Harishankar v. A. P. Mathur — 1992 DIGILAW 386 (ALL)

JUDGMENT Mr. V.N. Mehrotra, J. - The petitioner, Har Shankar, has filed this petition under the Contempt of Courts Act, praying that the respondents be punished for committing Contempt of this Court by disobeying the orders dated 14.3.1990 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 6403 of 1990. 2. The present petitioner had filed the above mentioned writ petition in this Court, praying for issuance of a writ quashing the order dated 12.1.1990 passed by the respondent No. 3 and order dated 13.11.990 passed by the Registrar, Agra University, Agra and also for direction to the respondents to take work from the petitioner as Lecturer in Military studies in Sri Vershenoy College, Aligarh, and to pay the salary etc. consequential to such appointment 3. The relevant facts are that a post of adhoc lecturer in the department of Military studies fall vacant in the above mentioned college. A selection Committee was constituted under tie U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 to select a proper candidate. The names of the petitioner, Hari Shankar and the respondent No. 4 Sri Prasad Kumar Singh were considered by the committee. The committee recommended the name of the petitioner, Hari Shankar in preference to Promod Kumar Singu on 8.12.1989. On this recommendation the committee of Management of the college passed by a resolution on 28.12.1989 agreeing with the recommendation of the selection committee. A letter was sent to the Vice-Chancellor, Agra University, Agra, on the basis of this resolution, seeking his approval. However, the Vice-Chancellor, Agra University, Agra approved the name of Sri Pramod Kumar Singh, instead of Sri Hari Shankar, by letter dated 12.1.1990 sent by the Assistant Registrar on his behalf. The Managing committee on issued the appointment. Letter to Sri Pramod Kumar Singh on 13.1.1990. Subsequently the present petitioner filed the above mentioned writ petition before this Court on 14.3.1990 with the prayers as mentioned above. On 14.3.1990 this Court passed the following order : "Issue notice. Sri Bhupeshwar Dayal learned Counsel for the University pays for and is granted three weeks time to file counter affidavit. Until further orders the operation of the order dated 12.1.1990 and order dated 13.1.1990 shall remain stayed. We further direct that the respondent No. 4 shall permit the petitioner to function as lecturer in the department of Military studies in the college and he shall be paid his salary in accordance with laws. Until further orders the operation of the order dated 12.1.1990 and order dated 13.1.1990 shall remain stayed. We further direct that the respondent No. 4 shall permit the petitioner to function as lecturer in the department of Military studies in the college and he shall be paid his salary in accordance with laws. This interim order shall continue till a candidate selected by the commission joins the post in question." 4. It further appears from the record that Sri Pramod Kumar Singh, who was the person effected by the above mentioned interim order moved an application for vacation of stay order, accompanied by an affidavit. A copy of this application was served on the Counsel for the petitioner on 29.3.1990 though this application was actually filed before the Court on 25.4.1990. This application for vacation of stay order was directed to be listed on 14.5.1990. The respondent No. 4 again moved an application on 8.5.1990 praying that his application may be heard on 9.5.90 as unlisted. On that application it was directed that the matter be listed on 14.5.1990. On 14.5.1990, the learned Counsel for the petitioner prayed for time to file rejoinder affidavit. Three days' time was allowed to him for the same. The matter was directed to be listed on 18.5.1990 before the appropriate bench. It appears that the petition came up before this Court on 13.8.1991. It was then put-up on 14.8.1991 and then on 16.8.1991. On that date, however, it was passed over as the lawyers were on strike. It was not taken up after that date. 5. In the petition under the Contempt of Courts Act the petitioner has asserted that inspite of the specific orders of this Court, he was not permitted to sign the attendance register and to discharge his duties as a Lecturer and has also not been paid his salary. An affidavit has been filed in support of these allegations. Notices were issued to respondent Nos. 3 and 4, who are Secretaiy/Manager of the committee of Management and Principal, respectively, of the college. These opposite parties have filed counter affidavits denying that they have committed Contempt of this Court or they have wilfully disobeyed the orders passed by this Court. An affidavit has been filed in support of these allegations. Notices were issued to respondent Nos. 3 and 4, who are Secretaiy/Manager of the committee of Management and Principal, respectively, of the college. These opposite parties have filed counter affidavits denying that they have committed Contempt of this Court or they have wilfully disobeyed the orders passed by this Court. They have alleged that as the Vice-Chancellor has approved the name of Pramod Kumar Singh, the appointment letter was issued to him and that Pramod Kumar Singh has already joined the said post on 16.1.1990 and in working since then. It has also been asserted that the petitioner did not disclose this vital fact in his writ petition. It has also been asserted that after the interim orders were passed by this Court, they sought advise of the Vice Chancellor immediately by the letter dated 16.3.1990. They have also asserted that as Sri Pramod Kumar Singh was already working on this post, the petitioner could not be appointed as there was only one post. They have denied that the petitioner was working at this post or was attending the college. They have further asserted that Sri Pramod Kumar Singh has filed Writ Petition No. 17479 of 1990 and has obtained the stay order from this Court on 17.7.90 restraining the respondents from interfering the teaching of the petitioner as aduce Lecturer and also directed that the petitioner, i.e. Pramod Kumar Singh will be entitled for the salary for the period for which he has worked. These respondents have also asserted that Sri Pramod Kumar Singh has filed another Writ Petition No. 3701 of 1991 in which another stay order has been passed. It is alleged that in these circumstances it cannot be said that the respondents have committed contempt of this Court or have flouted the orders of this Court. 