AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Judges
Acts
  • Section 12 of the said Act
  • Section 2(a) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
  • Article 32 of the Constitution of India
  • Section [Not mentioned] of the [Not mentioned] Act
  • Section 5, Subsection 2 of the 1983 Income Tax Act
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Judges
Acts
  • Section 12 of the said Act
  • Section 2(a) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
  • Article 32 of the Constitution of India
  • Section [Not mentioned] of the [Not mentioned] Act
  • Section 5, Subsection 2 of the 1983 Income Tax Act
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner, having been allotted a seat in Medical College, Alleppey (Kerala) under the 15% All-India MBBS quota for 1992, sought a transfer to King George Medical College (K.G.M.C.), Lucknow. The Supreme Court had earlier issued comprehensive directions on 10 June 1993 governing re-allocation requests and surrender of unfilled seats to State quotas. Despite the Supreme Court’s ongoing supervision, the petitioner approached the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court and obtained an order directing that a seat be kept vacant at K.G.M.C. The Supreme Court, by order dated 27 July 1993, stayed the High Court’s directive and continued to monitor compliance by the Director General of Health Services (DGHS).

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to be re-allocated a seat at K.G.M.C., Lucknow in preference to other candidates with lower merit ranks.
  2. Whether the DGHS and its Assistant Director General (Medical Education) had disobeyed the Supreme Court’s directions dated 10 June 1993 and made misleading statements, thereby inviting contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Several candidates with lower merit ranks had been transferred to medical colleges in Uttar Pradesh, including Lucknow, whereas she was not, indicating arbitrary treatment.
  • The DGHS’s assertion that only applications submitted after 28 December 1992 were considered for the 10 June 1993 list was false; candidates who applied earlier were in fact included (example: Km. Namita Jhamb).
  • The Assistant Director General knowingly made false statements on oath and should face suitable action.

Respondent (DGHS) Arguments

  • The 10 June 1993 list contained only candidates who applied for re-allocation after 28 December 1992; hence the petitioner’s name did not appear.
  • Higher-ranked candidates such as Kumari Rohini Khurana (rank 1312) were appropriately considered for vacant seats at K.G.M.C., in compliance with merit.
  • The DGHS was not a party to certain High Court proceedings and learned of them only via state authorities.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court noted multiple instances of apparent non-compliance with its 10 June 1993 directions:

  • Unfilled seats that should have reverted to the State quota were instead allocated by the DGHS, contrary to clause (vii) of the earlier order.
  • Candidates not found in the approved list of eighty (e.g., Kumari Jaya, rank 703; Mr. Anup Kumar, rank 575) nevertheless received reallocations, indicating disregard of merit-based procedures.
  • The DGHS’s representation that only post-28 December 1992 applications were included in the 10 June 1993 list was contradicted by evidence that earlier applicants such as Km. Namita Jhamb were indeed listed, rendering the statement “misleading.”

Given these discrepancies and the possibility that court directions were willfully ignored or misrepresented, the Court found prima facie grounds to initiate contempt proceedings against the DGHS and the Assistant Director General.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Supreme Court issued notices to the Director General of Health Services and Dr. Girish Tayal, Assistant Director General (Medical Education), to show cause why they should not be proceeded against under Section 2(a) and punished under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

Implications: The respondents must explain their actions or face potential contempt sanctions, underscoring the binding nature of Supreme Court directives. The immediate consequence is the commencement of contempt proceedings; no broader precedent was articulated in the opinion.

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Chhavi Mehrotra (Miss) v. Director General Health Services .

    Order

    1. The petitioner filed this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India praying for direction for consideration of her admission to MBBS course against the 15% All India quota of 1992. She was originally allocated a seat in Medical College, Alleppey, Kerala. She prayed for transfer to Lucknow.

    2. This writ petition along with similar other writ petitions were taken up for consideration by this Court. Comprehensive directions were issued in relation to admissions. In obedience to this order of this Court, a notification dated May 28, 1993 was issued by the Director General of Health Services requiring the candidates to signify their willingness to be considered for admission under the scheme evolved by the court. By an order dated June 10, 1993 of this Court, inter alia the following directions were given:

    “(i) The Director General of Health Services will first consider the cases of all those candidates who have applied for change of college and whose applications are pending before the Directorate on the date of this order including the petitioners in W.P Nos. 370, 383, 447, 458 and 466 of 1993.
    (vii) In case any candidate who has been allotted a seat against All India quota in pursuance of this order does not avail of the same and fails to report in the college to which he has been nominated by July 15, 1993, the seat allotted to the said candidate would stand surrendered to the State quota.”

    3. In spite of the matter being in seisin of this Court, the writ petitioner moved the High Court in Writ Petition No. 1508 of 1993 before the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court and obtained certain directions. The High Court ordered that a seat be kept vacant in the King George Medical College, Lucknow. By our order dated July 27, 1993, we disapproved of the High Court entertaining the writ petition and a stay of the order was granted.

    4. Petitioner was allocated a seat in S.N Medical College, Jodhpur. She prays that she might be accommodated in Lucknow. She gives instances of following five persons who being lower in rank to her, have been accommodated in Lucknow.

    (a) Km Neetika Pant (W.P No. 563 of 1993) merit rank No. 1718 wait-listed candidate, resident of Allahabad has been reallocated seat at S.N Medical College, Allahabad.
    (b) Mr Vibhuti (W.P No. 564 of 1993) merit rank No. 1460 also a resident of Allahabad has been reallocated seat at S.N Medical College, Allahabad. Initially admitted at T.D Medical College, Alleppey, Kerala.
    (c) Mr Rajiv Kumar Goyal (W.P No. 458 of 1993) merit rank No. 2118, wait-listed admitted candidate, resident of Bareilly has been reallocated seat at Meerut from Dibrugarh.
    (d) Km Anshu Aggarwal on representation submitted to the respondent, merit rank No. 1958 wait-listed candidate admitted at Berhampur, State of Orissa, resident of Kanpur, has been reallocated seat at M.L.B Medical College, Jhansi.
    (e) Km Neelu Aggarwal (W.P No. 544 of 1993) admitted at Thanjavur, State of Tamil Nadu, merit rank No. 1284, resident of Agra, has been reallocated a seat at Lucknow.

