IMPORTANT POINT
Violation of directions of Court due to erroneous perception cannot be taken to be deliberate or contumacious breach.

JUDGMENT :

T.S. THAKUR, J.

1. In this petition under Article 129 of the Constitution of India read with Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 the petitioners allege deliberate violation by the respondents of the judgment and order dated 22nd April, 2010 passed by this Court in N. Suresh Nathan and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2010) 5 SCC 692. The question that fell for consideration therein was whether the practice adopted by the Government of Pondicherry of counting the service of Section Officers/Junior Engineers who have qualified as graduates while in service only from the date they passed the degree or equivalent examination for purposes of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers under Rule 11(1) of the Government of Pondicherry Assistant Engineers (including Deputy Director of Public Works Department) Group ‘B’ (Technical) Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 1965 (for short ‘Recruitment Rules’) was legally sound. Rule 5 of the Recruitment Rules provide for the method of appointment as Assistant Engineer to be by ‘selection’ and reads as:

“5. Whether Selection post or: Selection” Non-Selection Post:

2. Reference may also be made to Rule 11 of the said rules which is as under:

3. This Court on a consideration of the rival submissions urged before it and the decisions of this Court relied upon by the parties in support of their respective submissions held that the practice adopted by the Government of Pondicherry of placing the Junior Engineers qualified as graduates in the order of seniority according to the date on which they passed the degree examination was contrary to Rule 5 of the Recruitment Rules. Having said that this Court held that the directions issued by the High Court directing that the entire service of a person should be counted for purposes of seniority and promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer was also contrary to the provisions of Rule 5 of the Recruitment Rules (supra). The following passage appearing in the judgment of this Court is, in this regard, apposite:

“41. The practice adopted by the Government of Pondicherry in consultation with UPSC of counting the services of Section Officers or Junior Engineers, who qualified as graduates while in service from the date they passed the degree or equivalent examination and placing them in order of seniority accordingly for the purpose of consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer under Clause 1 of Rule 11 of the Recruitment Rules is contrary to Rule 5 of the Recruitment Rules. Similarly, the direction of the High Court in the impugned judgment and order to count the entire service of a person concerned even before acquiring degree in Civil Engineering for the purpose of seniority and promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer under Clause 1 of Rule 11 of the Recruitment Rules is contrary to Rule 5 of the Recruitment Rules.”

4. This Court then proceeded to declare that recruitment to the post of Assistant Engineers was by way of selection meaning thereby that seniority in the cadre of Section Officers/Junior Engineers was not of much significance. Selection for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers was, declared this Court, to be made only on the basis of comparative merit of eligible candidates in which persons found most meritorious were to be selected for appointment. Such a method of selection would, acc