Contempt proceedings are not maintainable to challenge the merits of an administrative order passed in compliance with a court's direction to consider a representation; the proper remedy is to challenge the adverse order in appropriate legal proceedings.

“C.R.”

JUDGMENT

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioner, who is the 1^st respondent in W.A.No.2118 of 2025, has filed this contempt case, invoking the provisions under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India, alleging wilful disobedience of the direction contained in the judgment dated 14.01.2026 of this Court in that writ appeal, whereby the respondent herein, who is holding the post of Director of General Education, was directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P16 revision petition filed by the petitioner herein, strictly in accordance with law, with notice to both sides, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of that judgment.

2. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that while passing Annexure A2 order dated 15.03.2026, the respondent herein failed to comply with the direction contained in Annexure A1 judgment, in letter and spirit, and, therefore, the petitioner can invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act and Article 215 of the Constitution of India.

4. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that pursuant to the direction contained in Annexure A1 judgment, the respondent has already passed Annexure A2 order. If the petitioner is feeling aggrieved by that order, she has to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings.

5. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and also the submissions made at the Bar, we notice that while dismissing W.A.No.2118 of 2025 filed by the 5^th respondent in W.P.(C)No.23529 of 2025, declining interference on the judgment dated 27.06.2025 of the learned Single Judge in that writ petition, this Court directed the respondent herein (3^rd respondent in the writ appeal) to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P16 revision petition filed by the petitioner herein, strictly in accordance with law, with notice to both sides, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of that judgment.

6. In this contempt case, the case of the petitioner is that Annexure A2 order dated 15.03.2026 of the respondent herein, who is holding the post of Director of General Education, is not in accordance with law, as ordered by this Court in Annexure A1 judgment. Instead of considering the grievance of the petitioner, the respondent herein passed Annexure A2 order after considering the contention of the appellant in W.A.No.2118 of 2025 (who is the rival claimant for the post of Headmistress of Thillenkeri U.P. School, Kannur District). In the contempt case, it is alleged that the respondent herein issued Annexure A2 order as per the dictation of somebody else and not in accordance with law, as directed by this Court in Annexure A1 judgment. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the conduct of the respondent amounts to civil contempt, punishable under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

7. In Ground C of the memorandum of contempt case, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Ram Niranjan Roy v. State of Bihar [(2014) 12 SCC 11], it is contended that the High Court being a Court of record under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, the power of this Court to deal with the contempt of itself is an inherent power, and the jurisdiction vested in this Court is a special one and not derived from any other statute, but derived only from Article 215 of the Constitution.

8. As per Article 215 of the Constitution of India, every High Court shall be a Court of record and shall have all the powers of such a Court including the power to punish for contempt of itself. Clause (a) of Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Act No.70 of 1971) defines ‘contempt of court