Back
V. KHALID AND G.L. OZA, JJ.
Civil Appeal No. 871 of 1986 etc.,
D/- 28-4-1987.
State of Bihar etc. etc., Appellants
Versus
Kripalu Shankar etc. etc., Respondents.
Constitution Of India, 1950 - Article 166(1), (2) - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 2(c) - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section. 123 - Post of Public Officer - Post Became Vacant - Claim To That Post - Irrigation Department of State, there existed a post of Public Officer - This post became vacant - One Arun Kumar Verma. was appointed to that post for six months - At that time one Kripalu Shankar was discharging functions of Public Relations Officer - He laid claim to that post - He did not succeed - Secretary to Department did not accede to his request - Therefore, he filed C.W.J.C - Whether he did in fact make such an order - Whether they were right or wrong did not amount to court and that no order was passed appointing Subh Chandra Jha - Whether contempt is committed or not, what has to be looked into is ultimate order – Held, Court come in for adverse remarks by officers dealing with them, confronted with difficult situations to straightway obey such orders - Notings made on such occassions are only for benefit of officers concerned - When a subordiate official commits a mistake higher official will always correct it - It will not serve either healthy working of civil service, public interest or democratic norms to proceed in contempt against officials solely on basis of minutes in internal files, notings which might even be unsavoury or even derogatory to an order of Court, but which get ultimately corrected by head of department, ending with an order under Art. 166(1) and (2) in name of Governor in proper form – Court is conscious of fact that learned Judges felt that there was a deliberate attempt to act against their order – Court is not unmindful of indignation shown by them at notings in file - Only reason why court feel constrained to disagree with High Courts order is our anxiety to delineate limits of judicial power while dealing with files of Government and also of Public Service Commission, a high Constitutional authority - It is necessary to have mutual respect among various wings of administration, in process of disposal of justice – Court discharge contempt orders passed by High Court with utmost reluctance in view of far reaching consequences that would flow if judgment was allowed to stand – Court is happy that appellants have tendered their regret and apology to High Court and have reiterated their regret in this Court - Appeal Allowed.
Judgement
KHALID, J.:- These appeals are directed against the Judgment of a Division Bench of Patna High Court in Misc. Case No. 356 of 1985. Appeal No. 871 of 1986 is by the State of Bihar, Appeal No. 916 jointly by Srideo Mishra, Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi (at the relevant time, Secretary-cum-Legal Remembrancer, Department of Law, Government of Bihar, Patna) and Mrs. Radha Singh, Commissioner, Ranchi Division, Ranchi (at the relevant time Additional Irrigation Commissioner, Patna), Appeal No. 933 by Subh Chandra Jha, Public Relation Officer, Irrigation Department, Government of Bihar, Patna and Appeal No. 1178 by Birkeshwar Prasad Singh, now Professor and Head of Department Political Science, Magadh University (Member, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna at the relevant time). The appellants have been convicted by the High Court for contempt of its order and have been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two weeks. The High Court had issued contempt notice against some others also. Those notices were discharged against them.
2. The background facts necessary can be now stated in brief as follows:
In the Irrigation Department of the State of Bihar, there existed a post of Public (Relations) Officer. This post became vacant some time in 1979. One Arun Kumar Verma. was appointed to that post for six months. At that time one Kripalu Shankar was discharging the functions of Public Relations Officer. He laid claim to that post. He did not succeed. The Secretary to the Department did not accede to his request. Therefore, he filed C.W.J.C. No. 3632 of 1979. When the case came up for hearing, it was represented on behalf of the State that Shri Verma was appointed only on ad hoc basis for a period of six months and that after the expiry of six months, the matter would be referred to the Public Service Commission for consideration and at that stage the case of Kripalu Shankar also will be considered. It is submitted that on this assurance by the State, the petition was allowed to be withdrawn as per order dated 19-12-1979. It appears that this assurance was not respected, no reference was made to the Public Service Commission for regular appointment and the matter was kept in abeyance for a long time. It is stated that in April, 1983, by which time Dr. Jagannath Mishra had become Chief Minister, the State Government appointed Subh Chandra Jha as P.R.O. again on ad hoc basis. This gave rise to the filing of petition No. 1534 of 1983 which was disposed of on 4-5-83. It was contended that this appointment was made without any advertisement and without consultation with the Public Service Commission. The learned Advocate General informed the Court when the matter came up for hearing that the appointment of Jha was only ad hoc giving an impression that regular appointment would be made after the expiry of six months. On this representation the following order was passed by the Court:
"In the circumstances we direct that the post of Public Relations Officer in the Irrigation Department on which respondent 3 has been appointed on ad hoc basis should be filled up in a regular way. In case the appointment is not made within the period of six months, the ad hoc appointment shall stand terminated. We further direct that the fact that the respondent No. 3 has worked on the post on ad hoc basis will not be taken to be a qualification for the purpose of any appointment through regular method on the post of Public Relations Officer."
3. The six months period, according to the above order, was to expire on 17-10-1983. The case of the State is that the Irrigation Department had as early as 4-4-1983 written to the Public Service Commission to give concurrence to the appointment of Shri Jha, since his post was an ex-cadre post and since he was selected by a Selection Committee. Concurrence was given on 2-4-85. The Government thereafter examined the matter in consultation with the Personnel (Administrative) Reforms
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
