Deliberate disobedience of court orders and fixing guidelines contrary to court's directions constitutes contempt of court.

P. Shanmugam, J.

1. Petitioners in O.P.No. 11081/90 have filed the above C.C.C. contending wilful disobedience to the directions issued in the judgment dated 21-11-1994 and praying to punish the respondent under S.12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

2. FACTS: The petitioners were directly recruited in the cadre of Assistant Sales Tax Officers (ASTO) in the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Subordinate Service (hereinafter referred to as the Service) on 30.8.1976 and 12.2.1977 respectively. As per R.2(a) of the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Subordinate Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) which came into force on 11.10.1962 appointment to the Service shall be made by recruitment by transfer and direct recruitment in the ratio of 3:1.

3. In July, 1981 when Government of Kerala issued G.O.(Rt) Nb.451/81/TD dated 20.7.1981 directing the Board of Revenue to refix the inter se seniority of transfer promotees and direct recruits giving notional seniority to three transfer promotees below one direct recruitee, O.P.No.5967/1981 was tiled by the petitioners with others challenging the said G.O. The Government sought to sustain the said order inter alia stating that there was breakdown of the quota rule. This Court while holding in the judgment dated 29.6.1982 (Annexure-1) that the Government did not attempt for direct recruitment for a long number of years and in their place the transfer appointees could not claim the right to hold permanently, further stated that the promotees have to be pushed down in the seniority list and they will have to find their place consistent with the quota rule (vide para 13 of the judgment). The Court directed the Government and the Board of Revenue to fix inter se seniority in the manner directed in the judgment. The appeals, W. A.Nos.557, 517 & 516 of 1982 filed by the State Government and other two promotees were dismissed by the Division Bench by common judgment dated 31.10.1983 (Annexure-II). The Division Bench held that assignment of dates must necessarily be in accordance with ratio and persons appointed in excess of the respective quota must step down in order that those rightly appointed in accordance with the quota are assigned their rightful place. The Government was directed to prepare a proper seniority list within six months and further directed not to take into account any other inconsistent orders. When the Civil Appeals filed against these orders were pending in the Supreme Court, the Government amended the rules by adding R.2(c) postponing the giving effect to the quota R.2(b) stating that the rule which originally came into effect from 11.10.1962 shall be deemed to have come into force only on 1.4.1974 (Annexure - III). In effect the Government attempted to protect all the promotions made contrary to the quota rule from 1962 to 1974; that too after the specific directions issued by this Court in the O.P. and in the writ Appeals. The petitioners filed W.P. No. 15495-96 of 1984 against this amendment before the Supreme Court. The Civil Appeals filed against W.A. Nos.557/82 etc. were allowed with the direction to dispose of the matter in accordance with the principles laid down in Direct Recruitment Clays II Engg. Officer's Assocn. v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1996 SC 1607), herein after referred to as D.R.E.O.A's case. W.P. No. 15495-96 of 1984 filed by the petitioners was, dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to move the High Court.

4. In the meanwhile another batch of A.S.T.Os. filed O.P.No.7280/89 etc. challenging the provisional seniority list dated 3.1.1989 for the period 1,4.1981 to 31.3.1987 which gave seniority to the temporarily promoted transferees ignoring the claim of regularly promoted direct recruits. The learned Judge in his judgment dated 4.3.1991 (Annexure-IV) after holding that promotees can claim only if their appointments were effected following the rules applicable to substantive appointment and persons who had been prom