Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 290 (GAU)

I. Pangernungsang v. M. Nabachandra Singh

2021-03-19

M.R.PATHAK, SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2021
JUDGMENT Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. - Heard Mr. S.K. Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. U. Das, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. 2. We delete the name of writ petitioner no.1 [who is working as Chief Post Master General (in-Charge), N.E. Circle, Shillong-1] from the array of parties as he was not required to be impleaded in person. 3. Respondent no.2 Shri M. Nabachandra Singh (and others) had filed the Original Application No.9 of 2013 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench on the ground that the recruitment for the post of Inspector of Posts though were required to be made from the un-reserved category, the authority concerned (petitioner herein) deliberately selected candidates of Tribal category (not on the basis of merit) in the un-reserved post which was not supposed to be reserved for the Scheduled Tribe candidates. The Tribunal after hearing the parties, allowed the application on 04.07.2014 and passed the following orders:- "1. A High Power Committee will be constituted which will have at least 1 person from the Headquarters so that the calculation of vacancies could be revisited/audited from 2007 onwards. The exercise shall be completed within 3 months from the date of receiving this order. 2. The candidates appointed against above vacancies should be thoroughly examined as to whether they qualified as per norms fixed for general candidates or under relaxed norms for ST/SC and if such candidates who qualified only against ST/SC relaxed norms have been appointed against vacancies of general candidates, the same should be treated as unfilled for the purpose of entitlement of general candidates who qualified in the examinations for various years 2007 onwards. 3. The applicants will be eligible for consequential benefits including promotion and arrears." 4. Consequent to the said order dated 04.07.2014, a High Power Committee was constituted, which came to the conclusions that the selection was made in accordance with law and that it is wrong to say that any candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe category was wrongly selected in the un-reserved post. This order of 29.09.2014 however, was never put to challenge in the court of law. All the same, before such an order could be passed, the contempt petition (Contempt Petition No.26/2014) was filed stating that the order of the Tribunal dated 04.07.2014 has not been complied with. 5. This order of 29.09.2014 however, was never put to challenge in the court of law. All the same, before such an order could be passed, the contempt petition (Contempt Petition No.26/2014) was filed stating that the order of the Tribunal dated 04.07.2014 has not been complied with. 5. The Tribunal, however, came to the conclusion that no Contempt of Courts is made out, as it was not established that there was any deliberate, wilful disobedience of the order of the Tribunal dated 04.07.2014 and the contempt petition was closed vide order dated 08.09.2015. However, in the same order the Tribunal converted the contempt petition to a Misc. Application for implementation, if any. Thereafter, the contempt petition was converted to miscellaneous application. 6. The matter then came up before a Single Member of the Tribunal who took notice of the fact and it appears that it exercised its power under Rule 24 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules of 1987"). For ready reference, the Rule 24 is quoted hereinbelow:- "24. Order and directions in certain cases.-The Tribunal may make such orders or give such directions as may be necessary or expedient to give effect to its order or to prevent abuse of its process or to secure the ends of justice." The Single Member of the Tribunal after considering the matter in its entirety, passed the order dated 01.06.2016 in M.A. No.042/00147/15 which is quoted as under:- "I am not agreeable to the said submission of the learned Addl. C.G.S.C. for the respondents. Accordingly, the CPMG, NE Circle, Shillong is directed to appear personally before this Court on 15. 07.2016 along with records to convince this Court that action has been taken as per direction of this Court, failing which this case shall be converted to CP and will be put up before the next available Division Bench excluding Hon'ble Ms. Manjula Das, Judicial Member. In the meantime, if the order has been complied in leter and spirit, the CPMG, NE Circle, Shillong is exempted from personal appearance and only a compliance report will suffice. List on 15.07.2016. Copy of this order shall be communicated to the CMPG, NE Circle Shillong." This is the order which has also been put to challenge before this Court. 7. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the private respondent Ms. List on 15.07.2016. Copy of this order shall be communicated to the CMPG, NE Circle Shillong." This is the order which has also been put to challenge before this Court. 7. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the private respondent Ms. U. Das, we are of the considered view that certain directions were given by the Tribunal to the respondent in its order dated 04.07.2014 inter alia to constitute a committee etc. These orders were complied with and being satisfied that the orders of the Tribunal had been complied with while dealing with an application under Section 17 of the Act of 1985, which was a contempt petition, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that no contempt is made out and the contempt petition was closed. Having closed the said contempt petition, the Tribunal should not have proceeded any further. All the same, the order dated 08.09.2015, it converted the matter into miscellaneous application which was not a required nor could have been done. Thereafter, the cognizance taken by single member on the said order is without jurisdiction. We are, therefore, satisfied that the process adopted by the Tribunal is in violation of the law. The entire proceedings of the Tribunal to convert the contempt petition is in violation of law and only to that extent as well as the order dated 04.07.2014 passed in Original Application No.09/2013 are hereby set aside. 8. Having made the aforesaid determination, however, the respondent no.2 Shri M. Nabachandra Singh herein will not be remediless. In case, he is still aggrieved by the constitution of the Committee, which is according to the respondent no.2 was itself illegal; the order dated 29.09.2014 (Minutes of the High Power Committee); whereby the Committee had given its finding that selection were made in accordance with law, he (respondent no.2) would still be able to challenge the same in accordance with law before the Tribunal.