Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Rep By Its Registrar vs. Christin Job

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2540 OF 2019 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.11495 of 2017)

DR N Yadaiah ... Appellant

Versus

Christin Job .... Respondent

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2541 OF 2019 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.12610 of 2017 )

O R D E R

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2540 OF 2019 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.11495 of 2017)

1. Leave granted.

2. This civil appeal is filed by the Registrar of Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Hyderabad, aggrieved by the order dated 28.02.2017 passed in Contempt Case No.2603 of 2016 by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh.

3. The aforesaid contempt case is filed by the first respondent herein alleging violation of the directions issued by the High Court in the order dated 02.12.2016 passed in WPMP No.45684 of 2016 in W.P.No.37074 of 2016. The first respondent herein has obtained admission in B.Tech course during the academic year Digitally signed by MADHU BALA Date: 2019.03.08 16:23:36 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified

2014-15, in Adusumilli Vijaya Institute of Techonlogy and Research Centre, Bibinagar, Nalgonda District. Subsequently, the admission of the first respondent was transferred to another institute i.e. NRI Institute of Technology in Ranga Reddy District. When the first respondent was not permitted to pursue 3 rd year of B.Tech Course, from second year, he approached the High Court and filed the Writ Petition. By way of interim order, directions were issued to the respondents in the Writ Petition to allow the first respondent to pursue 3rd year B.Tech course in Petroleum Engineering for the academic year 2016-2017.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and also learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. During the course of hearing it is brought to our notice that as per the order dated 02.12.2016 he was allowed to pursue 3rd year course, subsequently he was also permitted to final year B.Tech course. It is stated, because he is having two backlog subjects he has not completed the course. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that as much as the first respondent was allowed to pursue 3rd year and he has also completed 4th year B.Tech course, there is no reason for initiating contempt proceedings against the appellant. On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent, has submitted that the respondent has appeared for the internal exams. Marks secured in the internal assessment were not taken into consideration for the purpose of giving appropriate credits.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we have also perused the material placed on record.

2

6. It is not in dispute that pursuant to order dated 2.12.2016, the first respondent was allowed to pursue 3rd year B.Tech course. Subsequently, he was also permitted to final year B.Tech course. In that view of the matter we are of the view that there is no reason to proceed further under provisions of Contempt of Courts Act pursuant to the imugned order dated 28.02.2017. So far as the grievance, of the first respondent that his internal assessment marks were not taken into account, it is a matter which requires consideration if a proper miscellaneous application is filed in the pending writ petition before the High Court.

7. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 28.02.2017 passed in Contempt Case No. 2603 of 2016 by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh. We make it clear that if internal assessment marks are not taken into consideration, we grant liberty to the first respodnent herein to move appropriate application before the High Court. We are sure that if such application is moved, the same will be considered on its own merit by the High Court.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2541 OF 2019 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.12610 of 2017)

8. Leave granted.

9. In view of order passed in appeal arising out of SLP(C ) No. 11495 of 2017 we do not find any good ground to interfere with order dated 29th December, 2016 passed in W.A.No.1461 of

3

2016.

10. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

.......................J. [R. BANUMATHI ]

......................………J. [R. SUBHASH REDDY ]

NEW DELHI March 06, 2019

ITEM NO.11 COURT NO.7 SECTION XII-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 11495/2017

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 28-02-2017 in CCN No. 2603/2016 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Hyderabad For The State Of Telangana And The State Of Andhra Pradesh)

DR N YADAIAH Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

CHRISTIN JOB Respondent(s)

WITH

SLP(C) No. 12610/2017 (XII-A)

Date : 06-03-2019 These petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

For Petitioner(s)	Mr. P. Venkat Reddy,Adv.<br>Mr. Prashant Tyagi,Adv.<br>M/S.<br>Venkat Palwai Law Associates, AOR
For Respondent(s)	Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, AOR<br>Ms. Shiwani Tushir,Adv.<br>Ms. G.Usharsri,Adv.

Mr. Gaichangpoi Gangmei,Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

SLP(C)No. 11495/2017

Leave granted.

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.

Pending application(s), if any,shall also stand disposed of.

Leave granted.

The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(MADHU BALA) (PARVEEN KUMARI PASRICHA) COURT MASTER (SH) BRANCH OFFICER (Signed order is placed on the file)