Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1460 (MAD)

W. Ruben Franklin v. R. Palanisamy

2008-04-29

M.JAICHANDREN

body2008
Judgment :- This contempt petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to punish the respondent for contempt of Court for willfully disobeying the order of this Court, dated 24. 2006, made in W.P.M.P.No.11361 of 2006, in W.P.No.10040 of 2006. 2. The petitioner has stated that he had acquired a M.A. degree in Sociology and Panchayat Raj in the year, 1985 and an M.A. degree in History in the year, 1988. Thereafter, he had also acquired a B.Ed., qualification. Thus, he was qualified for appointment as a B.T. Assistant and P.G. Assistant. The petitioners father had been working as a Secondary Grade Teacher in the Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Melur, Madurai District and he had died, on 29. 1985, while in harness. The petitioners mother had retired from service, on 7. 1986. 3. The petitioner had applied for appointment on compassionate grounds on 3. 1990, 15. 1990 and 8. 1990 for the post of P.G. Assistant as his family was in indigent circumstances. The Chief Educational Officer, by his proceedings, dated 25. 1990, had recommended the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. By an order, dated 11. 1990, the Joint Director of School Education, had appointed the petitioner as a B.T. Assistant in the Government High School, Kattapettu, Nilgiris District, in an existing vacancy. 4. However, it had been stated that the appointment of the petitioner was subject to the selection by the Teachers Recruitment Board. Therefore, the petitioner had made a representation to the Teachers Recruitment Board, on 2. 1991, for regular selection. The Director of School Education, by his proceedings, dated 6. 1994, had submitted a proposal to the Government for regularization the service of the petitioner as B.T. Assistant. In the said proceedings, the Director of School Education, had sought permission to regularize the service of the petitioner from the date of his joining in the post, in order to fix his seniority. The said proposal had been pending with the Government and no order had been passed. While so, the Joint Director of School Education, (Personnel), had issued a show cause notice, dated 310. 1997, asking the petitioner as to why his appointment should not be cancelled as he had been appointed as a B.T. Assistant, wrongly. The petitioner had submitted his explanation, on 11. 1997. 5. The petitioner had filed an original application before the Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.9312 of 1997. 1997, asking the petitioner as to why his appointment should not be cancelled as he had been appointed as a B.T. Assistant, wrongly. The petitioner had submitted his explanation, on 11. 1997. 5. The petitioner had filed an original application before the Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.9312 of 1997. By an order, dated 211. 1997, all further proceedings in respect of the show cause notice, dated 310. 1997, had been stayed. By an order, dated 112. 1997, the order of stay granted earlier had been extended until further orders. Thus, the petitioner has been continuing in service as a B.T. Assistant. However, when the original application, pending before the Administrative Tribunal, had been transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.32143 of 2005. By an order, dated 30.1.2006, this Court had directed the Joint Director of School Education, Chennai, to pass orders on the reply given by the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of the receipt of the said order. By an order, dated 23. 2006, The Joint Director of School Education had cancelled the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that he had suppressed the material facts from the knowledge of the Education Department and the Government and that he had got an appointment on compassionate grounds, though he was not entitled for the same, as per the G.O.Ms.No.155, Labour and Employment Department, dated 17. 1993. 6. Challenging the said order, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.10040 of 2006 and for a consequential direction to the first respondent in the writ petition to pass orders on the proposal given in R.C.No.2186/C4/94, dated 6. 1994, submitted by the Director of School Education for regularization of the petitioners service as B.T. Assistant from the date of his appointment with all consequential benefits. This Court had granted an order of interim stay of the operation of the impugned order of the Joint Director of School Education, dated 23. 2006, by an order, dated 24. 2006, in W.P.M.P.No.11361 of 2006. Thereafter, the petitioner had sent a letter to the Joint Director of School Education, on 25. 2006, requesting that the petitioner may be allowed to join duty as a B.T. Assistant. Another representation had been made by the petitioner, on 16. 2006, by an order, dated 24. 2006, in W.P.M.P.No.11361 of 2006. Thereafter, the petitioner had sent a letter to the Joint Director of School Education, on 25. 2006, requesting that the petitioner may be allowed to join duty as a B.T. Assistant. Another representation had been made by the petitioner, on 16. 2006, to the Joint Director of School Education (Personnel) requesting him to allow the petitioner to joint as a B.T. Assistant at Duraikamalam Government Higher Secondary School, Natham, Kovilpatti, Dindigul District. Inspite of the requests made by the petitioner, the respondent had not permitted the petitioner to join duty inspite of the order of the stay of the impugned proceedings granted by this Court, on 24. 2006. Thus, the respondent has committed contempt of Court by willfully disobeyed the order passed by this Court, on 24. 2006, in W.P.M.P.No.11361 of 2006, in W.P.No.10040 of 2006. