- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Balakrushna Behera And Another v. Satya Prakash Dash .
Supreme Court of India – Case Summary
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondent filed a writ petition before the Orissa High Court seeking a mandamus directing Utkal University of Culture to complete the selection process for the post of Lecturer in South and South-East Asian Studies. On 10-3-2005 the High Court allowed the writ and ordered the University (Opposite Parties 1 & 2) to complete the selection and publish the results within two months. The University complied by conducting the selection and announcing the results, in which the respondent was selected.
Because the University did not issue an appointment letter, the respondent initiated the first contempt petition; it was later dropped after results were published. A second contempt petition followed, alleging failure to issue the appointment. On 24-1-2006 and 27-1-2006 the High Court initiated contempt proceedings and directed the Vice-Chancellor and Registrar (appellants) to appear personally. Challenging these orders, the appellants filed the present appeal by special leave before the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a writ of mandamus can compel the State or University to appoint a candidate to a post that has been abolished by the State Government.
- Whether failure to appoint the respondent, after completing and publishing the selection results, constitutes contempt of the High Court’s earlier order.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants (Registrar and Vice-Chancellor)
- Invoked the second proviso to Statute 4(1) of the Utkal University of Culture First Statute, 2001, which requires prior State Government approval and availability of funds for any teaching appointment.
- Asserted that the State Government had abolished the concerned lecturership posts during restructuring; therefore, no appointment could lawfully be made.
- Maintained that they had fully complied with the High Court’s direction by completing the selection process and publishing the result, and hence no contempt was made out.
Respondent (Writ Petitioner)
- Alleged wilful disobedience of the High Court’s order on the ground that, despite being selected, he was not issued an appointment letter.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47 | Selection to a post does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment. | The Court relied on this decision to hold that the respondent had only an “inchoate” right and therefore could not demand appointment through contempt proceedings. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
1. The Supreme Court first addressed whether a mandamus could lie to direct appointment to a post that no longer exists. It answered in the negative, stating that once the State abolishes a post, no enforceable right to appointment survives.
2. Relying on Shankarsan Dash, the Court reiterated that a successful candidate acquires only a limited, non-enforceable expectation, not an absolute right to be appointed.
3. The High Court’s original order required only completion of the selection process and publication of results, which the University had admittedly carried out. There was no explicit judicial mandate to issue an appointment letter.
4. Under Statute 4(1), appointments required prior approval and funding from the State Government. Because the State refused approval and abolished the posts, the appellants were legally incapable of issuing an appointment.
5. Given these circumstances, the initiation of contempt proceedings was unwarranted; the appellants had neither disobeyed the High Court’s directive nor possessed the authority to appoint after the posts were abolished.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s orders dated 24-1-2006 and 27-1-2006 initiating contempt; the notice of contempt was discharged and the appeal was allowed.
Implications: The decision confirms that (a) compliance with a court’s limited mandate (here, completion of selection) shields officials from contempt if subsequent steps are legally impossible, and (b) selection alone does not guarantee appointment, especially when statutory provisions and governmental policy eliminate the post. No new legal precedent was created, but existing principles regarding the non-indefeasible nature of selection were reinforced.
Order
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and orders dated 24-1-2006 and 27-1-2006 of the High Court of Orissa whereby contempt proceedings were initiated against the appellants herein and they were directed to be present in Court for further proceeding in the matter of contempt.
4. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are that the respondent herein filed a writ petition against Utkal University of Culture and sought a mandamus that the University be directed to complete the entire selection process for the post of Lecturer in South and South-East Asian Studies. The Division Bench of the High Court vide order dated 10-3-2005 disposed of the writ petition and directed that “it is a fit case where the opposite parties should be directed by issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus to complete the entire process of selection and publish the result”. The Court accordingly issued a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding Opposite Parties 1 and 2 to complete the entire process of selection and publish the result in respect of the post of Lecturer in South and South-East Asian Studies within a period of two months from the date of communication of the said order. It was further observed that “it was needless to mention that after declaration of the result, consequences to be followed by Opposite Parties 1 and 2”.
5. After passing of the said order, the same allegedly having not been complied with by the University authorities within the time stipulated, a contempt petition was filed by the respondent herein (the writ petitioner before the High Court). In reply to the contempt petition, the appellants herein (the Registrar and Vice-Chancellor of the University) stated that in view of Statute 4(3) of the Utkal University of Culture First Statute, 2001 since the Board of Management differed from the recommendation of the Selection Committee, the matter had to be referred to the Chancellor of the University. In the meantime, the High Court issued notice for contempt of court for alleged disobedience of its judgment dated 10-3-2005, but in view of the results having been published, the contempt proceedings were dropped. It is alleged that despite the selection of the respondent herein, no appointment letter was issued to the respondent. Hence, he filed yet another contempt petition on which the impugned orders dated 24-1-2006 and 27-1-2006 were passed. By the said orders the Vice-Chancellor and Registrar of the University were directed to be personally present in Court.
6. The plea taken by the appellants herein in the reply to show cause was that as per the second proviso to Statute 4(1) of the Utkal University of Culture First Statute, 2001, all appointments have to be approved by the State Government. The second proviso to Statute 4(1) of the Utkal University of Culture First Statute, 2001 reads as under:
“Provided further that the appointment of all the teaching faculties including Professors, Deans, Experts and Consultants are subject to availability of funds and on prior approval of Administrative Department and Finance Department of the State Government.”
7. The State Government took the stand that in view of the restructuring/reorganising of the whole set-up the posts of Lecturer in South and South-East Asian Studies have been abolished and therefore the respondent herein could not be appointed to the said post. The appellants herein of course wrote to the State Government for grant of approval for their appointment and funds for the said posts but the State Government declined to grant approval and abolished the posts and consequently no appointments could be made to the said post. Thereafter, the Division Bench by the impugned order dated 24-1-2006 directed the Registrar and Vice-Chancellor of the University (the appellants herein) to be present in Court on 27-1-2006.
8. Aggrieved against the impugned orders dated 24-1-2006 and 27-1-2006 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, the present appeal by special leave has been filed.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. The first and foremost question is whether the Court can direct the State Government by a writ of mandamus to appoint a person against a post which has been abolished by the State Government. Our answer to this question is in the negative. The respondent even after selection has no indefeasible right to be appointed on the post because a selection does not confer a right of getting appointment which can be enforced by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. In this view we are supported by a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47, (1991) 17 ATC 95. Since the respondent has only an inchoate right to the post, there is no question of contempt against the appellants herein. The initial direction of the High Court was to complete the selection process and publish the results. That was done by the appellants herein. There was no order of the High Court directing that the respondent be appointed. Hence we fail to see how there is any contempt of court.
11. Subsequently, some developments took place and the State Government abolished the posts in question and reorganised the set-up of the University. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view the High Court could not have directed the initiation of contempt proceedings against the appellants when the respondent has no perfect or complete right to seek a mandamus for appointment to the post. The appellants have complied with the order of the Division Bench of the High Court and completed the process of selection and published the results within the time granted by the High Court. In view of the second proviso to Statute 4(1) of the Statutes of the University, since no appointment could be made without the prior approval of the State Government, and the State Government having abolished the posts in question, the respondent cannot claim a right to the post, nor is there any contempt of court.
12. In view of the aforegoing reasons, we are of the view that no contempt is made out against the appellants herein and the orders dated 24-1-2006 and 27-1-2006 are accordingly set aside and the notice of contempt against the appellants is discharged.
13. The appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.
Alert