Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.
Dr.Shashi Ranjan
Versus
State Of Bihar
Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 530 of 1990 ;
Decided On : MARCH 19, 1996
CONTEMPT OF COURT - JURISDICTION - HIGH COURT - SUBORDINATE COURT - ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, SECTION 10 - INTERPRETATION - POWER OF HIGH COURT TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT OF SUBORDINATE COURTS - EXTENT AND SCOPE OF JURISDICTION - COURT OF RECORD - MEANING AND POWERS - JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT UNDER ARTICLE 215 NOT RESTRICTED BY CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT OR BIHAR ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT - JURISDICTION TO DEAL WITH CONTEMPT MATTERS DESPITE DISSOLUTION OF TRIBUNAL PRIOR TO INSTITUTION OF PROCEEDING - PUBLIC INTEREST - NECESSITY TO SUSTAIN CONFIDENCE IN ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE - TEMPORARY APPOINTMENT TO FILL VACANT POST IN PUBLIC INTEREST - NO DELIBERATE DEFIANCE OF TRIBUNAL'S ORDER - NO CONTEMPT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a service case before the Bihar Administrative Tribunal challenging his transfer and seeking various reliefs, including a direction to the respondents not to fill up the post of Associate Professor of Pathology at Darbhanga Medical College. The Tribunal passed an interim order restraining the respondents from filling up the post till the disposal of the case. Subsequently, the Tribunal was dissolved. The respondents, despite the interim order, appointed Dr. Ravi Nandan Prasad Sinha to the post of Associate Professor of Pathology. The petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging that the respondents had violated the Tribunal's order.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Tribunal was a Court subordinate to the High Court and that the High Court had jurisdiction to deal with the contempt matter despite the dissolution of the Tribunal. The Court further held that the appointment of Dr. Sinha was made as a temporary measure in order to serve a public purpose, namely, imparting education to the students, and that it was not done in deliberate defiance of the Tribunal's order. Therefore, the Court held that the respondents' actions did not amount to civil contempt.
Issues: 1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to deal with contempt matters despite the dissolution of the Tribunal prior to the institution of the proceeding before the Court? 2. Whether the appointment of Dr. Sinha amounted to civil contempt?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 215 of the Constitution of India is an expansive jurisdiction and is not restricted by the Contempt of Courts Act or the Bihar Administrative Tribunals Act. 2. The appointment of Dr. Sinha was made as a temporary measure in order to serve a public purpose and was not done in deliberate defiance of the Tribunal's order.
Final Decision: The High Court discharged the rule and disposed of the contempt proceeding. The Court directed that if the petitioner succeeds in the service case and obtains an order posting him to the post of Associate Professor of Pathology, the respondents must immediately make the post available to him.
1. ORDER :-
This contempt application has been filed on 3rd July, 1990 on which notice was issued to the Secretary. Department of health, Government of Bihar (respondent No. 1) and the Joint Secretary, of the said department (respondent No. 2) to show cause as to why a proceeding for contempt be not initiated against them for violation of order dated 2-5-1988 passed in Service Case No. 367 of 1987 by the Bihar Administrative Tribunal.
2 The facts which are relevant for the purpose of the present proceeding are noted below :
The petitioner filed a service case being Service Case No. 367 of 1987 before the then existing Bihar Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter-referred to as the said Tribunal) for commanding the respondents to decide the petitioners seniority and not to fill up the post of Assistant or Associate Professor, Pathology, Darbhanga Medical College and further to quash the order of the State Government transferring the petitioner from Darbhanga Medical College to Patliputra Medical College, Dhanbad on the basis of the notification dated 3rd September, 1987, a copy of which is at Annexure 1 to this writ petition.
3. The petitioners case is that the said Tribunal after hearing the matter on the stay petition filed by the petitioner passed an order on 18th December, 1987 staying the order of transfer passed against the petitioner pending final hearing of the case i.e. Service Case No. 367 of 1987. Thereafter the petitioner further made another prayer for passing an interim order restraining the respondents from ailing up the post of Associate Professor, Pathology in Darbhanga Medical College. In connection with the hearing of the said stay petition, on 3rd May, 1988 the Tribunal passed an order, the material portion of which is set out below :-
"Heard Mr. A. B. Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Jawahardhari Singh, learned counsel for the respondents in the final hearing of the stay matter. It appears that on 18-12-87 an order was passed staying Annexure 1 so far as the petitioner is concerned. In the order dated 10-2-1988 the order was "it is expected that the aforesaid vacant post in Darbhanga Medical College will not be filled up till the stay matter is finally heard". Mr. Jawahardhari Singh states that he has not received any instruction to state before this Court as to whether any post of Associate Professor of Pathology is lying vacant in the Darbhanga Medical College or has already been filled up. In the circumstances we direct that if the post has not been filled up till today it will not be filled up till the disposal of this case, but in the meantime i.e. 10-2-88 it has already been tilled up then it will be subject to the result of this case."
4. The petitioners positive case is that the post of Associate Professor of Pathology in Darbhanga Medical College was vacant on the date of passing of the said order dated 3rd May, 1988 and under the said order the respondents were not to fill up the said post till the disposal of the case before the said Tribunal.
5. The act of contempt which is alleged in this petition is that subsequently by an order dated 19th May, 1990 the post of Associate Professor of Pathology in Darbhanga Medical College was sought to be filled up by appointing one Dr. Ravi Nandan Prasad Sinha (respondent No. 4) whereby the contemners have acted in gross disobedience to and violation of the order dated 3rd May, 1988.
6. The petitioner has of course stated in the petition that the said Tribunal is not functioning at the present moment and the same was dissolved but that does not authorise the contenders herein to flout the order of the Tribunal as they have allegedly done.
7. From a perusal of the order dated 19th May, 1990 it is clear that the respondent No. 4 has been appointed to the post of Associate Professor of Pathology, in Darbhanga Medical College till the disposal of Service Case No. 367 of 1987. It has also been stated in the said order that the afore
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
