2012 Supreme(SC) 566

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ALTAMAS KABIR & J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.
SALAUDDIN AHMED & ANR. - Appellants
VERSUS
SAMTA ANDOLAN - Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 2504-2505 of 2012
Decided on : 29-08-2012.

IMPORTANT POINT
A person will be liable for civil contempt only when he deliberately and willfully violates a Court’s order.

Headnote:Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12 – State required to act in terms of M. Nagraj’s case – Collection of necessary data required – High Court holding authorities guilty of contempt for inaction – State appointing Bhatnagar Committee for the purpose – Although there has been delay, there was no willful or deliberate intention to defy the Court – Authorities cannot be held guilty of contempt. (Para 42 to 44)

       (1992) Supp.3 SCC 217; (1996) 2 SCC 715; (1995) 6 SCC 684; (2006) 8 SCC 212; (2011) 5 SCC 305; (2010) 12 SCC 770; (2012) 1 SCC 273; (2000) 6 SCC 359 – Referred

       Facts of the case:

       On 27th November, 1972, the State of Rajasthan issued a Notification providing for reservation for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidates to the extent of 15% for Scheduled Castes and 7.5% for Scheduled Tribes. Subsequently, on and from 3rd October, 1973, such reservation was increased to 16% and 12% for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates, respectively. On 29th January, 1981, the Rules for promotion based on the criteria of seniority- cum-merit were introduced.

       In (Ajit Singh-I), it was held that even if the person in reserved category is promoted earlier than a general category candidate due to operation of roster, and subsequently, the general category candidate was also promoted, the candidates in the general category would regain their seniority as existing in the cadre prior to promotion. This method of allowing a subsequent promotee to regain seniority came to be known as the “catch-up” principle.

       On 1st April, 1997, the State of Rajasthan introduced the “catch- up” principle. A provisional seniority list of candidates belonging to the Rajasthan Administrative Services was issued on 26th June, 2000, on the basis of the Notification dated 1st April, 1997. However, it was never given effect to and was ultimately quashed by the Rajasthan High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) Nos.2968 of 2000, 2176 of 2000, 3373 of 2000 and 3385 of 2000.

       The Constitution (Eighty Fifth Amendment) Act, 2001 removed the provision relating to the “catch-up” principle with retrospective effect.

       On 11th November, 2002, the interim order in M. Nagaraj regarding implementation of Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution was clarified and it was indicated that if certain candidates from reserved category were entitled to promotion in terms of the provisions of Article 16(4-A), they would be promoted. The order also provided that no person was to be reverted from their existing placement or standing in the seniority list.

       The State of Rajasthan by its Notification dated 28th December, 2002, withdrew the “catch-up” principle. It was also indicated that persons who had already been promoted vide Notification dated 1st April, 1997, were not to be reverted.

       In M. Nagaraj’s case the validity of Articles 16(4-A), 16(4-B) and the amendment to Article 335 of the Constitution were upheld, but certain conditions were imposed regarding reservation in promotion and accelerated promotions.

       On 24th June, 2008, a seniority list was drawn up without considering the “catch-up” principle, which also gave effect to the Notification dated 25th April, 2008.

       This notification and the seniority list drawn up consequent thereto were challenged in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8104 of 2008.

       On 4th March, 2009, a seniority list was prepared, but the same was quashed by the learned Single Judge. The Notifications dated 28th December, 2002 and 23rd April, 2008, were challenged before the High Court by several candidates belonging to the general category and the same were ultimately quashed by the High Court on 5th February, 2010, on the ground that the conditions precedent laid down in M. Nagaraj’s case, had not been followed. The High Court was also of the view that the right which had vested to the candidates by virtue of the Notification dated 1st April, 1997, and had been protected by Notification dated 28th December, 2002, had been illegally taken away vide Notification dated 25th April, 2008.

       On 16th November, 2010, the general category employees filed a Contempt Petition No.914 of 2010 against the Chief Secretary for not implementing the order passed by the High Court on 5th February, 2010.

       The Division Bench of the High Court found the Appellants herein to be guilty of having committed contempt of Court for deliberate and willful violation of the order passed by the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court on 5th February, 2010.

       Finding of the Court:

       There was no willful or deliberate intention to defy the Court. Authorities cannot be held guilty of contempt.

       Result: Appeal allowed.