Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : UPENDRA LAL WAGHRAY
G.Krishnarn Raju - Appellant
Versus
K.A.Parvathir - Respondent
Decided On : 04-16-91
CONTEMPT OF COURT - [SECTION 12(4) OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971] - APPOINTMENT - [RULE 2 OF THE GENERAL AND SUBORDINATE SERVICE RULES] - TEMPORARY APPOINTMENT - [RULE 10(A)(1) OF THE GENERAL AND SUBORDINATE SERVICE RULES] - INCHARGE VICE-CHANCELLOR - [STATUTE I OF THE STATUTES, SRI PADMAVATHI MAHILA VISWAVIDYALAYAM ACT, 1983 (ANDHRA PRADESH ACT NO. 16 OF 1983)] - LIMITATION - [SECTION 20 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971] - APPOINTMENT OF SUPERINTENDENT IN SRI PADMAVATHI MAHILA VISWAVIDYALAYAM, TIRUPATI - SOLE PETITIONER SELECTED FOR THE POST BUT APPOINTMENT DENIED ON THE GROUND OF BEING A MALE CANDIDATE - WRIT PETITION FILED AND JUDGMENT DELIVERED DIRECTING THE UNIVERSITY TO APPOINT THE PETITIONER IGNORING THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT HE WAS A MALE CANDIDATE - JUDGMENT NOT COMPLIED WITH - CONTEMPT CASE FILED - INCHARGE VICE-CHANCELLOR APPOINTED THE PETITIONER TEMPORARILY - APPOINTMENT ORDER CHALLENGED IN THE CONTEMPT CASE - HELD, THE INCHARGE VICE-CHANCELLOR HAD THE POWER TO EXERCISE ALL THE POWERS OF THE VICE-CHANCELLOR AND THE APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONER WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT - THE RESPONDENTS WERE GUILTY OF CIVIL CONTEMPT BY DELIBERATELY DISOBEYING THE ORDER OF THE COURT - SENTENCE OF FINE AND SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT IMPOSED ON THE RESPONDENTS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a male candidate, was selected for the post of Superintendent in Sri Padmavathi Mahila Viswavidyalayam, Tirupati, but was denied the appointment solely on the ground of being a male candidate. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the denial of appointment, and the court directed the University to appoint the petitioner ignoring the circumstance that he was a male candidate. The judgment was not complied with, and the petitioner filed a contempt case. The in-charge Vice-Chancellor appointed the petitioner temporarily, but the appointment order was challenged in the contempt case.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the in-charge Vice-Chancellor had the power to exercise all the powers of the Vice-Chancellor and the appointment of the petitioner was in violation of the judgment of the court. The court further held that the respondents were guilty of civil contempt by deliberately disobeying the order of the court.
Issues: 1. Whether the in-charge Vice-Chancellor had the power to exercise all the powers of the Vice-Chancellor? 2. Whether the appointment of the petitioner was in violation of the judgment of the court? 3. Whether the respondents were guilty of civil contempt by deliberately disobeying the order of the court?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the in-charge Vice-Chancellor had the power to exercise all the powers of the Vice-Chancellor based on the following: a. The statutory provision under which the in-charge Vice-Chancellor was appointed conferred power on her to exercise all the powers of the Vice-Chancellor. b. The language of the provision and the G.O. appointing her indicated that the appointment was under a statutory provision and the appointee shall exercise the powers, perform the functions and discharge the duties of a Vice-Chancellor until a new Vice Chancellor assumes office. c. There were no words of restriction either under the Act, the Statute or the G.O., and the appointee had to perform the functions which would include statutory functions. 2. The court held that the appointment of the petitioner was in violation of the judgment of the court based on the following: a. The court had directed the University to appoint the petitioner ignoring the circumstance that he was a male candidate. b. The in-charge Vice-Chancellor had appointed the petitioner temporarily, which was not authorized by the rules of the University and was contrary to the practice in other appointments. c. The in-charge Vice-Chancellor had disabled the petitioner from joining the post by adding a couple of sentences in the proceedings issued for appointment to the effect that “unless the petitioner joined duty on or before. . . . . . . . . . . . the appointment will be cancelled.” 3. The court held that the respondents were guilty of civil contempt by deliberately disobeying the order of the court based on the following: a. The respondents had deliberately obstructed the course of justice and wilfully disobeyed the judgment of the court in the writ petition. b. The disobedience continued even till the date of the judgment in the contempt case and a defiant attitude was adopted by the respondents.
