1. Dispute over fixation of seniority lists — challenge to roster-point basis — direction to use merit-based rank — contempt proceedings for non-compliance with judicial orders. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2021 Supreme(SC) 536
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai, JJ.
V. Senthur and Another – Petitioners
Versus
M. Vijayakumar, IAS, Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and Another – Respondents
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 638 of 2017 In Civil Appeal No. 4954 of 2016 Contempt Petition (Civil) No. of 2021 [Diary No.16048 of 2020] In SLP (C) Nos. 2890-2894 of 2016 Contempt Petition (Civil) No. of 2021 [Diary No. 6415 of 2021] In SLP (C) No. 2886 of 2016 Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 1848 of 2018 In SLP (C) No. 2886 of 2016 Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 2188 of 2018 In SLP (C) No. 2886 of 2016 SLP (C) Nos. 12114-12117 of 2021 Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 1247 of 2019 In SLP (C) No. 2886 of 2016 Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 687 of 2021 In SLP (C) Nos. 2890-2894 of 2016
Decided On : 01-10-2021
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
In a contempt jurisdiction, court will not travel beyond original judgment and direction, neither would it be permissible for court to issue any supplementary or incidental directions, which are not to be found in original judgment and order. Court is only concerned with wilful or deliberate noncompliance of directions issued in original judgment and order.
In a contempt jurisdiction, court will not travel beyond original judgment and direction, neither would it be permissible for court to issue any supplementary or incidental directions, which are not to be found in original judgment and order. Court is only concerned with wilful or deliberate noncompliance of directions issued in original judgment and order.
Subject
Contempt of Court - Disobedience of Court Order
Act Referred
Headnote
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12 – Constitution of India – Article 129 – Contempt of Court – Non-compliance with Judgment passed by Apex Court – In a contempt jurisdiction, court will not travel beyond original judgment and direction – Neither would it be permissible for court to issue any supplementary or incidental directions, which are not to be found in original judgment and order – Court is only concerned with wilful or deliberate non-compliance of directions issued in original judgment and order – Respondents were bound to follow law laid down by this Court and determine inter se seniority on the basis of selection by TNPSC and not on the basis of roster point – Seniority list, which is purportedly published in accordance with order of this Court, is totally in breach of directions of this Court – A first glance at the list would reveal that various selectees, who have received much less marks, are placed above selectees who have received higher marks – Persons named in order of this Court, are guilty of having committed contempt of order of this Court – Respondents directed to revise and publish seniority list of selectees who were selected in selection process conducted in pursuance of notification issued by TNPSC dated 10th September 1999, strictly on the basis of merit determined by it in selection process and not on the basis of roster point – Same shall be done within a period of 12 weeks from date of this order – Persons who have been held guilty of contempt of this Court, shall remain present before this Court and would be heard on quantum of punishment. (Paras 14, 26, 27, 28 and 29)
Facts of the case:
Present contempt petitions have been filed by petitioners praying for initiation of contempt proceedings against the alleged contemnors-respondents for willfully disobeying the order passed by this Court dated 22nd January 2016 in SLP(C) Nos. 28902894 of 2016 and SLP(C) No. 2886 of 2016.
Findings of Court:
Though it cannot be said that second judgment of the Madras High Court has merged into order of this Court dated 22nd January 2016, still the declaration of law as made in the said order, would be binding on all the courts and tribunals in the country and in any case, between the parties.
Result : SLPs disposed of with directions.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Nithin Saravanan, Adv. Ms. Arunima Singh, Adv. Mr. Karunakar Mahalik, AOR Ms. Priyadarshini, Adv. Ms. Ridhima Malhotra, Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, AOR Mr. N. Subramaniyan, Adv Mr. Jatin Bhardwaj, Adv Ms. Shantha D. Raman, Adv Mr. Garvesh Kabra, AOR Mr. Ansar, Adv Mr. Arihant Jain, Adv Mr. N. Subramaniyan, Adv Ms. Neha Rathi, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vinodh Kanna B., AOR Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr.Adv. Mr. C. S. Vaidyanathan, Sr.Adv. Mr. R. Venkataramani, Sr.Adv. Mr. V. Giri, Sr.Adv. Mr. P. Wilson, Sr.Adv. Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, AAG Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, AAG Ms. C.N.G. Niraimathi, Adv. Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., AOR. Mr. Mohammed Sadique T. A.,Adv. Mr. Nitish Raj, Adv. Mr. Akshay Nagarajan, Adv. Ms. Preeti Singh, Adv. Ms. Ripul Swati Kumari, Adv. Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR Mr. T. R. B. Sivakumar, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Nithin Saravanan, Adv. Ms. Arunima Singh, Adv. Mr. Karunakar Mahalik, AOR Ms. Priyadarshini, Adv. Ms. Ridhima Malhotra, Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Adv Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, AOR Mr. N. Subramaniyan, Adv Mr. Jatin Bhardwaj, Adv Ms. Shantha D. Raman, Adv Mr. Garvesh Kabra, AOR Mr. Ansar, Adv Mr. Arihant Jain, Adv Mr. N. Subramaniyan, Adv Ms. Neha Rathi, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Vinodh Kanna B., AOR Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr.Adv. Mr. C. S. Vaidyanathan, Sr.Adv. Mr. R. Venkataramani, Sr.Adv. Mr. V. Giri, Sr.Adv. Mr. P. Wilson, Sr.Adv. Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, AAG Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, AAG Ms. C.N.G. Niraimathi, Adv. Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., AOR. Mr. Mohammed Sadique T. A.,Adv. Mr. Nitish Raj, Adv. Mr. Akshay Nagarajan, Adv. Ms. Preeti Singh, Adv. Ms. Ripul Swati Kumari, Adv. Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR Mr. T. R. B. Sivakumar, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners allege willful disobedience and perjury — Respondents contend relief was individualistic, rights are crystallized, and non-compliance was not deliberate. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
3. The court found the issue was a fundamental legal principle, not individualistic, and the published seniority list clearly breached the merit-based requirement. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 )
4. Seniority must be based on merit list of selection rather than roster points; speaking orders dismissing SLPs declare law binding under Article 141. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 25 )
5. Respondents held guilty of contempt — directed to revise and publish seniority list based on merit within twelve weeks. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 )
