- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
J.S Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
These appeals by special leave challenge a Division Bench order dated 3 April 1996 in Special Civil Appeals Nos. 1 and 2 of 1995. The underlying dispute concerns preparation of the seniority list for engineers in the Rajasthan Civil Engineering Services (Public Health Branch).
Earlier, in Writ Petition No. 560 of 1979 (order dated 6 October 1988) and Writ Petition No. 1074 of 1980 (order dated 9 September 1989, reiterated on 22 March 1990), the High Court had declared retrospective amendments to the service rules unconstitutional, quashed the existing seniority list, and directed that a fresh list and consequential promotions be prepared.
When a new list was issued on 2 July 1991 and promotions followed, the petitioners initiated contempt proceedings. A learned Single Judge held that the State had not wilfully disobeyed the court’s directions, but nevertheless ordered the authorities to redraw the seniority list in line with the earlier Kailash Chand Goyal decision, granting six months for compliance.
The State filed an intra-court appeal. The Division Bench concluded that an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was not maintainable but treated the matter as a letters patent appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance and set aside the Single Judge’s directions. The aggrieved employees then approached the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether an appeal lies under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against an order of a Single Judge that finds no contempt but issues further directions.
- Whether the Division Bench was justified in setting aside the Single Judge’s direction to redraw the seniority list, on the ground that such directions exceeded the permissible scope of contempt jurisdiction.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- The Single Judge was required to examine the correctness of the Government’s seniority list in light of three earlier Division Bench decisions to determine whether there was wilful disobedience under Section 2(b) of the Act.
- Absent such an examination, the finding of no wilful disobedience was unsustainable, and the appeal before the Division Bench was therefore incompetent.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Kailash Chand Goyal (Rajasthan High Court) | Quashed the impugned notifications introducing retrospective amendments; directed preparation of a fresh seniority list without applying retrospectivity. | Referenced by the Single Judge as binding authority necessitating redrawing of the seniority list; Supreme Court noted that merits of compliance must be challenged separately, not in contempt. |
| Gyaneshwar case (Rajasthan High Court) | Considered only the retrospectivity of amendments, not their validity in entirety. | Mentioned to explain the State’s reliance and resultant confusion; used by Single Judge to discuss intent behind alleged non-compliance. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
1. Scope of Section 19 Appeal. Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act provides an appeal as of right only when the High Court has exercised its jurisdiction “to punish for contempt.” Because the Single Judge expressly found no wilful disobedience and imposed no punishment, no appeal lay under Section 19.
2. Jurisdiction of the Division Bench. The Division Bench treated the matter as a letters patent appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, characterising the Single Judge’s directions as a “judgment.” The Supreme Court agreed that such recourse was permissible once Section 19 was ruled out.
3. Limits of Contempt Jurisdiction. The Supreme Court emphasised that contempt proceedings cannot be used to revisit the merits of an administrative action undertaken in supposed compliance with a prior judgment. Preparation of the 2 July 1991 seniority list constituted a fresh cause of action; any alleged errors must be challenged through appropriate judicial review, not via contempt.
4. Single Judge’s Error. By directing the authorities to redraw the seniority list in contempt proceedings, the Single Judge effectively exercised original jurisdiction over service-matter merits, which Section 12 of the Act does not permit.
5. Validation of Division Bench’s Intervention. Because the Single Judge exceeded his contempt jurisdiction, the Division Bench rightly set aside his directions. Consequently, an appeal to the Supreme Court became unnecessary, but having been filed, it stood to be dismissed on merits.
Holding and Implications
Appeals Dismissed.
Direct Effect: The Division Bench order stands; the Single Judge’s directive to redraw the seniority list is vacated. Aggrieved employees remain free to challenge the 2 July 1991 seniority list in an independent proceeding.
Broader Implications: The decision reaffirms that contempt jurisdiction is confined to enforcing compliance and cannot be expanded to adjudicate substantive disputes. It clarifies that Section 19 appeals are unavailable where no punitive contempt order is passed, and that intra-court appellate remedies may still lie under the High Court’s letters patent or charter provisions.
