JUDGMENT :

A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.

1. These cases essentially assail the orders dated 4.12.2018 and 2.3.2020 issued by the Chief Engineer (A-2-1), Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam, Lucknow¹ [for short “the Chief Engineer” or “respondents”] pursuant to the judgment of this Court dated 15.11.2018 in Civil Appeal Nos. 11017-11018/2018 [Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam and Others vs. Ajit Singh Patel and Others, (2019) 12 SCC 285]. This Court by the aforesaid judgment, had directed the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam (the respondent corporation) to comply with the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad² [for short “the High Court”] dated 28.11.2017 in a batch of writ petitions (leading case being Writ Appeal No. 37143/2017) and pass a fresh, reasoned order.

2. In pursuance of the aforementioned decision of this Court, the Chief Engineer issued order dated 4.12.2018, thereby reengaging the petitioners and other appointees to their previous place of posting. However, with a caveat that the said appointment was subject to the liberty granted by this Court and that no arrears would be paid by the respondent corporation. The order of the Chief Engineer dated 4.12.2018 is reproduced thus:

“The order dated 11.8.2017 passed by the Chief Engineer (A-2-1) U.P. Jal Nigam Lucknow has been set aside by Hon’ble High Court Allahabad by its order dated 28.11.2017 in W.P. No. A-37143/2017 and Review Application No. 2/2018 is also rejected by Hon’ble High Court in its order dated 25.07.2018. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld [sic] the above order passed by Hon’ble High Court in Civil Appeal No. 11017-11018/2018 titled as U.P. Jal Nigam and Others vs. Ajit Singh and Others.

In the above context you are expected to perform your duty at your previous posting place within 15 days from issuing of this order.

That it is being clarified that the said appointment will be subject to the liberty granted to Nigam by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide judgment dated 15.11.2018 in Civil Appeal No. 11017-11018/2018. The concerning paragraphs are extracted below:

“15. In view of the above, the challenge to the impugned judgment dated 28th November, 2017 and 25th July, 2017 must fail but with a clarification that the competent authority is free to pass a fresh, reasoned order in accordance with law.

16. We may not be understood to have expressed any opinion either way on the merits of the course of action open to the appellants against the respondents including against the other appointees under the same selection process. All questions in that behalf are left open.”³ [extracted in paragraph 14 ibid]

That no Arrears prior to the fresh date of appointment will be granted by Nigam.”

(Emphasis supplied)

3. This order, according to the contempt petitioners, is in the teeth of the decision of this Court dated 15.11.2018 and, therefore, the respondents be proceeded for having committed wilful disobedience of the order of this Court.

4. Thereafter, in terms of the liberty granted by this Court in the aforementioned judgment, the respondent corporation passed a fresh order dated 2.3.2020, annulling the appointment of the petitioners and similarly placed Assistant Engineers. In arriving at the fresh decision, reliance was placed upon the two internal inquiry reports dated 29.5.2017 and 7.7.2017; expert reports - of IIIT Allahabad dated 11.9.2018 and IIT Kanpur dated 15.9.2018; CFSL report dated 11.12.2019 and recommendation made by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) in its final report dated 22.1.2020 received by the respondent corporation on 18.2.2020, to cancel the recruitment process due to corruption involved. The two expert reports given by Assistant Professor at IIT Kanpur and Associate Professor at IIIT Allahabad dated 15.9.2018 and 11.9.2018 respectively, pointed out that the audit trail/checksum and time stamps of the candidates were not made available and therefore, segregation of tainted and untainted candidates was not possible, in absence of primary data. The operative portion