The court imposed a cost of Rs 5 lakh on the advocate for perjury and maligning the Registrar’s name using the media. Coming down heavily on advocate B Satish Kumar who was behind the plea against the Registrar, the first bench comprising Chief Justice AP Sahi and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy restrained him from practising until contempt proceedings were concluded, and directed him to pay the cost to the Registrar within 15 days.
“If the petitioner fails to comply, the district collector of the place of residence of the advocate is directed to recover the cost from him in appropriate manner and deposit it with the High Court,” the bench said.
Satish Kumar had moved the plea claiming that as clearing Class 12 in regular mode was mandatory for appointment to public service in Tamil Nadu, the Registrar was ineligible to hold the post because she failed to undergo the mandatory 10+2+3 formal/regular education. Instead, she had directly completed B Com through distance mode followed by LLB, he claimed.
When the petitioner’s counsel was unable to answer to the specific query to the source of information, the bench summoned for the educational records available with the High Court. It showed that the Registrar had completed Class 12 from Bethlehem Higher Secondary Schools, Ooty, in April 1984.
While displaying the Registrar’s original higher secondary certificate, the bench noted, “The verification officer has signed the education certificates after comparing with the original certificates.
The certificates are all here in court.” The bench also took strong exception to media carrying reports even before cases were listed for hearing.