Final Decision: The court sentenced the respondents to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and undergo simple imprisonment for a term of two months for the first respondent and one month for the second respondent. The respondents were also directed to pay the costs of the proceedings assessed at Rs. 1,000/-.
( 1 ) THE is an application by the sole petitioner in the writ petition for taking action under the Contempt of Courts Act, for deliberately violating the order of this court dated 29-11-1989 in W. P. No. 18475/1988. The sole respondent in the writ petition is Sri Padmavathi Mahila Viswavidyalayam, Tirupati, represented by its Registrar. It is useful to extract the entire judgment and also to notice that it has become final as no appeal or review petition has been filed :"the sole petitioner seeks a direction in the nature of mandamus against the Ist respondent-University to appoint him as a Superintendent in its service from the date he was selected. The 2nd respondent who is a lady working in some other Institution, has been appointed on deputation as superintendent. The petitioner holds a M. Com. Degree from S. V University and a Post-graduation Diploma in Public Administration. He has passed both Typewriting and Shorthand (Higher Grade-English) and has been working in Sri Venkateswara University as an U. D. Steno since 1977. The 1st respondent-Universitypublished an advertisement dated 12-12-1986 in the newspapers inviting applications from suitable candidates for various posts. Item No. 4 of the advertisement is regarding the; Superintendent in the pay scale of Rs. 700-1200. The number of vacancies indicated in the advertisement are four. As the petitioner fulfilled the criteria mentioned in the advertisement, he applied through proper channel. The petitioner and another candidate were called for Interview which was held on 28-3- 1987 by the Selection Committee consisting of the Registrar, Vice-Chancellor s nominee and the Principal of the S. P. Mahila University College constituted by the Vice Chancellor in accordance with the statutory provisions. As the petitioner did not hear anything thereafter, he made representations which are of no avail. Thereafter, he has filed this writ petition. A reference is made to the Ministerial Service Rules of the University which are effective from 18-3-1986 and are framed under its statutory powers i. e. prior to the notification. According to the said Rules, the post of a Superintendent is classified under category-1 and the method of recruitment includes by transfer from category of Stenographer or by direct recruitment. It also contemplates preparation of a list of approved candidates. There is no statutory provision disqualifying a male from being appointed to the said post. According to the petitioner he has not been appointed merely on the ground of being a male candidate relying upon some instructions of the Government which cannot be treated as valid. He has further pointed out that several men are working in the respondent-University and. in fact, twenty men have been appointed after the interview of the petitioner. In the counter-affidavit filed by the person who was then holding the post of Registrar it is stated that a policy decision was taken that as tar as possible only eligible women should he appointed. It is also pointed out that the advertisement contains a clause that women will be preferred. Reference is made to some Government instructions which cannot be given a go-by. It is not disputed that the Selection Committee had selected the petitioner but it is contended that mere selection cannot confer a right on the petitioner. The fact of representation made by the petitioner within six months after the interview and that no reply was given to the petitioner is not disputed. The petitioner has filed a reply. According to him, the counter-affidavit contains inaccuracies. According to him, in response to the advertisement 81 persons had applied for the post of Superintendent and after screening, the University had called for interview only three persons but only two including the petitioner had appeared for the interview and the petitioner was selected. It is also pointed out that the reference to the meeting of the Executive Council dated 8-12-1
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
