Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 20 (RAJ)

Raj Kumar Birla v. S. N. Thanvi

2003-01-06

SUNIL KUMAR GARG

body2003
Honble GARG, J.–This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the respondents with a prayer that the respondents be punished for committing contempt of this Courts order dtd. 13.12.2000 (Annex. 1) passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 979/99. (2). The facts narrated in the contempt petition are as under: (i) That the respondents issued an advertisement inviting applications for appointment on the post of Physical Training Instructor Grade III. In pursuance of the said advertisement, the petitioner submitted his application along with relevant particulars. After complete scrutiny of the documents, a provisional seniority list was issued in which name of the petitioner was placed at serial No.3. (ii) That thereafter petitioner came to know that persons junior to him in the merit list had been offered appointment, but the petitioner was not given the appointment on the post of Physical Training Instructor Grade III. (iii) That against the impugned action of the respondents in not giving appointment to the petitioner, the petitioner preferred a writ petition No. 979/99. This Court vide his order dtd. 13.12.2000 (Annex. 1) disposed of the writ petition with the following observations : ``They agreed that the petition is covered by decision of this Court reported in 1999 (2) RLR 131 and thus petition is liable to be disposed of in terms of that order. It is accordingly, disposed of. (iv) For convenience operative portion of decision of this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma reported in (1992 (2) RLR 131) is quoted hereunder : ``For the reasons mentioned above, all the writ petitions are allowed with the direction that B.P. Ed. (3 years course) degree obtained by the petitioners from the recognized Universities as recognized by the UGC be considered as degree of graduation in Physical Education and all these petitioners shall be eligible for consideration for the said post along with other candidates who possess the graduate degree or equivalent to the graduate degree and the diploma in Physical Education. The respondents are directed to reconsider the cases of the petitioners as per the observations made above and prepare a merit list accordingly by treating them to be eligible for applying for the post of PTI Gr.II. The respondents are directed to reconsider the cases of the petitioners as per the observations made above and prepare a merit list accordingly by treating them to be eligible for applying for the post of PTI Gr.II. and in case any of the petitioners is after consi- deration found to be on merit, they shall be entitled to the postings if any of the candidate less meritorious has been selected and in case the vacancies have already been filled up, in that situation, the petitioners would be offered the appointments after consideration in the vacancies which may be made available. No order as to costs. (v) That further case of the petitioner is that he produced certified copy of order dt.13.12.2000 (Annx.1) before the respondents, but the respondents had shown scant regard to the order dt.13.12.2000 (Ann-ex.1) passed by this Court and did not give appointment to the petitio- ner. Hence, this contempt petition with the prayer as stated above. (3). Reply to the contempt petition was filed by the respondents and their case is that since the petitioner was not possessing the requisite qualifications as were specifically mentioned in the advertisement (Annex. 5) to the writ petition), therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to get appointment on the post of Physical Training Instructor Grade III. It was further submitted by the respondents that the degree/diploma obtained by the petitioner was not from the Institution recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education as in the advertisement it was clearly stated that the candidate should possess the degree/diploma from such Institution which was recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education. The further case of the respondents is that the order dtd. 13.12.2000 (Annex. 1) passed by this Court was considered and by order dtd. 22.4.2002 (Annex. R/1), the petitioner was informed that he would not be appointed on the post of Physical Training Instructor Grade III for the reason that he had acquired degree of B.P.Ed. from Narayanrao Patil Vasade College of Physical Education, Chandrapur which was not recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education. (4). 22.4.2002 (Annex. R/1), the petitioner was informed that he would not be appointed on the post of Physical Training Instructor Grade III for the reason that he had acquired degree of B.P.Ed. from Narayanrao Patil Vasade College of Physical Education, Chandrapur which was not recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education. (4). It may be mentioned here that in the writ petition No. 979/99 filed by the petitioner, his case was that since appointment was given to respondent No.4 (Kalyan Mal Bishnoi) and respondent No. 5 (Rajesh Ojha), therefore, on the same basis, the petitioner should have been given appointment, but reply of the respondents is that respondent No.4 Kalyan Mal Bishnoi had obtained degree/diploma B.P.Ed. from the Physical Education College, Jodhpur and respondent No.5 (Rajesh Ojha) had obtained degree/diploma of B.P.Ed. from Baba Sahib Physical Education College, Yawatmal, whereas the petitioner had obtained the degree/diploma of B.P.Ed. from Narayanrao Patil Vasade College of Physical Education, Chandrapur and since Narayanrao Patil Vasade College of Physical Education, Chandrapur was not recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education, therefore, the petitioner was not offered appointment, while the respondents No.4 and 5 (Kalyan Mal Bishnoi and Rajesh Ojha respectively) were offered appointment on the post of Physical Training Instructor Grade III as the Colleges from which they obtained degree/diploma of B.P.Ed. were recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education and this fact was communicated to the petitioner vide order dtd. 22.4.2002 (Annex. R/1) which was passed after due consideration and taking into consideration all the aspects of the matters and even after considering the order dtd. 13.12.2000 (Annex. 