ORDER :

1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of the order dated 21.03.2018 passed in Contempt Petition No.170/00057/2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short ‘the CAT’) as per Annexure-A and also seeking indulgence of this Court to initiate contempt proceedings as per Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

2. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. We have carefully perused the entire material on record. Some undisputed facts arising out of the records are that, the petitioner has approached the CAT by way of Original Application No.170/00230/2016 and vide orders dated 01.02.2017 after considering the merits of the case and after hearing both the parties, the CAT has directed the respondents while allowing the said O.A. in the following manner.

“We hold that the applicant is entitled to the benefit offered by the fourth Proviso to Regulation 5(2). The respondents are directed to consider the applicant’s representations and decide any pending issues including the question of the applicant’s position in the seniority list of KAS officers and his claim to be considered for appointment to the IAS within three months of receiving a copy of our order. We make it clear that these issues will be decided in accordance with the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, and other relevant rules, and based on the merits of the case.”

(emphasis supplied)

3. Being aggrieved by the said directions of the CAT, the respondents Union of India approached this Court by way of writ petition in W.P.No.11337/2017 (S-CAT) and vide order dated 23.03.2017 this Court almost reiterating the directions issued by the CAT find no reasons to interfere. Hence, the writ petition was dismissed. Therefore, in the letter and spirit the respondents are directed to implement the order of the CAT as contained at paragraph 15.

4. As the respondents have not implemented the said order, the petitioner has approached the CAT by way of contempt proceedings in No.170/00057/2017. Vide orders dated 21.03.2018, the CAT has closed the contempt proceedings on the ground that the order of the CAT dated 01.02.2017 in O.A.No.170/00230/2016 has been complied with. However, at paragraph 9, the CAT has also made an observation that the contempt petitioner if is not satisfied with the consideration order, he can approach the competent authority for agitating the same.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued before the Court that the contempt Court has not specifically looked into the documents produced before the Court by the respondents showing compliance of the order of the CAT. It is contended that the respondents have not considered the pending issues with reference to the applicant’s position in the seniority list of KAS officers and his claim to be considered for appointment to the IAS by properly considering the applicant’s representation and passing an appropriate order. To that extent, the respondents have not produced any order passed by the respondents considering the seniority of the applicant in accordance with 4th proviso to Regulation 5(2) of the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955. Therefore, he contend before the Court that the contempt proceedings should not have been dropped as the respondents have not produced materials to show that in what manner the issue with reference to the seniority and applicant’s position has been considered by the respondents.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents strenuously submitted that, respondent No.2 has filed objections to the contempt proceedings by way of compliance report. In the said compliance report at paragraph 4, it is categorically stated that the name of the applicant was included in the zone of consideration in terms of 4th proviso to Regulation 5(2) of the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 and in the proposal dated 12.09.2017