Anil Kumar Shahi (2) And Others v. Prof. Ram Sevak Yadav And Others

L.S Panta, J.—

Contempt Petition (C) No. 91 of 2006

1. This is a petition under Article 129 of the Constitution of India read with Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 preferred by Anil Kumar Shahi, Ghanshyam Singh, Davendra Singh and Raj Narain Lal, the petitioners herein, inter alia, praying for the following reliefs:

“(a) initiate contempt proceedings against the contemnors for their wilful disobedience and uphold the majesty of this Hon'ble Court; and/or

(b) direct the respondents to disclose the marks obtained by the petitioner as well as cut-off marks beyond which the candidates were called for interview; and/or

(c) quash order dated 7-4-2006 passed by Respondent 2 which is in contravention of the order dated 7-3-2006 (2008) 14 SCC 136 passed by this Hon'ble Court; and/or

(d) direct the respondents that if the candidates are found to have obtained equal to or more than cut-off marks, then to call the candidates for interview and recommend the candidates; and/or

(e) direct the respondents/U.P Government thereafter to appoint the candidates in order of their post of preference as was submitted by the candidates during the mains examination; and/or

(f) pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case.”

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the filing of the present petition are as under:

The petitioners and other candidates had appeared in the preliminary and main examinations for the year 1997 conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (U.P PSC) for the posts of Principal, Government Inter College (Boys and Girls) and Senior Lecturer in District Education and Training Institutes along with other posts in the State of U.P and Combined State/Upper Subordinate Services.

3. A group of candidates appearing for various posts for the years 1996 and 1997 filed writ petitions before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The High Court in Tulsi Ram v. State of U.P while dealing with the case of 1996 batch was pleased to decide the issue with regard to the eligibility criteria. Aggrieved thereby, a number of special leave petitions were preferred by the candidates before this Court.

4. The writ petition filed by the petitioners for the posts of Principals and Senior Lecturers was dismissed by the High Court with a short order which reads as under:

“The facts of the case are covered by the judgment of this Court in Tulsi Ram v. State of U.P

The writ petition is disposed of on same condition and direction as in the aforesaid judgment.”

5. The judgment in Tulsi Ram case was challenged before this Court in a group of matters. By an order made on 10-1-2001 (2008) 14 SCC 139 Civil Appeal No. 1124 of 2000 filed by the present petitioners, was delinked from the said group of matters.

6. In Civil Appeals Nos. 961-62 of 1999, titled Mohd. Altaf v. Public Service Commission this Court decided the question of law that was raised in the aforesaid case of Tulsi Ram. The controversy in Tulsi Ram case centred round the interpretation of the eligibility criteria for holding the posts. The eligibility criteria as advertised/notified read as under:

“(3) For the Post of Principal, Government Inter College (Boys/Girls) and Senior Lecturer in District Education and Training Institute—(1) Postgraduate degree from a recognised university or any degree equivalent thereto recognised by the Government. (2) LT Diploma from Education Department of U.P or BT or BEd or any other degree of University equivalent thereto. (3) At least three years of teaching experience as head of any senior secondary or normal school or three years experience of or normal school or three years' experience of teaching Intermediate or higher classes or in CT or LT training postgraduate college as Lecturer.”

It was the case of the petitioners before the High Court that experience contemplated by the abovesaid Eligibility Criterion 3 was not restricted to teaching in government schools, while the U.P Public Service Commission was of the view that the teaching experience could be counted only if it was in a government school. This controversy was resolved and settled finally by this Court in Mohd. Altaf case (2008) 14 SCC 139 by holding that the Lecturers having three years' teaching experience in CT/LT training colleges were also eligible, since the Rules nowhere prescribed that teaching experience should be that of a teacher in government college or aided or unaided government college or institution. Further, it was observed that teaching experience may be from any Higher Secondary School or High School or from an institute having Intermediate or higher classes.

7. Having laid down the law, U.P PSC was directed to implement and carry out the directions of the High Court and prepare a list of eligible teachers for being appointed to the posts advertised within a stipulated period. After the list was prepared in accordance with the directions given by this Court on 14-3-2001, the appeals came up for hearing and were disposed of by a final order made on 20-2-2002 (2008) 14 SCC 146 and in the concluding paragraph of the order, it is said: (Mohd. Altaf (3) case (2008) 14 SCC 146)

“9. Lastly, it is clarified that the directions issued by this Court on 10-1-2001 (2008) 14 SCC 139 as well as today would be implemented in favour of all the eligible candidates.”

