AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Present contempt petition has been filed for initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for non-compliance and disobedience of
judgement dated 10.05.2018 passed in CPSW No.200/2017 (in SWP No. 1004/2015) on the grounds taken therein.
It may be noticed that against the directions passed by the learned Single Judge in different writ petitions for considering the claim of the petitioners
for their appointment as Class-IV employees in the Education Department, the State-respondents went in appeal which was disposed of on
30.07.2009, the operative part of which is reproduced hereunder:
“In the circumstances, for all practical purposes, it must be deemed that by way of a policy decision, the State Government created 417 more posts
and in those posts, by the order dated 04.04.2003 those 417 persons, who were permitted to work on temporary basis by the order dated 11.04.2002,
were regularized. In consequence thereof, it must be deemed that there are still 417 posts available. The number of writ petitioners is less than 417.
Accordingly, all of them can be accommodated. There will, therefore, be no occasion to take recourse to upsetting the orders of the Government
dated 11.04.2002 and 04.04.2003.
In the circumstances, the exercise to be undertaken in terms of the judgment and order under appeal be completed within a period of six months from
today and to that extent the judgment and order under appeal is modified with clarifications.â€
Subsequently, the writ petitioners filed a writ petition, bearing SWP No.1004/2015, which came to be disposed of vide judgment dated 07.04.2015,
whereby it is observed as under:-
“Learned counsel for the petitioners stated at the Bar that the petitioners would be satisfied in case the petition in hand is disposed of with a
direction to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to consider the case of the petitioners in light of order dated 03.11.2009 passed in APSWP No. 39/2009 in
SWP No. 2607/2001.
His statement is taken on record.
At request, the petition in hand is taken up for final disposal and, as such, disposed of with a direction to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to consider the
claim of the petitioners in light of order dated 03.11.2009, passed in APSWP No. 39/2009 in SWP No. 2607/2001, referred to herein above, provided
the same is applicable in the case in hand and pass appropriate consideration within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order
is made available to them.â€
For implementation of the aforesaid order dated 07.04.2015, the writ petitioners preferred a contempt petition, bearing CPSW No.200/2017, which
came to be disposed of vide Order dated 10.05.2018 observing as under:
“In view of the aforesaid submission, the contempt petition is disposed of with the direction to the Chief Education Officer, Poonch to issue the
orders of appointments in favour of the petitioners in the light of the order dated 13.05.2010 as well as order dated 18.05.2016. Needless to state that
the orders shall be issued subject to the conditions mentioned in the aforesaid orders. Let the aforesaid exercise be carried out within six weeks from
today.
Accordingly, the contempt petition is disposed of along with connected MP(s).â€
Writ Petitioners have now filed the present contempt petition seeking implementation of order dated 10.05.2018 passed in CPSW No.200/2017 (in
SWP No.1004/2015).
It is contended in the contempt petition that names of the some of the petitioners were wrongly mentioned, so they submitted representation to the
respondents, but the same has not been decided by the respondents. It is also contended that in SWP No. 411/2006, SWP No. 1609/2005, and SWP
No. 865/2011 they were petitioners at S.No.9 and 14 in SWP No. 411/2006, petitioner No.5 and 10 in SWP No. 1609/2005 and petitioner No.7 in
SWP No. 865/2011 and that their names figured in Govt. Order No.440-Edu of 2010 dated 13.052010 at S.No.89, 104, 99, 103, 32, 37, 39, 60, 95 and
51 respectively. It is also contended that the Government issued Order No.440-Edu of 2010 dated 13.05.2010, asking Director School Education to
issue appointment letters after verification so as to implement the judgments passed by this Court. It is further contended that neither the respondents
are verifying the documents of the petitioners nor issuing appointment letters. It is also contended that names/particulars of the petitioners were
wrongly typed in the main writ petitions as shown above, but they were approved for appointment in the Govt. Order No.440-Edu of 2010 dated
13.05.2010.