1) passed by this Court and hence the contempt petition be dismissed. (5). Rejoinder to the reply was also filed by the petitioner and in that rejoinder, the main contention of the petitioner was that the degree/diploma obtained by the petitioner from Narayanrao Patil Vasada College of Physical Education, Chandrapur was recognized by the UGC and, therefore, if it was not recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education, it would have no effect. (6). Heard. (7). There is no dispute on the point that in pursuance of order dtd. 13.12.2000 (Annex. 1) passed by this Court, the respondents passed a speaking order dtd. 22.4.2002 (Annex. R/1) and in that order, it was clarified that the institution from which the petitioner obtained degree/diploma of B.P. Ed. (6). Heard. (7). There is no dispute on the point that in pursuance of order dtd. 13.12.2000 (Annex. 1) passed by this Court, the respondents passed a speaking order dtd. 22.4.2002 (Annex. R/1) and in that order, it was clarified that the institution from which the petitioner obtained degree/diploma of B.P. Ed. was not recognized by the State Government and further more, it was also not recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education and, therefore, the petitioner was not given appointment on the post of Physical Training Instructor Grade III. (8). The question which arises for consideration is whether in view of passing of order dtd. 22.4.2002 (Annex. R/1) a case of contempt can be said to have been made out against the respondents or not. (9). There is no dispute on the point that after passing order dtd. 13.12.2000 (Annex. 1) by this Court, the respondents have passed detailed order in the shape of order dtd. 22.4.2002 (Annex. R/1). (10). Before proceeding further, it may be stated here that Section 2(b) of the Act of 1971 defines Civil Contempt to mean wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court. (11). Civil contempt is also divided into two parts. First part relates to the disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court. Here court means either Civil Court or Criminal Court. As far as the law of contempt is concerned there is no difference between a Civil Court or a Criminal Court. Disobedience of the orders passed by both the courts is contempt. Second part is wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court. (12). It may further be stated here that by virtue of Article 215 of the Constitution of India, the High Courts and courts of record and shall have all the powers of such court including the power to punish for contempt of itself. The power conferred on High Court by Article 215 of the Constitution of India is much wider than the power conferred by Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. (13). It may further be stated here that every infraction of the Courts order does not amount to contempt of court. The power conferred on High Court by Article 215 of the Constitution of India is much wider than the power conferred by Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. (13). It may further be stated here that every infraction of the Courts order does not amount to contempt of court. It is only willful and deliberate violation of courts order and condemnation conduct on the part of the contemner which is to be condemned in the contempt proceedings. The disobedience must be willful and not merely accidental and unintentional. (14). The Honble Supreme Court in J.S. Parihar vs. Ganpat Duggar (1), has observed in the following manner :- ``In the instant case admittedly, the respondents had prepared the seniority list on 2.7.1991. Subsequently promotions came to be made. The question is : whether seniority list is open to review in the contempt proceedings to find out, whether it is in conformity with the directions issued by the earlier Benches. It is seen that once there is an order passed by the Government on the basis of the directions issued by the Court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. The preparation of the seniority list may be wrong or may be right or may not be in conformity with the directions. But that would be a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity of judicial review. But that cannot be considered to be the wilful violation of the order. (15). Thus, keeping in mind the law as declared by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of J.S. Parihar (supra) if the facts of the present case are considered, it can easily be said that the respondents have made compliance of the courts directions by issuing appropriate order in the shape of Annex. R/1/. By passing the orders Annex. (15). Thus, keeping in mind the law as declared by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of J.S. Parihar (supra) if the facts of the present case are considered, it can easily be said that the respondents have made compliance of the courts directions by issuing appropriate order in the shape of Annex. R/1/. By passing the orders Annex. R/1 by the respondents, there can be a case that the petitioner would have not been satisfied or it can be said that the said order passed by the respondents may not be in conformity with the directions issued by the Court, but in such matters, since a fresh cause of action has arisen, the action of the respondents cannot be regarded as wilful violation of the orders passed by this Court in writ petition nor it can be said that the respondents passed the orders Annex. R/1 in violation of the orders of this Court. (16). When this being the position, it cannot be said that the respondents have wilfully and deliberately committed contempt of courts order dtd. 13.12.2000 (Annex. 1) and therefore, this contempt petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this contempt petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. Notices are discharged.