    5. In his counter-affidavit, the Assistant Director General (Medical Education) states in paragraph 7 as under:

    “With regard to the averments contained in paragraph 8 I submit that the list submitted to the Court on June 10, 1993 included only those candidates who had applied after the last date of receiving applications for first of the allocation viz. December 28, 1992, the candidates who had applied up to December 28, 1992 were not included in the list and therefore the names of the petitioners did not figure in the list.”

    In reply, the petitioner would aver as under:

    “Contents of para 7 are wrong and incorrect to the knowledge of the deponent of the affidavit under reply and the same are vehemently denied. In the list submitted by June 10, 1993, some of the candidates who had applied before December 23, 1992 for change of medical college were included and one such example is Km Namita Jhamb (1465) at Serial No. 37. It is submitted that Km Namita Jhamb had applied before December 28, 1992 and her representation was not considered by the respondent wherefor no change was given to her. Km Namita Jhamb preferred writ petition before this Hon'ble Court and annexed her representation and acknowledgment thereof issued by the respondent herein before December 28, 1992. It is, therefore, false to the knowledge of the respondent that the candidates who had applied after December 28, 1992 for change of medical college were included in the list and the candidates who had applied before December 28, 1992 were not included therein. The statement on oath made by Professor Girish Tayal, Assistant Director General is false and he deserves to be proceeded against for suitable action for deliberately and knowingly making a false statement on oath before this Hon'ble Court.”

    6. Again by way of reply to the supplementary affidavit of the petitioner filed on November 8, 1993, it is stated by the Assistant Director General (Medical Education) in paragraph 7 as under:

    “I submit that Kumari Rohini Khurana had been placed at rank No. 1312 and was allotted a seat at Medical College, Thanjavur on October 1, 1992. The petitioner has been placed at rank No. 1462 in the same entrance examination. Kumari Rohini Khurana could not be reallotted either on January 25, 1993 or on June 28, 1993 due to non-availability of a seat at her rank as per her choices. Kumari Rohini Khurana again requested for a change to K.G.M.C, Lucknow vide letter dated September 3, 1993. A seat was found to be vacant at K.G.M.C, Lucknow and she being higher in merit than the petitioner was allotted said seat on October 28, 1993. On July 26, 1993 this Hon'ble Court while staying the order of High Court at Lucknow for keeping a seat vacant at K.G.M.C, Lucknow for the petitioner (Kumari Chhavi Mehrotra) has directed that the Director General of Health Services is at liberty to fill it up otherwise.”

    Further it proceeds as follows:

    “I submit that the petitioner in this para has herself admitted that Kumari Rachna Aggarwal rank No. 1071 has sent a representation to the Secretary, Medical Education, Govt. of Uttar Pradesh and Director of Medical Education, Govt. of Uttar Pradesh for her reallocation to K.G.M.C, Lucknow in August 1992. The said representation of Km Rachna Aggarwal has not been received by this respondent. This respondent came to know of the High Court's order on October 25, 1993 through the telephonic message from the Director of Medical Education, Govt. of Uttar Pradesh. This respondent was asked about the eligibility for the admission of Km Rachna Aggarwal to K.G Medical College, Lucknow at her merit position 1071. The Director of Medical Education, Govt. of Uttar Pradesh was informed about this Hon'ble Court's orders dated July 26, 1993 and July 30, 1993 advised to act accordingly. The perusal of the order of Hon'ble High Court at Lucknow annexed with the supplementary affidavit of the petitioner shows that the High Court has directed the respondents (Secretary, Medical Education, Govt. of U.P, Director, Medical Education, Govt. of Uttar Pradesh) and the Principal, K.G Medical College, Lucknow to consider the application of the petitioner for her migration/admission to K.G.M.C, Lucknow and pass appropriate orders considering the guidelines of the Medical Council of India as well as the notification in that regard within 15 days from the date of production of a copy of this order. I submit that the DGHS was not a party to this petition.”

    7. The same stand is reiterated in the affidavit dated January 4, 1994 filed by the Assistant Director General (Medical Education) in relation to the admission of Kumari Rachna Aggarwal.

    8. It is somewhat surprising that whenever it suited the Director General of Health Services to obey the orders of the High Court, he would not bring up this matter to this Court but chose to obey even though he was not a party. Be that so.

    9. In spite of the specific directions dated June 10, 1993 requiring the surrender of unfilled seats to State quota, we do not know how there could be a disobedience thereof. Then again, there is disobedience of directions dated June 10, 1993, in that Kumari Jaya (rank No. 703) and Mr Anup Kumar (rank No. 575) were not in the list of eighty candidates, the list which came to be submitted to this Court. Lastly, in relation to Kumari Namita Jhamb (rank No. 1465) the application is prior to December 28, 1992 while it is sought to be made out that the candidates who had applied after December 28, 1992 were included in the list dated June 10, 1993. This statement is misleading.

    10. Accordingly, we direct issue of notices to the Director General of Health Services and Dr Girish Tayal, Assistant Director General (Medical Education) to show cause why they should not be proceeded against under Section 2(a) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and be punished under Section 12 of the said Act.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Chhavi Mehrotra (Miss) v. Director General Health Services .
    (Feb 9, 1994)