8. It was observed in the order dated 10-1-2001 (2008) 14 SCC 139: (Mohd. Altaf (1) case (2008) 14 SCC 139)

“8. The aforesaid direction is to be considered in the light of the discussion in the judgment which specifically provides that if the teachers who have been substantively appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Regulations framed thereunder are not paid the salary from the public treasury as those institutions were not given maintenance grant/grant-in-aid, it cannot be blamed for the lapse on the part of the State Government and such teacher cannot be excluded for being considered to be appointed. The learned counsel for the parties have pointed that most of the matters filed by the teachers are with regard to this clause. It is their contention that if this direction as explained in the body of this judgment stands implemented, most of the matters may not survive.”

9. The petitioners thereafter made an application, IA No. 4 of 2003 before this Court placing on record the various orders passed in Mohd. Altaf case with a prayer that their appeals be also allowed in terms of the orders of this Court dated 10-1-2001 (2008) 14 SCC 139 and 20-2-2002 (2008) 14 SCC 146 and for consequential directions as prayed for by them.

10. While opposing the prayer made in IA No. 4, U.P PSC filed a counter-affidavit in which they have raised a fresh issue that the petitioners were not included in the list of successful candidates because they had failed to qualify the written examination and, therefore, there was no occasion at all to call the unqualified candidates for interview. This stand, however, has been denied by the petitioners in the rejoinder-affidavit, wherein it is pointed out that U.P PSC had wrongly included the names of the candidates in the select list, who were originally not even notified in the Official Gazette notification.

11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court on 7-3-2006 (2008) 14 SCC 136 held: (Anil Kumar Shahi (1) case (2008) 14 SCC 136)

“8. In our view, it is not open to the respondents to raise a fresh controversy on facts before this Court for the first time. We are informed, and it is not disputed before us, that the respondents did not file a counter-affidavit before the High Court opposing the averments made in the writ petition, nor have they done so before us. The new case sought to be set out, about the appellants not having been qualified in the main examination, appears for the first time in reply to IA No. 4. Since there has been no investigation of facts in this case, we decline to entertain this controversy.

9. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent of directing the respondents to implement the orders in Mohd. Altaf dated 10-1-2001 (2008) 14 SCC 139 and 20-2-2002 (2008) 14 SCC 146 and apply the same eligibility criteria as decided by this Court in the aforesaid orders to the case of the appellants. If it is the case of the respondents that the appellants did not qualify in the main examination and, therefore, they were not called for the interview, it is open to the respondents to pass appropriate orders giving the reason as to why the case of the appellants has not been considered and disclose the marks obtained by them as well as cut-off marks beyond which the candidates were called for interview. It will be equally open to the appellants to challenge such an order, if passed by U.P PSC.

10. The learned counsel appearing for U.P PSC states that they have already filed a list of candidates whose cases had been considered pursuant to the directions of this Court. As indicated earlier, this controversy being raised for the first time before this Court, we decline to go into it and leave it open.

11. Since the matter has been considerably delayed, the respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders and communicate them to the appellants within a period of four weeks from today.

12. The appeal is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.”

12. It appears from the record that in compliance with the above-extracted order of this Court, the contesting respondents took some decision, which according to the petitioners, is manifestly in violation of the tenor and spirit of the order of this Court. In this petition, it is stated that the respondents for the first time in their office order dated 7-4-2006 took a different stand, which reads as under:

“Because during the relevant time according to experience contemplated by Eligibility Criterion 3 as set by the Commission, the petitioners were found ineligible, therefore, they were not called for interview and in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in order dated 20-2-2002 (2008) 14 SCC 146, the orders dated 10-1-2001 (2008) 14 SCC 139 and 20-2-2002 (2008) 14 SCC 146 are applicable to those candidates who had appeared in the interview. Therefore, in the expressed situation, it has been decided by the Hon'ble Commission that in view of the order dated 20-2-2002 (2008) 14 SCC 146 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court it is impossible to call the candidates for interview.”

13. It is further stated that in view of the above stand of the respondents, it is clear that the respondents are guilty of wilful and deliberate contempt of this Court as they are time and again changing stands, so as to misguide this Court and are not disclosing the marks obtained by the petitioners, as well as cut-off marks beyond which the candidates were called for interview despite unambiguous directions passed by this Court. It is also stated that this is not the first time when the respondents are deliberately flouting and circumventing the orders passed by this Court.

14. This Court in its earlier judgment in Mohd. Altaf (2008) 14 SCC 144 while dealing with similar situation was pleased to record and observe as under:( & 6)

“2. … It appears that U.P PSC is interested in suppressing some facts from the Court as well as from the candidates who appeared in the examination for some ulterior purpose. From a constitutional functionary like Public Service Commission much, more higher standards are expected not only by the courts but also by the public at large. If there is maladministration at the level of Public Service Commission there would be rampant favouritism in making appointments to the services of the State.

3. Despite our various orders making (sic being) abundantly clear, today also the affidavit which is filed on behalf of U.P PSC is not complete and contains half truth. … In our view, this is an absurd stand because it is the duty of the Public Service Commission to declare on the notice board result indicating marks with all other relevant details. In such examinations transparency is expected and results cannot be kept secret.

