ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. We have heard the learned counsel on either side.

3. These appeals arise from the order of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in Miscellaneous Petition No. 1031 of 1987 arising out of T.A. No. 61 of 1986 (OJC No. 1677 of 1982), dated 3-9-1993. Questioning the inter se seniority of the first respondent and respondents 2 and 3, the former filed the writ petition in the High Court stood transferred to the Tribunal. The Tribunal in its judgment dated 4-5-1987 set aside the gradation lists and directed to redetermine the seniority with consequential directions. The Governor issued the Orissa Medical Education Service (Validation of Gradation List of Junior Teachers) Ordinance, 1988 with retrospective effect which later became Act 17 of 1988, for short the Act, validating the constitution of the Selection Committee by Section 3 which postulates thus:

"3. In Rule 3 of the Recruitment Rules, for clause (g), the following clause shall be substituted, namely:

(g) 'Selection Committee' means the Selection Committee in existing from time to time during the period between 1-12-1960 and 22-9-1973 to select persons for appointment to the Junior Teaching Posts."

Section 4 validates the preparation of gradation lists made by the Selection Committee between the aforestated period and the said list "shall, for all intents and purposes, be deemed to have been validly and effectively prepared as if clause (g) of Rule 3 of the Recruitment Rules as amended by Section 3 were in force at all material times when such gradation lists were prepared". The consequential declaration with non obstante clause was also made in Section 4 thereof. Pursuant thereto the appellants had taken action which the first respondent impugned by filing contempt application. In the contempt application, the first respondent claimed that the appellants have deliberately disobeyed the directions issued by the Tribunal and thereby they committed contempt of the Tribunal under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act. The Tribunal held under the impugned order dated 12-4-1993 that the appellants "have clearly disobeyed the directions issued in its judgment" and accordingly called upon the appellants to appear before the Tribunal for receiving the punishment. Thus, these appeals by special leave.

4. Shri Sitaramaiah, learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent contended that Rule 8(2)(iii) in fact applies and Rule 8(2)(ii) has no application; the amendment under the Act would be applicable to the gradation lists prepared under Rule 8(2)(ii) and it does not affect the gradation lists to be prepared in accordance with Rule 8(2)(iii) as directed by the Tribunal in paragraphs 19 and 22 of the operative portion of the original judgment. Therefore, the Act has no application and thereby the appellants have deliberately disobeyed the orders of the Tribunal. We do not propose to go into the merits of the contention. Suffice what needs to be seen is that when an Act has been made validating the preparation of the seniority list between the aforestated periods by the selection committee, whether the appellants are justified in placing reliance thereon and whether the action taken in furtherance thereof constitutes deliberate disobedience of the orders of the Tribunal. When the Act has been made validating the gradation lists and action was taken in furtherance thereof, we are of the considered opinion that the appellants have not disobeyed the orders of the Tribunal, much less deliberately, constituting contempt of the Court. Whether the action taken is correct or is not in accordance with the law is kept open and it is for the parties to have it determined in accordance with the law made under the Act and the rules. The appellants are right in relying on the law altered under the Act and to act on it which does not constitute wilful or deliberate disobedience of the order constituting civil contempt. There is no necessity for us to expres