Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Shamim Ahmed, J.
Rajalakshmi - Petitioner
Versus
Mr.K.Srinivsan – Respondent
Contempt Petition (MD)No.424 of 2025 In W.P.(MD)No.17522 of 2022
Decided On : 09-04-2025
(A) Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Sections 11 and 12 - Contempt proceedings initiated for non-compliance with court orders - Respondents failed to appoint the petitioner as Lecturer despite eligibility and court directives - Court finds willful disobedience of its orders. (Paras 2, 4, 6, 7)
(B) Compliance with Court Orders - Importance of adhering to judicial directives - Court grants final opportunity for compliance, emphasizing the necessity of timely action. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, eligible for appointment as Lecturer (Physics) for 2018-2019, filed a Writ Petition after the respondents failed to appoint him despite meeting the criteria. The court had previously ordered compliance, which was not followed.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the respondents had willfully disobeyed its orders and granted them a final opportunity to comply, warning of personal appearance if they failed to do so.
Issues: The main issues were whether the respondents had complied with the court's orders and the implications of their non-compliance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the respondents' failure to comply with its orders constituted contempt, emphasizing the importance of adherence to judicial directives.
Result: Contempt proceedings disposed of; respondents discharged from contempt.
ORDER :
Shamim Ahmed, J.
This is a petition seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the Respondent for violation of the order, dated 30.09.2024 passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No.17522 of 2022.
2. Heard Mr.S.Sivaprakash, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned Standing Counsel, on behalf of the 1st Respondent and Mr.F.Deepak, learned Special Government Pleader on behalf of the 2nd Respondent.
2. When the matter was taken up on 07.04.2025, this Court passed the following order :
“When the matter was taken up on 03.03.2025, this Court passed the following order:
2. Mr.S.Sivaprakash, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was eligible for appointment as Lecturer (Physics) in Government Polytechnic Colleges (Engineering/Non-Engineering) for the year 2018-2019, as per the notification dated 07.11.2019. However, the respondents failed to appoint the petitioner to the said post without providing any reasons, despite the petitioner meeting the eligibility criteria as per the Teacher Recruitment Board's rules. Aggrieved over the same, the Petitioner has filed a Writ Petition in W.P.(MD)No.17522 of 2022 and the learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 30.09.2024 allowed the said Writ Petition. For better appreciation, the relevant portion of the order is reproduced below:
“12. In view of the above, the second respondent is directed to consider the petitioner for the appointment of Lecturer (Physics) in the Government Polytechnic Colleges (Engineering/Non-Engineering) for the year 2017-2018, vide notification, dated 17.11.2019, if otherwise eligible as per the rules and regulations of the Teachers Recruitment Board. As per the interim order as well as the final order of this Court, the second respondent is also directed to rework the list of BC category as per the seniority in the selection list within period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, since the petitioner was granted two marks for teaching experience.”
3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that despite the judgment and order passed by this Court dated 30.09.2024 in W.P.(MD)No.17522 of 2022, the Respondents have not complied with the directions of this Court and they have wilfully and deliberately flouting the orders passed by this Court. Thus, the learned counsel submits that the Respondents have committed fraud upon this Court and are in contempt. He also submits that the Respondents may be summoned before this Court and punished for committing contempt by exercising the powers under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 .
4. Upon perusing the judgment and order passed by this Court dated 30.09.2024 in W.P. (MD)No.17522 of 2022 as well as the affidavit filed in support of the contempt petition, which states that the respondents have not complied with the orders of this Court, this Court is of the view that the respondents appear to have wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the order of this Court. Consequently, this Court deems it necessary to initiate proceedings against the respondents for their alleged non-compliance with the said orders.
5. Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned Standing Counsel, for the 1st Respondent and Mr.F.Deepak, learned Special Government Pleader for the 2nd Respondent, request time to ensure compliance with the Court's judgments dated 30.09.2024 in W.P.(MD)No.17522 of 2022. They also assure this Court that whatever order is passed by this Court will be fully complied with and requests four weeks' time to ensure compliance with the said order.
6. In view of the assurance given by Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned Standing Counsel, for the 1st Respondent and Mr.F.Deepak, learned Special Government Pleader for the 2nd Respondent, this Court grants the Respondents a final opportunity to comply with the judgment and order of this Court dated 30.09.2024 in W.P. (MD)No.17522 of 2022, without fail, within four weeks from today. The Respondents are
Court emphasized the necessity of compliance with judicial orders, ruling that willful disobedience constitutes contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Compliance with court orders is mandatory, and failure to adhere can lead to contempt proceedings as ruled in the present case.
Compliance with court orders, once established, mitigates contempt proceedings, reaffirming the importance of procedural respect by public authorities.
Court reaffirmed the necessity of compliance with judicial orders, emphasizing that non-compliance can lead to contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Compliance with court orders is essential, and failure to comply may lead to contempt proceedings; the respondent must ensure the petitioner receives due benefits.
Compliance with court orders is essential; non-compliance leads to contempt, but established compliance results in discharge from contempt proceedings.
Court dismissal of contempt based on compliance with previous orders and procedural rights for further challenges establishes adherence to judicial processes.
Non-compliance with court orders constitutes contempt, but fulfillment of directives leads to discharge from contempt proceedings.
Compliance with court orders is essential, and failure to do so may lead to contempt proceedings, as emphasized by the court's directive for timely disbursement of benefits.
Non-compliance with court orders leads to contempt, but full compliance results in dismissal of such proceedings.
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
