9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (8) TMI 301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioners approached the High Court for grant of one month's time, from 20-10-1993, to enable them to file an appeal in this Court, the request was turned down even though the Bench was apprised that this Court was closed for Dussehra vacation till 26-10-1993, and the appellant was directed to comply with the order by 25-10-1993 even when similar request for interim order had been turned down, earlier, twice by two different Benches. The other was, oral, by the learned counsel for the State that the High Court did not extend the time for approaching this Court because it observed that stay orders are granted by this Court, even, at midnight. Whatever may have been the purpose or objective of stating it but the manner in which it was placed before a Bench of this Court of which one of us (R.M. Sahai, J.) was a member, it did have the desired effect resulting in an interim order staying further proceedings in the High Court. But when an affidavit was filed, by an officer of the Department who was present in the court, it transpired that a mountain had been made out of nothing. The affidavit states that the Bench did not extend the time and when it was informed that this Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer and as such the finding in this regard is totally incorrect." It is well established that the factual recitals or observations made in a judgment or order are taken to be correct unless rebutted. The burden to rebut it is on the person who challenges it. One of the methods to rebut such observation is to file the affidavit of the person who was present in the Court and to produce such material which may satisfy the Court that the recital in the judgment crept in inadvertently or it was erroneous. But the averment extracted above would indicate that it is a statement more of law than rebuttal of fact of what happened in the Court. The Deputy Education Officer has not taken upon himself the responsibility of denying the observation in the affidavit categorically. The counsel who appeared before the Court and was required to file affidavit did not do so. A skilful drafting by vaguely asserting without even stating and explaining why consent could not have been given cannot be held to be sufficient rebuttal of statement of fact in the order passed by the High Court. 4. We may now advert to if the Bench in granting interim order acted illegally or with impropriety. The respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned order was passed on 30-9-1993 as under: "These students shall appear before the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar, on Monday 4-10-1993 at 11.00 a.m. The Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar, shall take necessary steps to see that the students are admitted to proper D.Ed. colleges. He shall also take necessary steps to complete the education course of these students so as to make them ready to appear for the D.Ed. examination first year course for April 1994. The petition stands adjourned to 8-10-1993, for the Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar, to report compliance. It is made clear that all the petitioner- students are to be admitted on payment of regular fees." Interim orders are granted by the court as they are necessary to protect the interest of the petitioner till the rights are finally adjudicated upon. Even where it is not provided in the statute this Court has held that the courts have inherent power to grant it. In admission matters, however, such orders once obtained create vested interest of avoiding final adjudication to enable the student to complete the course and then invoke sympathy of the court. Nothing further need ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... through their counsel at Delhi, when the matter is taken up before the Supreme Court put up on 25-10-1993 at 10.30 a.m. first on board." Dispute about consent raised by the Department has been referred to earlier. But it was not correct. The Department definitely agreed and it was on its concession that the Court passed the order. The concession on behalf of the appellant precluded it from challenging the order. It is indeed surprising and shocking that the Department did not bring the vital fact to the notice of this Court that WP (C) No. 1703 of 1990 had been allowed on the day the impugned order was passed. It is not possible to accept the submission of the learned State counsel that the Department was not aware of it. It came to the notice of this Court when a copy of the judgment was filed in May 1994. The appellant, thus, not only concealed important information from this Court but it played with the career of students who even after the order passed by the High Court have lost nearly two years. 6. Normally this Court does not interfere with consent order. But it was made against law. It was in teeth of even the decision given in WP (C) No. 1703 of 1990. The order was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . colleges for completion of first year D.Ed. course instead of putting all 80 students in one D.Ed. college. But it has not been pointed out as to what is the difficulty in permitting these 80 students to study and complete their course in the same college. No stipend appears to be paid by the Government. Further the Government having sanctioned the strength, there appears no reason to assume that the institution shall not be able to impart education. The Management too has not expressed any difficulty in this regard. 9. For these reasons this appeal is disposed of with following directions: (i) The Management is directed to produce the list of admissions before the Education Officer within ten days from today who shall within three days thereafter scrutinise the list and direct admission of 50% of the sanctioned strength of students from Christian community. The admission shall be granted on merits. If students of Christian community are not available the seats shall go to other students. (ii) The Education Officer shall further grant admission to the remaining 50% students of other communities, that too, on basis of merit. (iii) (a) So far 31 remaining students out of 112, o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