6. What is the correct basis for determining the seniority of selectees in public service?
Seniority must be determined based on the merit list of selection and the rank assigned by the selection commission, rather than on roster points. (Para 20 , 23 , 26 , 28 )
7. Does a speaking order dismissing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) attract the doctrine of merger or Article 141?
A speaking order dismissing an SLP does not attract the doctrine of merger, but if it declares a law, that declaration is binding on all courts and parties under Article 141 of the Constitution. (Para 21 , 22 , 25 )
8. Can a court issue supplementary directions or travel beyond the original order during contempt proceedings?
No, in contempt jurisdiction, the court cannot travel beyond the original judgment and direction, nor can it issue supplementary or incidental directions not found in the original order. (Para 14 )
ORDER :
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. The present contempt petitions have been filed by the petitioners praying for initiation of contempt proceedings against the alleged contemnors-respondents for willfully disobeying the order passed by this Court dated 22nd January 2016 in SLP(C) Nos. 2890-2894 of 2016 and SLP(C) No. 2886 of 2016.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of the present petitions are as under :
The contempt petitioners had filed writ petitions before the Single Judge of the Madras High Court being aggrieved by the fixation of inter se seniority list published on 29th April 2004. The petitioners along with the contesting respondents were selected in pursuance of the selection process held on the basis of the notification dated 10th September 1999, issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “TNPSC”). Upon selection, the selectees were appointed in the Public Works Department of the State of Tamil Nadu and the Highways Department in the year 2000.
3. After a period of 4 years from the date of joining of the selectees, the seniority list came to be notified on 29th April 2004. One R. Balakrishnan made a representation contending therein that though he was a more meritorious candidate belonging to the Backward Class category, he was allotted to the General Turn (open category) and kept at Serial No. 172 of the roster point. It was however his contention that the other persons belonging to the Backward Classes, who were less meritorious, were placed higher in the list and given seniority over and above him since they were placed against reserved vacancies. The representation of R. Balakrishnan was rejected by TNPSC vide order dated 20th December 2004, on the ground that the roster point itself determined the seniority, in view of the decision of this Court in the case of P.S. Ghalaut v. State of Haryana and Others, (1995) 5 SCC 625 . Being aggrieved by the said order dated 20th December 2004, R. Balakrishnan and few others filed various writ petitions before the Madras High Court. The said writ petitions came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 18th October 2012, passed by the Single Judge of the Madras High Court, on the ground of delay and laches.
4. Being aggrieved thereby, the original writ petitioners preferred appeals before the Division Bench of the Madras High Court. The Division Bench vide judgment and order dated 31st March 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the first judgment”), allowed the appeals and set aside the judgment and order dated 18th October 2012, passed by the Single Judge and directed the official respondents to take the rank assigned by TNPSC to the selectees, as the basis for fixation of seniority. The Division Bench also directed TNPSC to issue appropriate orders within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. The same came to be challenged before this Court by TNPSC vide SLP(C) Nos. 2890-2894 of 2016. This Court vide its judgment and order dated 22nd January 2016, by a speaking order, dismissed the same. The present contempt petitions are filed contending noncompliance of the order passed by this Court dated 22nd January 2016.
5. Certain developments which took place in the meanwhile also need to be noted. To overcome the first judgment of the Madras High Court as affirmed by this Court, the State of Tamil Nadu enacted Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). Section 40 of the said Act provided that the seniority of a person in service will be determined in accordance with the rule of reservation and the order of rotation. The same came to be challenged in a batch of writ petitions before the Madras High Court. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court vide judgment and order dated 15th November 2019 (hereinafter referred to as “the second judgment”), allowed the said writ petitions. It declared Sections 1(2), 40 and 70 of the said Act as ultra vires and unc
