SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(SC) 1123

2008(6) Supreme 21
Supreme Court of india
S.B. Sinha and Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.
Anil Kumar Shahi & Ors. — Petitioners
versus
Prof. Ram Sevak Yadav & Ors. — Respondents
Contempt Petition (C) No. 91 of 2006 in Civil Appeal No.1124 of 2000
With
Contempt Petition (C) No. 162 of 2007
in Contempt Petition (C) No. 91 of 2006 in Civil Appeal No.1124 of 2000
Decided on : 24-07-2008

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant :Jyotindra Misra, AG., Shail Kumar Dwivedi, AAG., Collin Gonsalves and Harish N. Salve, Sr. Advs., Mohit Chaudhary, Manish Jain, Pradeep Chandel, Ms. Puja Sharma, Ms. Vandana Mishra, Ms. Vibha Dwivedi, R.K. Gupta, S.K. Gupta, Arun Yadav, A.N. Bardiyar, Rakesh Kumar Singh, Jitendra Kumar, C.D. Singh, Shrish Kumar Misra, Ajay Kumar Singh and Gunnam Venkateswara Rao, Advocates.

Important Point
There is no willful disobedience if best efforts are made to comply with the order.

Headnote:Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 129 r/w Section 2(b), Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – While exercising its power under the Act, it is not open to the court to pass an order, which will materially add to or alter the order for alleged disobedience of which contempt jurisdiction was invoked – When the Court directs the authority to consider a matter in accordance with law, it means that the matter should be considered to the best of understanding by the authority – Therefore, a mere error of judgment with regard to the legal position cannot constitute contempt of court – There is no willful disobedience if best efforts are made to comply with the order. (Para 25)

       CA 961-962/1999 – Referred.

       Facts of the case :

       1.The petitioners and other candidates had appeared in the preliminary and main examinations for the year 1997 conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission [‘the UPPSC’] for the posts of Principal, Government Inter College (Boys and Girls) and Senior Lecturer in District Education and Training Institutes along with other posts in the State of U.P. and a combined State/Upper Subordinate Services. A group of candidates appearing for various posts for the years 1996 and 1997 filed writ petitions before the High Court.

       2.The High Court in the case of Tulsi Ram and Ors. v. State of U. P. & Ors. [Writ Petition NO.40849 of 1977] while dealing with the case of 1996 batch was pleased to decide the issue with regard to the eligibility criteria. Aggrieved thereby, a number of special leave petitions were preferred by the candidates before Supreme Court.

       3.The writ petition filed by the petitioners for the posts of Principals and Senior Lecturers was dismissed by the High Court with a short order.

       4. Supreme Court on March 07, 2006 passed orders in compliance with which the contesting respondents took some decision, which according to the petitioners, is manifestly in violation of the tenor and spirit of the order of the Court.

       Finding of the Court :

       The respondents have passed an appropriate order in terms of the order dated 07.03.2006 which was communicated to the petitioners.

       Result : Contempt petitions dismissed.

Judgment

Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J. —

Contempt Petition (C) 91 of 2006

This is a petition under Article 129 of the Constitution of India read with Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 preferred by Anil Kumar Shahi, Ghanshyam Singh, Davendra Singh and Raj Narain Lal, petitioners herein, inter alia praying for the following reliefs:-

“(a) initiate contempt proceedings against the contemnors for their willful disobedience and uphold the majesty of this Hon’ble Court; and/or

(b)direct the respondents to disclose the marks obtained by the petitioner as well as cut-off marks beyond which the candidates were called for interview; and/or

(c)quash Order dated 7.4.2006 passed by the respondent no. 2 which is in contravention of the Order dated 7.3.2006 passed by this Hon’ble Court; and/or

(d)direct the respondents that if the candidates are found to have obtained equal to or more than cut-off marks, then to call the candidates for interview and recommend the candidates; and/or

(e)direct the respondents/U.P. Government that thereafter to appoint the candidates in Order of their post of preference as was submitted by the candidates during the mains examination; and/or

(f)pass such other or further Orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case.”

2.Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the filing of the present petition are as under :-

The petitioners and other candidates had appeared in the preliminary and main examinations for the year 1997 conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission [‘the UPPSC’] for the posts of Principal, Government Inter College (Boys and Girls) and Senior Lecturer in District Education and Training Institutes along with other posts in the State of U.P. and a combined State/Upper Subordinate Services. A group of candidates appearing for various posts for the years 1996 and 1997 filed writ petitions before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The High Court in the case of Tulsi Ram and Ors. v. State of U. P. & Ors. [Writ Petition NO.40849 of 1977] while dealing with the case of 1996 batch was pleased to decide the issue with regard to the eligibility criteria. Aggrieved thereby, a number of special leave petitions were preferred by the candidates before this Court.

The writ petition filed by the petitioners for the posts of Principals and Senior Lecturers was dismissed by the High Court with a short Order which reads as under :-

“The facts of the case are covered by the Judgment of this Court in Tulsi Ram and others vs. State of U.P. & Others in Writ Petition No. 40849 of 1997 decided on 13.5.98.

The writ petition is disposed of on same condition and direction as in aforesaid Judgment.”

3.The Judgment in Tulsi Ram’s case (supra) was challenged before this Court in a group of matters. By an Order made on 10.01.2001 in Civil Appeal Nos. 961-962/1999, Civil Appeal No. 1124 of 2000 filed by the present petitioners, was delinked from the said group of matters.

4.In Civil Appeal Nos. 961-962/1999, titled Mohd. Altaf & Ors. v. Public Service Commission & Anr.,1 this Court decided the question of law that was raised in the aforesaid case of Tulsi Ram. The controversy in Tulsi Ram‘s case centered round the interpretation of the eligibility criteria for holding the posts. The eligibility criteria as advertised/notified read as under :

“(3)For the Post of Principal, Government Inter College (Boys/Girls) and Senior Lecturer in District Education and Training Institute - (1) Post Graduate degree from a recognised university or any degree equivalent thereto recognised by the Government. (2) L.T. Diploma from Education Department of U.P. or B.T. or B.Ed. or any other degree of University equivalent thereto. (3) At least three years’ of teaching experience as head of any Senior Secondary or normal School or three years experience of or normal School or three years experience of teaching Intermediate or higher classes or in C.T. or L.T. Training Post Graduate College as le








































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top