CBSE officer says sorry in Punjab and Haryana High Court contempt case

Saurabh Malik

Advertisement

Chandigarh, January 24

Just about a fortnight after the Panchkula Commissioner of Police was directed to ensure the presence of the Central Board of Secondary Education’s regional officer during the hearing of a contempt of court plea, the officer has submitted his unconditional apology before the Punjab and Haryana High Court for the “delay” in complying with judicial directions. The case revolves around the change of a student’s name in a certificate.

Accepting the apology, Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan of the High Court asserted: “It is expected that in future the directions issued by this court shall be adhered to promptly”. The officer was present in the court during the hearing.

The High Court had earlier issued a notice to the regional officer, asking him to show cause why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act be not initiated against him, besides imposition of costs as prayed for.

The case has its genesis in an order passed by the High Court on July 21 last year. In her petition against the board, a student, Purva Kahol, through counsel Puneet Sharma, had contended that she had passed her matriculation examination in May 2018, but her name in the certificate was wrongly recorded as “Purva”. Her petition, filed after the rejection of her application for name correction, was initially allowed vide judgment dated September 3, 2019, and the rejection order dated October 3, 2018, was quashed.

Her request on the basis of the judgment was rejected again vide order dated October 5, 2019, resulting in the filing of the second petition.

Taking up the matter, Justice Sudhir Mittal had then observed that the petitioner evidently was normally known as “Purva Kahol”, but the surname was not mentioned.

Subsequently, her father completed the requirements, including publication in the official gazette and affidavit in this regard. All these documents were also supplied to the CBSE. Yet, the correction was refused, Justice Mittal had added, while allowing the petition and quashing the impugned order dated November 5, 2019. The respondents were also directed to issue the corrected certificate within four weeks.

Appearing before the Bench during the hearing of the contempt petition filed subsequently, counsel Sharma submitted that despite the quashing of the impugned order and directions for the issuance of corrected certificate within the specified period, needful was not done. As such, the regional officer was liable to be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act and the petitioner awarded exemplary costs.

Acting on the plea, Justice BS Walia of the High Court had, on December 23 last year, called for a compliance report-cum-reply.

Justice Sangwan, during the resumed hearing of the matter, had observed that a compliance affidavit had not been filed, despite the previous order before issuing the directions to the commissioner.