SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 45719

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, J
Dhineshkumar – Appellant
Versus
Natarajan – Respondent
WP(MD) No.30427 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M.Jerin Mathew
For the Respondents: D.Jebaraj

Compliance with a court direction to consider a candidate for recruitment process, where the candidate fails to qualify on merit, precludes a finding of willful disobedience in contempt proceedings.

Headnote:The petitioner sought to initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging wilful disobedience of a court order dated 24.11.2025 which directed the consideration of the petitioner for appointment. The respondents contended that the petitioner was allowed to participate in the entire recruitment process, including examinations and interviews, but failed to qualify within the zone of consideration. The core issue was whether the respondents deliberately disobeyed the court's earlier directions. The court found that the respondents had complied with the order, as the petitioner was provided full opportunity to compete. It was held that since the compliant recruitment process was completed and the petitioner failed to qualify, no contempt was made out. The contempt petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the selection process in appropriate proceedings.

Table of Content
1. compliance with court order in recruitment process bars contempt actions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)

O R D E R

This contempt petition has been filed alleging violation of the order of this Court dated 24.11.2025 in WP(MD) No.30427 of 2025. By the said order, this Court direted the respondents to call the petitioner for interview and in case, if he passed within the zone of consideration, to consider his case for appointmnet for the vacancies notified by the respondents.

2. In response to the notice issued by this Court, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in terms of the order passed by this Court, the petitioner was allowed to participate in the recruitment process including written examination, interview, skill test etc. along with all other eligible candidates and he could not come up within the zone of consideration. Therefore, he was not appointed. He further submitted that in response to the legal notice issued by the petitioner through his counsel, a detailed reply has been furnished through letter dated 31.03.2026.

3. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and has thoroughly convinced that the respondents have complied with the order passed by this Court. In case, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the process of selection or his non selection, it is always open for the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings against the same. But, in no circumstances, the respondents can be held liable for contempt in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the contempt petition is closed leaving it open to the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings against the selection process and consequential proceedings, if so adviced.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top