The statement of facts stands filed on behalf of respondents, wherein it is stated that after considering the record pertaining to the case as well as
the report received from respondent No.2, the case of the petitioners has been examined by the respondent in due deference to the directions of this
Court and in this regard, a detailed order being order dated 30.03.2019 has been issued. Respondents also state that petitioners claim that they were
petitioners in SWP No. 411/2006, SWP No. 1609/2005, and SWP No. 865/2011 and were figuring at S.No.9 and 14 in SWP No. 411/2006, petitioner
No.5 and 10 in SWP No. 1609/2005 and petitioner No.7 in SWP No. 865/2011 and that their names figured in Govt. Order No.440-Edu of 2010 dated
13.052010 at S.No.89, 104, 99, 103, 32, 37, 39, 60, 95 and 51 respectively, but, the factual position, however, is that the names of the petitioners do not
figure in the said writ petitions and Government order as contended by them at the respective serial numbers and such contention of the petitioners,
was totally unjustified and wrong as contended. With these submissions, learned counsel for the respondents has prayed that since judgment/order
passed by this Court in SWP No.1004/2015 and CPSW No.200/2017 stand complied with in letter and spirit, the instant contempt petition may be
dismissed.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Bare perusal of order dated 30.03.2019 reveals that respondent No.1, vide communication dated 18.05.2016, directed Chief Education Officer,
Poonch, to implement the orders passed in various writ petitions after checking/verifying/authenticating all original documents/qualification, date of
birth certificates, state subject and character and antecedents as required under rules of the petitioners as per the sanction accorded in terms of
Government Order No.440-Edu of 2010 dated 13.05.2010. In response to the communication dated 18.05.2016, respondent No.2 vide his
communication No.CEO/P/ Legal/30018 dated 14.01.2017 has stated that on perusal of the approved list it is evidently clear that the names of the
petitioners in SWP No.1004/2015 and CPSW No.200/2017 do not figure in the approved list attached with the Govt. order No.440-Edu of 2010 dated
13.05.2010. In so far as claim of the petitioners that they were petitioners in SWP No. 411/2006, SWP No. 1609/2005, and SWP No. 865/2011 and
were figuring at S.No..9 and 14 in SWP No. 411/2006, petitioner No.5 and 10 in SWP No. 1609/2005 and petitioner No.7 in SWP No. 865/2011 and
that their names figured in Govt. Order No.440-Edu of 2010 dated 13.052010 at S.No.89, 104, 99, 103, 32, 37, 39, 60, 95 and 51 respectively, but, it is
contended on behalf of the respondents that the names of the petitioners do not figure in the said writ petitions and Government order as contended by
them at the respective serial numbers. Moreso, from the perusal of order dated 30.03.2019, issued by respondent No.1, annexed with statement of
facts, it comes to fore that the petitioners in the present contempt petition, i.e. CPSW No.737/2018 in SWP No.1004/2015, do not figure in the
approved list attached with Government Order No.440-Edu of 2010 dated 13.05.2010. The case of the petitioners has been examined /considered
strictly as per the rules governing the field, and it has been found that the names of the petitioners in the writ petitions do not figure in the approved list
attached with the GO No.440-Edu of 2010 dated 13.05.2010. Therefore, after consideration/examination, their case has been found to be not in
consonance with the rules and also devoid of any merit, and, thus, the claim of the petitioners has been rejected by the respondents.
In the above backdrop, it is pertinent to mention here that to hold respondents or anyone of them liable for contempt, this Court has to arrive at a
conclusion that the respondents have wilfully disobeyed the order of this Court. The exercise of contempt jurisdiction is summary in nature and an
adjudication of the liability of the alleged contemnor for wilful disobedience of the Court is normally made on admitted and undisputed facts. Reference
in this regard may be made to Noor Saba Vs. Anoop Mishra & another reported in 2013 0 Supreme (SC) 809.
In Kapildeo Prasad Sah & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 1999 0 Supreme (SC) 926, it is held as under:-
“9. For holding the respondents to have committed contempt, civil contempt at that, it has to be shown that there has been wilful disobedience of
the judgment or order of the court. Power to punish for contempt is to be resorted to when there is clear violation of the court’s order. Since
notice of contempt and punishment for contempt is of far reaching consequence, these powers should be invoked only when a clear case of wilful
disobedience of the court’s order has been made out. Whether disobedience is wilful in a particular case depends on the facts and circumstances
of that case. Judicial orders are to be properly understood and complied. Even negligence and carelessness can amount to disobedience particularly
when attention of the person is drawn to the court’s orders and its implication. Disobedience of court’s order strikes at the very root of rule of
law on which our system of governance is based. Power to punish for contempt is necessary for the maintenance of effective legal system. It is
exercised to prevent perversion of the course of justice.â€
In Suresh Estate Pvt. Ltd. & others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and others, reported in 2008 0 Supreme (SC) 185, 2it is held as
under:
“12. The above discussion makes it very clear that there is no wilful disobedience of any of the directions issued by this Court while disposing of
the appeal filed by the petitioners. This Court does not find that the respondents are guilty of wilful disobedience to the judgment rendered by this
Court. As no case for initiating proceedings for civil contempt is made out by the petitioners against the respondents, the instant application cannot be
entertained and is liable to be dismissed.â€
In M/s Ashok Paper Kamgar Union and others Vs. Dharam Godha & others, reported in 2003 (0) Supreme (SC) 856, it is held as under:-
“17. Section 2(b) of Contempt of Courts Act defines civil contempt and it means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ
or other process of a Court or wilful breach of undertaking given to a Court. Wilful means an act or omission which is done voluntarily and
intentionally and with the specific intent to do something the law forbids or with the specific intent to fail to do something the law requires to be done,
that is to say with bad purpose either to disobey or to disregard the law. It signifies a deliberate action done with evil intent or with a bad motive or
purpose. Therefore, in order to constitute contempt the order of the Court must be of such a nature which is capable of execution by the person
charged in normal circumstances. It should not require any extra ordinary effort nor should be dependent, either wholly or in part, upon any act or
omission of a third party for its compliance. This has to be judged having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case.â€
In view of above discussion and after applying the ratio of aforementioned judgments handed down by the Supreme Court, this Court is of the firm
view that liability for contempt petition arises only on wilful disobedience and can be made only on the basis of admitted and undisputed facts. As is
discernible from the proceedings petitioners are changing the stand and raising fresh dispute. Adjudication of such disputes is not permissible in
contempt jurisdiction. It is made clear that the Court in contempt jurisdiction has to consider only whether the direction or judgment of the Court
passed in regular proceedings has been complied with or not. Since the respondents have considered the case of the petitioners in compliance of the
directions passed by this Court and have issued a detailed order bearing No.DSEJ/legal/12958-61 dated 30.03.2019, therefore, the only remedy
available to the petitioners is to throw challenge to the said consideration order. This Court cannot go beyond the directions contained in the order;
disobedience whereof is complained of.
For the forgoing reasons, the contempt petition is closed. Rule, if any, issued is hereby discharged. However, the petitioners are at liberty to
challenge the consideration order if they so advised.