the petitioner
made a representation to the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and
thereafter filed a writ petition no. 20088/2004 which was disposed of
F on 22.1.2004, directing the Board to decide his representation.
~. ' .
Apparently without look into the order of Supreme Court and
without considering the concluded fact that the petitioner's result of
intermediate examination was cancelled on 6.1.85 by Madhyamik
Shiksha Parishad passed an order was made by the Deputy Secretary
G ' -
of the Board directing that the petitioner's result of 1984, examination
which was withheld should be declared. This order in my opinion is
wholly without jurisdiction inasmuch of the finding that the petitioner's
result was cancelled was recorded by the Supreme Court. The Supreme
Court had only observed that if he is entitled to take the examination,
H
RAMPREETIYADAVv. MAHENDRAPRA TAPYADAV [S.B. SINHA,J.] 595

.·.,.. he may be pennitted to appear. A
It is admitted to the petitioner that he did not appear in the
examination again and is again trying to play fraud with the system
by making false representation i.e. result should be declared. The
District Inspector of the Schools has found that the Supreme Court
had dismissed the matter and thus the petitioner is not entitled to any B
benefit of reinstatement in service and payment of salary and other
service benefits.

The petitioner cannot be permitted to pollute the system any
further. With the finding of fraud concluded against him by Supreme C
Court that he is not entitled to any equitable relief from this Court.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs. I 0,000/
- of which shall be recovered by District Magistrate, Azamgarh from
the petitioner. The cost shall be recovered within three months and
sent to the Registrar General of this Court for appropriate to the D
account of Legal Aid Authority of this Court."

8. The contempt petition thereafter was filed on or about 09.08.2004.

9. Mr. Y.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner,
would submit that the, aforementioned conduct on the part of Contemnor- E
Respondent Nos. I and. 2, would clearly show that they had deliberately and
intentionally flouted the order of this Court.

10. Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
- )-
Contemnor-Respondent No. 2, submitted that although a mistake was committed
by his client, but the same stood rectified by a letter dated 22. I I .2004, F
addressed to the Head Master/Principal of Janta Higher Secondary Schbol,
as would appear from the following :

"By cancelling the result of 1984 Intermediate Examination of
Student Mahendra Pratap Yadav bearing Roll No. 575203 in W.B. List. G
The mark sheet and certificate of the examinee had been sent to you
vide office letter no. Confidential/ 3,4,5, High School/Inter/Head Quarter
I 41 dated 11.03.2004 and letter no. SEE/Certificate/lnter/191 dated
19.03.2004.
In compliance of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in H
596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 9 S.C.R.

A Petition No. 4034 of2001 and Petition No. 2012112004 dated 21.05.2004,
the decision was taken in the meeting of the Examination Board held
on 20.11.2004 that the result ofShri Mahendra Pratap Yadav bearing
Roll No. 575203 examinee oflntennediate Examination 1984 should be
immediately cancelled and the original mark sheets and certificate of
B Intennediate examination 1984 issued to him by the Board should be
returned immediately as per the requirement legal proceedings should
be initiated for obtaining mark sheet and certificate. The infonnation
about the decision of the committee should be immediately sent to the
concerned persons by the special messenger.

C Therefore direction is given to you kindly inake the District
Inspector of School Ajamgarh available after obtaining the original
mark sheet and certificate from the Exa.'llinee· by making the concerned
student aware about the said decision."

It was urged that the apology offered by. the alleged Contemnor-
D Respondent No. 2 may be accepted by this Court. -

1 I. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Contemnor-Respondent
No. I, however; urged that the contempt petition is not maintainable as this
Court in its order dated 03.09.2003 having not issued any direction and, thus,
E the question of violation thereof would not arise. It was argued that direction,
if any, having been made in favour of Contemnor-Respondent No. I, the
proceeding is not maintainable. It was also contended that Contemnor-
Respondent No. I merely asked for permission to sit in the examination. If the
Board had granted a certificate, he is not responsible therefor. '
--(-
F I2. We have been addressed on the conduct ofContemnor-Respondent
Nos. I and 2. Contemnor-Respondent No. 2 being a Secretary of the statutory
board is expected to act in accordance with law. Before acting on the purported
application filed by Contemnor-Respondent No. I, he should have applied his
mind to the extant rules. Application· of mind on his part was also necessary
G on the purpor. of the order dated 03.09.2003 passed by this Cou~.

13. On a plain reading of the said order, it would be evident that the
fraud practiced by the alleged Contemnor-Respondent No. I was not condoned )-"'
by this Court. His result was declared to be set aside. The judgment of the
Allahabad High Court was expressly reversed. An observation, however, was
H made only to the effect that in the event, any rule permits Contemnor-
RAMPREETIYADAVv.MAHENDRAPRATAPYADAV[S.B.SINHA,J.] 597

'>- Respondent No. I to appear at the examination, the Board would be free. to A
take a decision thereon. It now stands admitted that there does not exist any
rule in terms whereof, Contemnor-Respondent No. I could appear at the
examination. Even otherwise his application was confined to only appearing
at the examination. On what basis the certificate was granted has not been
disclosed. It is not an ordinary mistake, as was submitted by Me. Dwivedi. B
The said certificate, if had not been withdrawn, would have restored the
status of Contemn or-Respondent No. l. He would have got back his service.
He would have claimed even other benefits from the College, where he liad
been serving. The conduct of Contemn or-Respondent No. I is, therefore, not
free from blemish. He made a representation before this Court. The basis of
said representation, it now transpires, is non-existent. What he could have c
done was to search out the relevant rule, which was applicable in this case.
He filed a writ petition before the High Court only because no action was
taken. He did not inform the High Court that there did not exist any rule. We,
therefore, are of the opinion that Contemnor-Respondent No. 2 must have
issued the certificate on extraneous consideration. Contemnor-Respondent D
No. I is a beneficiary of the said illegal and fraudulent certificate.
__..{

14. The certificate was issued on 14.05.2004. The decision had been
taken only by the Examination Board to cancel the said certificate. We,
therefore, are of the opinion that it is not a case where apology tendered by
the alleged Contemnors should be accepted. E

15. Submission of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of
Contemnor-Respondent No. l that the contempt petition is not maintainable
is not con-ect. Although no direction had been issued by this Court, evidently
- ,,..
the earlier certificate was directed to be cancelled. If that be so, Contemnor- F
Respondent No. I could not have been indulged in any act which would
amount to act of camouflage of the record thereof. Taking undue advantage
of the observations made by this Court also amounts to interference with the
order passed by this Court in imparting justice.

16. It is well-settled that what cannot be done directly, cannot be done G
indirectly.
... ~
17. ·Apart from the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, this
Court has a constitutional duty in terms of Article 129 as also Article 142: of
the Constitution of India to issue such directions, as are necessary for the
H
598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 9 S.C.R

A ends of justice. We, therefore, are of the opinion that Contemnor-Respondent
Nos. I and 2 are guilty of commission of contempt of this Court.

18. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case,
we are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be subserved, if both
B of them are directed to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each. They shall deposit the
amount of fine in the Registry of this Court within four weeks from date,
failing which appropriate action shall be taken.

19. Contemnor-Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 admittedly are not parties to
the aforementioned order. Rule against them is discharged; while making the
C rule absolute against Contemnor-Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

20. This Petition is allowed with the aforementioned directions.

K.K.T. Contempt Petition allowed.

,.__

-(-