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the impugned proceedings in the writ petition W.P.No.10040 of 2006, has been passed by the Joint Director of School Education, on 23. 2006, removing the petitioner from service. The writ petition in W.P.No.10040 of 2006, had been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned proceedings, dated 23. 2006. This Court, by an order, dated 24. 2006, had granted an order of interim stay of the impugned proceedings, in W.P.M.P.No.11361 of 2006, in W.P.No.10040 of 2006, stating as follows: "The impugned order of cancellation of appointment made after 15 years was made without opportunity to the petitioner. Hence, interim stay. Mr. M.G.H. Varadarajan, the learned Addl. Govt. Pleader takes notice." 8. Thereafter, a notice had been issued on behalf of the petitioner, on 15. 2006, calling upon the respondent to allow the petitioner to join in duty as B.T. Assistant at Duraikamalam Government Higher Secondary School, Dindigul District. Inspite of receiving the said notice, the respondent had not implemented the order of this Court, dated 24. 2006, by permitting the petitioner to join duty. In such circumstances, the petitioner has been constrained to file the contempt petition to punish the respondent for willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court, on 24. 2006. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent had submitted that the respondent had not committed contempt of Court, since there was no willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court, on 24. 2006. 10. 2006. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent had submitted that the respondent had not committed contempt of Court, since there was no willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court, on 24. 2006. 10. A petition to vacate the interim stay granted by this Court, on 24. 2006, in W.V.M.P.No.1287 of 2006, had been filed, on 7. 2006. However, the contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner, on 8. 2006, and it was taken up for hearing on 19. 2006, when notice had been ordered to be issued to the respondent. Since the petition to vacate the interim stay had not been listed, a letter had been given to the Registry of the High Court, on 110. 2006, to post the petition in W.V.M.P.No.1287 of 2006 for hearing. Thereafter, the said petition had been listed before the Court, on 210. 2006, when this Court had issued a direction to post the vacate stay petition along with the contempt petition. In such circumstances, the respondent had not committed contempt of Court, as there is no willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court, on 24. 2006. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Prithawi Nath Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand (AIR 2004 S.C.4277). In the said decision, it was held that if any party concerned is aggrieved by the order, which in its opinion is wrong, or against rules or its implementation is neither practicable nor feasible, it should always either approach the Court that passed the order or invoke the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court. Rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be urged in contempt proceedings. Right or wrong the order has to be obeyed. Flouting an order of the court would render the party liable for contempt. While dealing with an application for contempt, the court cannot traverse beyond the order, non-compliance of which is alleged. In other words, it cannot say what should not have been done or what should have been done. It cannot test the correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional direction or delete any direction. That would be exercising review jurisdiction while dealing with an application for initiation of contempt proceedings. The same would be impermissible and indefensible. 12. In other words, it cannot say what should not have been done or what should have been done. It cannot test the correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional direction or delete any direction. That would be exercising review jurisdiction while dealing with an application for initiation of contempt proceedings. The same would be impermissible and indefensible. 12. On hearing the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the respondent has not committed contempt of Court as alleged by the petitioner in the contempt petition filed by him. The petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to substantiate his claims that the respondent had willfully disobeyed the order passed by this Court, on 24. 2006. There is no positive direction issued by this Court to reinstate the petitioner in service. Even otherwise, the claim made on behalf of the respondent that they were expecting that the vacate stay petition in W.V.M.P.No.1287 of 2006, would be taken up for early hearing is acceptable. Since the said petition had been directed by this Court, on 210. 2006, to be listed along with the contempt petition, the vacate stay petition had not been heard separately. An unconditional apology had also been tendered by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 13. No doubt the authority and dignity of this Court has to be preserved in the process of establishing and maintaining the rule of law. There is also no doubt that this Court has sufficient powers vested in it by the authority of law to punish the acts and omissions committed by persons having the effect of diluting such authority or dignity. However, this Court is also conscious of the fact that its power to punish persons for contempt of Court is to be exercised with sufficient care and caution. If not, it would result in a situation where Tyranny of law would prevail, instead of rule of law. The contempt petition stands dismissed. No costs.