Contempt petition against person discharging duties of Chancellor.

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 1st 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. Decree 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-University published 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 item the Superintendent in the pay scale 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-Chancellors 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-I 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 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 far as possible only eligible women should be 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 8-12-1988 is only to distort th