Back
1992 Supreme(SC) 711
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BEFORE A.M. AHMAD1 AND M.M. PUNCHHI, JJ.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER
Versus
ROOP CHAND SHAH AND OTHERS.
Civil Appeal No. 4082 of 1992{Arising out of SLP No. 9745 of 1984}
Decided on 7-10-1992
Headnote:
Termination Of Services - Payment Of Salary - Proceedings Of Contempt - Learned Single Judge of High Court by his Order quashed order of termination of services of first respondent by appellants and directed his reinstatement and payment of back salary - Appellants preferred an appeal to Division Bench and also sought a stay, pending appeal, of operation of learned Single Judges order - Division Bench did not take up appeal for admission nor considered prayer for interlocutory stay - In the meanwhile, on allegation that learned Single Judges order had not been obeyed, first respondent moved for initiation of proceedings for contempt against appellants pursuant to which High Court directed Chairman of first appellant to appear in person so that complaint of contempt be proceeded – Held, It is true that a mere filing of an appeal and an application for stay do not by themselves absolve appellants from obeying order under appeal and that any compliance with learned Single Judges order would be subject to final result of appeal - But then changes brought about in interregnum in obedience of order under appeal might themselves be a cause and source of prejudice - Wherever order whose disobedience is complained about is appealed against and stay of its operation is pending before Court, it will be appropriate to take up for consideration prayer for stay either earlier or at least simultaneously with complaint for contempt - Court, accordingly, direct that all further proceedings in contempt proceedings be stayed - It will be appropriate for High Court to take up and dispose of application for stay without reference to developments in interregnum, namely, that respondent had to obey order of learned Single Judge under pain of proceedings of contempt - Depending upon outcome of appellants application for stay, further question whether or not reinstatement should be reversed would arise – Appeal Disposed Of.
ORDER
1. We have perused the Office Report dated July 9, 1992. The service to the respondents is complete. None has entered an appearance even though the notice mentioned that the matter will be finally disposed of as covered by S.S. Moghe v. Union of India{1981) 3 SCC}. We, therefore, heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the decision referred to. Leave granted. The relevant observations on which the learned counsel relies are as follows :
"The next point urged by the petitioners is that the Screening Committee had acted in violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as it had not afforded to the petitioners an opportunity to make their representations before the Committee. The function entrusted to the Committee was to adjudge the suitability of persons who were holding posts in the different grades in the temporary ARC Organisation for permanent appointment in the newly constituted ARC (Technical) Service on the basis of the records relating to their past performance in ARC Organisation, etc. We do not see how the principles of natural justice can get attracted in such a context. The law does not cast any obligation on a Committee discharging such a function to invite representations from the persons in the eligible categories and consider those representations while adjudging their suitability for appointment into the new service. Hence we do not find any substance in the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners that there was a violation of principles of natural justice by the Screening Committee."
2. Applying the above principle, we are of the opinion that the Division Bench was in error in reversing the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The Screening Committee was under no obligation to afford a hearing before making its recommendation. The respondent was merely officiating in the promotion post and on being found unsuitable for the said post by the Screening Committee he was reverted to his substantive post. There was no question of hearing him on his suitability by the Screening Committee. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the Division Bench and restore the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is allowed accordingly with no order as to costs.
For Citation: 1995 Supp (4) SCC 460
