Back
2020 Supreme(SC) 64
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Uday Umesh Lalit, Indira Banerjee, M.R. Shah, JJ.
BAJRANG LAL SHARMA – PETITIONER
VERSUS
C.K. MATHEW AND ORS – ALLEGED CONTEMNORS/ RESPONDENTS
CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL)Nos.453-454 OF 2012 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2504-2505 OF 2012
Decided On : 23-01-2020
For the Petitioner(s):M.L. Lahoty, Lal Pratap Singh, Shobhit Tiwari, Umesh Pratap Singh, Anchit Sripat, R. C. Kohli, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Manish Singhvi, D.K. Devesh, Sandeep Jha, Shailja Nanda Mishra, Arpit Parkash, Milind Kumar, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINT
Issues like challenge to a government notification and a commission’s report can only be raised and decided in substantive writ petitions and not contempt petition.
Headnote:
(a) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 12 - Direction of High Court in view of M. Nagraj - State appointing a Commission for quantifying data for reservation - State issuing notification in terms of Commission’s report - High Court finding the notification not in complete compliance of its directions - Challenge to the notification and the Commission’s report challenged before High court - Still pending - Held such issues have to be challenged and decided in substantive writ petitions - Not under contempt jurisdiction. (Para 16)
(b) Service law - Reservation - Quantification of data of backwardness - Scope of M. Nagraj - Jarnail Singh holding direction in M. Nagraj for collection data in respect of SC/ST not valid. (Para 17)
Facts of the case:
These Contempt Petitions seek to highlight non-compliance of directions issued by this Court in its Judgments dated 07.12.2010 in Suraj Bhan Meena v. State of Rajasthan, (2011) 1 SCC 467 and 29.08.2012 in Salauddin Ahmed v. Samta Andolan, (2012) 10 SCC 235 and seek initiation of contempt proceedings against the alleged contemnors/ respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The issues raised cannot be decided in contempt jurisdiction.
Result: Contempt petitions closed.
JUDGMENT
Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
1. These Contempt Petitions seek to highlight non-compliance of directions issued by this Court in its Judgments dated 07.12.2010 in Suraj Bhan Meena and another vs. State of Rajasthan and others, (2011) 1 SCC 467 and 29.08.2012 in Salauddin Ahmed and another vs. Samta Andolan, (2012) 10 SCC 235 and seek initiation of contempt proceedings against the alleged contemnors/respondents.
2. The Contempt Petitioner, a Rajasthan Administrative Officer of 1982 batch, had preferred DB Civil Writ Petition No.8104 of 2008 before the High Court [High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur] for following reliefs:-
(i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the notification dated 25.04.2008.
(ii) By further appropriate writ order or direction the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct respondents to strictly adhere to the “catch-up rule” and revise the seniority of all the petitioners in comparison to SC/ST candidates after giving the benefit of regaining of the seniority by the general category candidates as envisaged by the circular dated 01.04.1997 and provisional seniority list dated 26.06.2000.
(iii) By further appropriate writ order or direction the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to declare the circular dated 20.10.2000 unconstitutional and illegal as the same is not in accordance with the theory of compartmentalization.
(iv) By further appropriate writ order or direction the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to further direct respondents to revise the seniority list since 1982 as the benefit of seniority given to the reserved category candidates before 1995 in accordance with the Rule 33 of RAS Rules, 1954 is illegal.
(v) By further appropriate writ order or direction the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to restrain the respondents to provide consequential seniority of SC/ST candidates as the Rules were not framed in pursuance of Article 16(4-A). In alternative if Rule 33 talks about giving benefit of consequential seniority then that rule be declared unconstitutional to the extent it provides consequential seniority to SC/ST employees.
(vi) By further writ, order or direction the respondents be directed to strictly adhere to post based roster system as envisaged by R.K. Sabharwal’s case and respondents be further directed to bifurcate 53 seats occurring in 2008 because of the selection to IAS post in their respective years of vacancies for the sake of holding year wise DPCs for those years.
(vii) By further writ, order or direction the respondents be restrained to provide the benefit of reservation in promotion with consequential seniority unless and until they establish the existence of three compelling reasons as enunciated in the judgment of M. Nagraj.
(viii) By further writ, order or direction the respondents be directed to revise the seniority of all the petitioners and they should be given the benefit of their seniority in pursuance of the “catch-up rule”.
(ix) By further writ, order or direction the respondents be restrained to make any selection for IAS cadre through promotion till disposal of this writ petition.
3. The High Court by its judgment and order dated 05.02.2010 [Bajrang Lal Sharma vs. State of Rajasthan, WP (C)No.8104 of 2008 (Raj) and other connected matters] quashed the notifications dated 25.04.2008 and 28.12.2002 and all consequential actions. The challenge to the judgment of the High Court was considered by this Court and by its decision in Suraj Bhan the view taken by the High Court was affirmed. The factual background was considered by this Court as under:-
“4. All the writ petitioners, as also the petitioners in SLP (C) No. 6385 of 2010, are members of the Rajasthan Administrative Service and are governed by the Rajasthan Administrative Service Rules, 1954. The writ petitioners in their respective writ petitions challenged the Notif