Order
1. We have heard the counsel on both sides.
2. Leave granted.
3. These appeals by special leave arise from the order of the Division Bench dated 3-4-1996 made in Special Civil Appeals Nos. 1 and 2 of 1995. The facts are not in dispute. The controversy relates to the preparation of the seniority list of the Engineers in Rajasthan Civil Engineering Services (Public Health Branch). In WP No. 560 of 1979 by order dated 6-10-1988 the Division Bench of the High Court declared the seniority list prepared with retrospective effect in terms of the amended Rules as unconstitutional; it accordingly quashed the list and directed preparation of the seniority list afresh to determine the inter se seniority on that basis and to grant promotion to the appellants within the specified time. The same order came to be reiterated by order of another Division Bench dated 9-9-1989 made in WP No. 1074 of 1980. It was further reiterated in the order dated 22-3-1990. When the seniority list came to be prepared, the contempt proceedings were initiated under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short “the Act”). The learned Single Judge on consideration of the merits in the seniority held that the respondents had not wilfully disobeyed the orders of the Court and gave directions as under:
“In Gyaneshwar case, only retrospectivity of these amendments was challenged and, therefore, it was felt by the learned Judges of the Division Bench that retrospectivity of these amendments has already been held to be ultra vires in Kailash Chand Goyal case and so, it had not been declared as such afresh. In that case, the notifications whereby amendments were introduced were not challenged but only their retrospectivity was challenged and, therefore, the decision of this Court in Gyaneshwar case does not hold the field. The controversy raised in this case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Kailash Chand Goyal case and in Kailash Chand Goyal case, the impugned notifications Annexures 5 to 6 have been quashed in their entirety and so, the seniority of the petitioner has to be determined on the basis of the directions given by this Court in Kailash Chand Goyal case and promotions have to be accorded accordingly. Of course, it appears quite just and reasonable that the non-petitioners did not intend to disobey the directions given by this Court on account of the legal advice that has been tendered to them and on account of certain interpretations put to the judgment rendered in Kailash Chand Goyal case on the basis of Gyaneshwar case and as some confusion prevailed with the non-petitioners on account of that, they could not comply this order. However, the non-petitioners are directed to comply with the order of this Court dated 22-3-1990 by giving effect to the ratio of the decision that has been rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Kailash Chand Goyal case and the seniority list should be prepared as directed in the judgment in Kailash Chand Goyal case and promotions should be accorded accordingly. If this order is not complied with within a period of six months from today, the petitioner will be free to move a contempt petition afresh against the non-petitioners.”
4. The State had filed appeal against these directions. A preliminary objection was taken on the maintainability of the appeal and also arguments were advanced. The Division Bench while holding the appeal as not maintainable under Section 19 of the Act, held that the appeal would be maintainable as a letters patent appeal as the direction issued by the learned Single Judge would be a judgment within the meaning of Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance. Accordingly the Division Bench set aside the directions issued by the learned Single Judge. Thus these appeals by special leave.
5. The question is whether an appeal against the directions issued by the learned Single Judge is maintainable under Section 19 of the Act? Section 19 of the Act envisages that:
“An appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt—
(a) where the order or decision is that of a Single Judge, to a Bench of not less than two Judges of the Court;”
Therefore, an appeal would lie under Section 19 when an order in exercise of the jurisdiction of the High Court punishing the contemner has been passed. In this case, the finding was that the respondents had not wilfully disobeyed the order. So, there is no order punishing the respondent for violation of the orders of the High Court. Accordingly, an appeal under Section 19 would not lie.
6. The question then is whether the Division Bench was right in setting aside the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to redraw the seniority list. It is contended by Mr S.K Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that unless the learned Judge goes into the correctness of the decision taken by the Government in preparation of the seniority list in the light of the law laid down by three Benches, the learned Judge cannot come to a conclusion whether or not the respondent had wilfully or deliberately disobeyed the orders of the Court as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act. Therefore, the learned Single Judge of the High Court necessarily has to go into the merits of that question. We do not find that the contention is well founded. It is seen that, admittedly, the respondents had prepared the seniority list on 2-7-1991. Subsequently promotions came to be made. The question is whether seniority list is open to review in the contempt proceedings to find out whether it is in conformity with the directions issued by the earlier Benches. It is seen that once there is an order passed by the Government on the basis of the directions issued by the court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. The preparation of the seniority list may be wrong or may be right or may or may not be in conformity with the directions. But that would be a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity of judicial review. But that cannot be considered to be the wilful violation of the order. After re-exercising the judicial review in contempt proceedings, a fresh direction by the learned Single Judge cannot be given to redraw the seniority list. In other words, the learned Judge was exercising the jurisdiction to consider the matter on merits in the contempt proceedings. It would not be permissible under Section 12 of the Act. Therefore, the Division Bench has exercised the power under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance being a judgment or order of the Single Judge; the Division Bench corrected the mistake committed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, it may not be necessary for the State to file an appeal in this Court against the judgment of the learned Single Judge when the matter was already seized of the Division Bench.
7. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. It may be open to the aggrieved party to assail the correctness of the seniority list prepared by the State Government, if it is not in conformity with the directions issued by the High Court, if they so advised, in an appropriate forum. No costs.
Alert