Back
2022 Supreme(Chh) 104
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Arup Kumar Goswami, Gautam Chourdiya, JJ.
Omprakash Shahare S/o Dagoji Shahare – Appellant
Versus
K.R. Mandavi Principal & Anr. – Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 363 of 2021
Decided On : 02-03-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Om Prakash Sahare, in person.
Under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, an appeal can be filed only by the contemnor who had been punished for contempt of the Court.
Headnote:
Contempt - Writ Petition - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 19(1)
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a writ petition against an order terminating his services as a Guest Faculty. The appellant also filed a contempt case alleging violation of the order. The contempt case was disposed of, reserving the right of the appellant to challenge the termination order. The appellant's review petition seeking review of the contempt case order was rejected, leading to the filing of the present writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the present appeal against the order dated 06.07.2021 was not maintainable as the appellant himself prayed for disposal of the writ petition with a liberty of permitting him to file a duly constituted writ appeal. The court dismissed the appeal but reserved the liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 01.05.2018.
Issues: The issues involved the termination of the appellant's services as a Guest Faculty, the contempt case alleging violation of the order, and the review petition seeking review of the contempt case order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court observed that under Section 19(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, an appeal can be filed only by the contemnor who had been punished for contempt of the Court. The court also noted that in a contempt proceeding, there are only two parties, namely, the Court and the contemnor, and this might be one of the reasons which weighed with the legislature in not conferring any right of appeal on the petitioner for contempt.
Final Decision: The present appeal was dismissed, but the appellant was reserved the liberty to challenge the order dated 01.05.2018, if so advised.
JUDGMENT :
Arup Kumar Goswami, J.
Heard Mr. Om Prakash Sahare, the appellant in person.
2. We also thought that it would be appropriate to request Ms. Fouzia Mirza, learned senior counsel, to assist the appellant in person by addressing the Court.
3. Ms. Mirza has graciously accepted our request.
4. Registry has pointed out that respondents No. 2 and 3, who are not parties to the writ petition, have been arrayed in this appeal. They are needed to be struck-off. Registry will do the needful.
5. This appeal is preferred against an order dated 06.07.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No. 1981 of 2021.
6. The order dated 06.07.2021, reads as follows:
“Mr. Om Prakash Sahare, petitioner, in person.
Petitioner prays for the disposal of the present Writ Petition with a liberty of permitting him to file a duly constituted Writ Appeal in the proper format as prescribed under the High Court Rules.
With the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition stands disposed of.”
It is, however, not indicated in the aforesaid order against which order writ appeal was sought to be preferred.
7. The petitioner filed a writ petition, which was registered as Writ Petition (S) No. 7525 of 2017. The proximate cause for filing the aforesaid writ petition is discernible from the order dated 31.07.2018, which was passed in Writ Petition (S) No. 7525 of 2017 alongwith 3 other cases, namely, Writ Petition (S) Nos. 4938 of 2018, 4946 of 2018 and 4953 of 2018. It will be appropriate that the said order is extracted in its entirety:
“Mr. Rupesh Shrivastava, Mr. Brindavan Tiwari and Mr. Chandradeep Prasad, Advocates for the petitioners.
Mr. Shashank Thakur, Govt. Advocate, Mr. S.S. Rajput, Advocate and Mr. Surendra Dewangan, Advocate for the respective respondents.
Heard.
Admit.
Since Mr. Shashank Thakur, Govt. Advocate accepts notice on behalf of State and Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-UGC, hence payment of PF stands dispensed with.
Let reply be filed within eight weeks.
Also heard on I.A. No. 1 and 4 which are applications for grant of stay in respective writ petitions.
The contention of the petitioners are that they were recruited by the respondents as per norms of the State Govt. on the post of Guest Faculty. The petitioners are discharging their duties from last one year. The respondents now have issued a fresh advertisement, wherein they have also advertised the post in which the petitioners were discharging their duties and thereby, the petitioners would be forced to participate again in the entire selection process for appointment as Guest Faculty and this feature is being maintained by the State continuously for past many years.
The counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners who are the Guest Faculty should not be substituted by another set of Guest Faculty unless the petitioners are disqualified or have been removed from service on dis-satisfactory performance. It was further contended that the respondents may continue with the system unless filled up by regular appointee. Thus, prayed for interim order in this regard.
The State counsel opposing the interim application submits that the nature of appointment is contractual; the respondents/State never forced the petitioners to apply for the post of Guest Faculty and that the State has all the authorities for continuing with the mode of education being imparted through the Guest Faculty system. Therefore prayed for rejection of the application. He relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi & Others, 2006 (4) SCC 1.
Taking into consideration the entire factual matrix of the case, as the petitioners are working as Guest Faculty members since previous academic session and that there being no disqualification or dis-satisfactory performance on the part of the petitioners, they shall be permitted to continue as Guest Faculty for the present academic session also.
It is further order