6. The petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit in which he has denied that Sri Pramod Kumar Singh was working as a Lecturer since 16.1.1990. He has on the contrary asserted that he had started working as Lecturer since 29.12.1989 i.e. the date on which the Committee of Management passed its resolution. According to him the Head of the Military Science Department wrote a letter to him on 29.12.1989 requiring him to start teaching in the college and on the basis of that he started working in the college. 7. According to him the Head of the Military Science Department wrote a letter to him on 29.12.1989 requiring him to start teaching in the college and on the basis of that he started working in the college. 7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and respondents Nos. 3 and 4 and have also perused the affidavits and other materials placed on record. In this case the Selection Committee was constituted under the provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 as will appear from the report of the Selection Committee dated 8.12.1989. The report of Selection Committee was approved by the resolution of the Managing Committee on 28.12.1989. In accordance with the provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, the Managing Committee sought the approval of the Vice-Chancellor for the appointment. The Vice-Chancellor, however, did not agree with the recommendation of the Selection Committee but directed that Sri Pramod Kumar Singh be appointed as Lecturer. On the basis of this direction the Managing Committee issued appointment letter to Sri Pramod Kumar Singh on 13.1.1990. It is contended by the respondent that Sri Pramod Kumar Singh joined his duties on 16.1.1990-and when the petitioner filed the writ petition on 14.3.1990 Sri Pramod Kumar Singh was already working as Lecturer, but this fact was concealed by the petitioner. In the Contempt Petition, the petitioner has not mentioned that he had started working as Lecturer since 29.12.89 on the basis of some letter by the Head of the Department. On the contrary, in para 13 of his affidavit he has mentioned that ever since 15.3.1990 the petitioner is continuing as Lecturer in Military studies. His contention was that since after the order of this Court dated 14.3.1990 was passed, he started functioning as a Lecturer in Military Studies. However, at this stage it is not possible to believe that the petitioner had started functioning from 14.3.1990 even though Sri Pramod Kumar Singh joined his duties since 16.1.1990. As mentioned earlier, Sri Pramod Kumar Singh moved an application for vacation of interim order before this Court but that application has not been disposed off so far. Sri Pramod Kumar Singh also filed a writ petition before this Court in which an order was passed on 17.3.90 restraining the respondents from interfering in the teaching of the petitioner as adhoc Lecturer and also directing the respondents to pay his salary. Sri Pramod Kumar Singh also filed a writ petition before this Court in which an order was passed on 17.3.90 restraining the respondents from interfering in the teaching of the petitioner as adhoc Lecturer and also directing the respondents to pay his salary. Thus in view of this order the respondents cannot interfere with the functioning of Sri Pramod Kumar Singh as a Lecturer in Military studies nor they can refuse to pay him salary. It is not disputed that there was only one post of adhoc Lecturer in Military Studies. In case Sri Pramod Kumar Singh had been working on this post and this Court has restrained the respondents from interfering with his working, the respondents cannot be expected to force out Sri Pramod Kumar Singh from his job and to permit the petitioner to work in his place. In case the respondents forced Sri Pramod Kumar Singh or interfered with his working then Sri Pramod Kumar Singh or interfered with his working then Sri Pramod Kumar Singh will come under and assert that they have committed contempt of this Court by not obeying the orders passed by this Court. Obviously a very difficult situation has arisen in view of two orders passed by this Court on the writ petitions moved by Sri Hari Shankar and Sri Pramod Kumar Singh. In such circumstances it will not be just and proper to require the respondents to force the respondents to comply with these orders. For the compliance of one order may amount to disobedience of the other order. The only alternative in such circumstances is that the parties should approach the appropriate bench for proper orders which the college authorities could comply. 8. Further, as mentioned earlier, Sri Pramod Kumar Singh had moved an application for vacation of interim order of this Court dated 14.3.1990; that application is pending in this Court since 25.4.1990. Under Clause 3 of Article 226 such an application for vacation of ex parte interim order should have been decided within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is furnished to the Counsel for the petitioner. In case it is not done, then such an interim order stands vacated. Thus in these circumstances also it will not be just and proper to hold the respondents Nos. In case it is not done, then such an interim order stands vacated. Thus in these circumstances also it will not be just and proper to hold the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 guilty of the Contempt of this Court. It should be remembered that object of contempt proceedings is to vindicate the dignity of the Court and not to satisfy the grudge of a private individual. 9. In view of the above mentioned facts the respondents cannot be held guilty of committing contempt of this Court. The petition is accordingly dismissed and the notices issued to respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are discharged. Parties to bear their awn costs.