The main legal point established in the judgment is that in contempt proceedings, the relevant order's ambit must be looked into, not the right or entitlement of a party to the order that be otherwise desires.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjib Banerjee, CJ.

(Prayer: Petitions filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondents for wilfully disobeying the common order passed in W.P.Nos.837 and 838 of 2014, dated 24.01.2017.)

The petitioners complain of the wilful and deliberate violation of an order of January 24, 2017, passed in a batch of writ appeals headed by W.A.No.1126 of 2015.

2. The matter pertains to the entitlement of teachers in government-aided schools and whether such teachers could continue in service and be entitled to receive salaries without passing the Teacher Eligibility Test (for short, ‘TET’) after the issuance of Government order no.181 dated November 15, 2011. The batch of appeals was disposed of with the following operative order at paragraph 42 of the judgment delivered on January 24, 2017:

42. Accordingly, to meet the ends of justice, the writ appeals and the writ petitions are disposed with the following directions :

(i) The Teachers herein, who have been appointed subsequent to the issuance of the Government Order, are granted one opportunity to appear for the Teacher Eligibility Test to be conducted by the Teachers Recruitment Board and in the event of their passing in the Teacher Eligibility Test, their appointments shall be approved else, they have no other option but to quit the service/ousted from service;

(ii) Till the results are published, the Government shall pay the salary to the Teachers, who are in service of the aided institutions, for the services rendered by them and in the cases where salary was not paid the same shall be paid along with arrears, if any, forthwith;

(iii) Learned Advocate General submitted that salary has been paid to most of the Teachers and only a few were not paid, for want of particulars. In such a case, the Teachers whose salary have not been paid for want of particulars, they shall furnish the requisite particulars immediately, so to enable the Government pay the salary immediately;

(iv) Insofar as W.P.No.7593 of 2015 is concerned, though the writ petitioner has qualified with a pass in Teacher Eligibility Test during 2013, she has not been paid the difference of salary from the date of appointment, till the date of passing of the Teacher Eligibility Test. In view of the discussions aforesaid, the Government is directed to pay the difference of salary within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and

(v) The Teachers Recruitment Board is directed to take note of the above observations and to issue notification for conducting Teacher Eligibility Test on or before the end of February 2017, indicating the date of exam to be either in the last week of March 2017 or in the first week of April 2017.”

3. It will be evident from clause(i) of paragraph 42 of the judgment that for those teachers appointed subsequent to the issuance of the government order of November 15, 2011, they were to be entitled to an opportunity to appear for the TET and if they passed the same, their appointments would stand approved; or else, they would have to quit or be ousted from service. The first clause of the said operative part may reasonably be read and understood to imply that all teachers who were appointed in government-aided schools and who had not obtained TET qualification but whose appointments were made after the government order of November 15, 2011 was published were to be entitled to appear at the next TET and, if they qualified, their appointments would stand approved or else, they would have to go out.

4. It is not in dispute that petitioner K.S.Balaji cleared the next TET. However, petitioner N.P.Sudha not only did not clear the next TET but she has not even cleared any subsequent TET.

5. K.S.Balaji claims that in terms of the order of January 24, 2017, his appointment was not only to be approved, but he would be entitled to the salary at the appropriate rate from the date of his appointment. It appears that some time in 2013, both K.S.Balaj