1. High Court directed government officers to appear for contempt proceedings following the vacation of an interim order regarding contractual employment and regular appointments. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 1117
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, K.V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
Commnr. of Intermediate Education – Appellant
VERSUS
Y. Kumar Swamy & Ors. – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 13215 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 5063 of 2014) With Civil Appeal No. 13217 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 10271 of 2014) Civil Appeal No. 13216 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 10272 of 2014)
Decided On : 27-11-2024
Important Points
The court ruled that the personal presence of Government Officers in contempt proceedings should not be casually mandated, emphasizing their duty to perform official responsibilities.
Subject
Administrative Law - Contempt of Court
Headnote
(A) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Personal presence of Government Officers - The High Court directed the personal presence of State Government officers in contempt proceedings, which was found unjustified as they are required to perform official duties in the field. (Paras 6-8)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - The High Court's interim order was vacated as the writ petitioners were not appointed on a regular basis but on a contractual basis, and regular appointments were made thereafter. (Paras 3-4)
Facts of the case:
The appeals challenge the High Court's order directing State Government officers to show cause for contempt, following a writ petition where interim orders were issued for the petitioners' continued service.
Findings of Court:
The High Court's order was quashed as it was not sustainable to require personal presence of officers for contempt proceedings.
Issues: The main issue was the justification for the High Court's contempt notice against State officers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that personal presence of Government Officers should not be directed casually, reaffirming the need for them to perform their official duties.
Result: Appeals allowed.
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - The High Court's interim order was vacated as the writ petitioners were not appointed on a regular basis but on a contractual basis, and regular appointments were made thereafter. (Paras 3-4)
Facts of the case:
The appeals challenge the High Court's order directing State Government officers to show cause for contempt, following a writ petition where interim orders were issued for the petitioners' continued service.
Findings of Court:
The High Court's order was quashed as it was not sustainable to require personal presence of officers for contempt proceedings.
Issues: The main issue was the justification for the High Court's contempt notice against State officers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that personal presence of Government Officers should not be directed casually, reaffirming the need for them to perform their official duties.
Result: Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rajiv Kumar Choudhry , AOR Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR Mr. Dhruv Yadav, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rajiv Kumar Choudhry , AOR Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR Mr. Dhruv Yadav, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Appellants challenged the High Court's direction requiring government officers to be personally present on the first day of contempt proceedings. (Para 2 )
3. The High Court was unjustified in issuing contempt notices and requiring the personal presence of government officers on the first day of proceedings. (Para 6 , 8 )
4. Personal presence of government officers should not be casually directed by courts as they are required to perform official duties on the field. (Para 7 )
5. Appeals allowed; High Court judgment and order directing personal presence of government officers in contempt proceedings quashed and set aside. (Para 9 , 10 )
6. Should courts casually direct the personal presence of government officers in legal proceedings?
No, the personal presence of government officers should not be casually directed by courts, as they are required to be on the field for performing their official duties. (Para 7 )
7. Is it justified for a court to direct the personal presence of government officers on the first day of contempt proceedings?
No, the court held that it is unjustified to issue a notice of contempt and direct government officers to remain personally present on the very first day of the proceedings. (Para 6 , 7 )
JUDGMENT
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeals challenge the judgment and order dated 29.11.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, thereby directing the appellants, who were the various officers of the State Government to remain present in the Court and show cause as to why an action for committing contempt of the Court be not initiated against them.
3. In a writ petition filed by the respondents, interim order(s) came to be passed by the High Court, directing that the writ petitioners shall be continued in service for a period of six weeks from the said date. However, on an application filed by the State, the interim order(s) came to be vacated.
4. The order vacating the interim order(s) specifically notes that the writ petitioners were not appointed on regular basis and that they were appointed on contractual basis. It also notes that subsequently the State had made regular appointments after undertaking a selection process through Public Service Commission.
5. While doing so, the State had also adopted the principle of last come first go with regard to the lecturers, who were already working on contractual basis.
6. In that view of the matter, we do not find that the High Court was justified in issuing notice of contempt and that too directing the officer of the Government to remain personally present on the very first day.
7. This court had reiterated, time and again, that the personal presence of the Government Officers should not be casually directed by the Courts, inasmuch as they are required to be on field for performing their official duties.
8. In that view of the matter, we find that the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is not sustainable.
9. The appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated passed by the High Court dated 29.11.2013 are quashed and set aside.
10. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