4. … Here also U.P PSC wants to play with the Court.

6. … The Chairman and the Secretary of U.P PSC are directed to deposit with the Registry costs of Rs 10,000 each for wasting the Court's time. Such costs shall be paid by the concerned personally and not by the Commission”.

15. It is further the case of the petitioners that the conduct of the contending respondents speaks of bias and mala fides on their part and they on one pretext or the other have tried to exclude the petitioners from their lawful claim of appointment.

16. The contempt petition was listed before this Court on 8-5-2006 when this Court passed the following order:

“Issue notice returnable in the month of July 2006.

Mr Shail Kumar Dwivedi, the learned counsel, appears and accepts notice for U.P Public Service Commission.

Personal presence of Respondents 1 and 2 is dispensed with for the time being.”

17. The matter came up before this Court on number of dates and for one reason or the other at the request of the learned counsel for the U.P Public Service Commission and the State of U.P, the matter continued to be adjourned from time to time. On 9-3-2007, this Court directed the respondent U.P Public Service Commission to bring on record the documents showing recommendations by it. Thereafter, it was on 14-11-2007 that this Court passed the following order:

“Put up this matter on 16-11-2007 for further hearing at 1.30 p.m

On that day the Secretary of the Education Department, State of U.P as also the Secretary of the U.P Public Service Commission shall personally remain present in the Court with all requisite files.

In the first half, the said documents would be given to the learned counsel for the petitioners for inspection.

A chart showing the vacancy position as obtaining in the years 1996, 1997 and 1999 shall be separately prepared. A chart shall also be prepared showing the filling up of the vacancies in respect of those years separately including the fact as to whether any of those posts have been filled up from amongst the reserved category candidates.

It will further be shown as to how and in what manner the State in spite of order of this Court, directed the vacancies to be carried forward despite the fact that recommendations were made for filling up the vacancies by the Commission.

The list of 443 candidates in whose favour the recommendations have been made shall be produced before this Court.”

Contempt Petition No. 162 of 2007

18. In this petition, the petitioners inter alia pray for the following reliefs:

“(a) initiate contempt proceedings against the contemnors for their wilful disobedience and uphold the majesty of this Hon'ble Court; and/or

(b) direct the respondents to recommend the names of the petitioners in terms of the order dated 9-3-2007; and/or

(c) direct the respondents/U.P Government that thereafter to appoint the candidates in order of their post of preference as was submitted by the candidates during the main examination; and/or

(d) pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case.”

19. On 16-11-2007, an application for exemption from personal appearance of Dr. (Prof.) Ram Sewak Yadav, Chairman of U.P Public Service Commission and Dr. J.B Sinha, Secretary, U.P Public Service Commission, was allowed. The matter was ordered to be listed on 10-12-2007 at 1.30 p.m and in the meantime the State of U.P was asked to allow the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the petitioners to inspect the record which was produced before this Court on that day. When the matter was called for hearing on 8-2-2008, this Court made the following order:

“Mr Colin Gonsalves, learned Senior Counsel handed over chart to us showing the discrepancies as obtaining in the records maintained by the State of Uttar Pradesh and U.P PSC.

Mr H.N Salve, learned counsel prays for some time to respond to the said chart. Mr Shrish Kumar Misra, learned counsel also joins Mr Salve, learned counsel in making the said prayer.

List of 443 candidates for the 1997 batch, as directed, be furnished to Mr Colin Gonsalves.

Issue notice on the application for intervention/direction.

Personal appearance of the alleged contemnors is dispensed with till further orders.

Put up after two weeks.”

20. During the pendency of the contempt petitions, IA No. 12 was filed by Mani Ram Singh praying for intervention and making oral submissions in regard to his claim for appointment against the abovesaid post. Notice on this application was issued on 8-2-2008. One application for impleadment in the contempt petitions was filed by Jamna Prasad Gangwar with a prayer to issue direction to the State of U.P to appoint him and other eligible candidates belonging to the reserved categories of 1996 batch to the posts of Principal of Inter College (Boys/Girls) in the State of U.P within 15 days and submit its compliance.

21. In reply to Contempt Petition (C) No. 91 of 2006 and IA No. 12 of 2008, three sets of separate affidavits were filed by the respondents. Prof. Ram Sevak Yadav, Chairman, U.P Public Service Commission, Allahabad, Respondent 1 herein, in his affidavit at the outset, submitted that he has the highest regards for the orders passed by this Court and he has taken necessary action in compliance with the order dated 7-3-2006 (2008) 14 SCC 136 passed by this Court. However, in compliance therewith, if there be any kind of discrepancy, bona fide omission or inadvertence in paying due regard to the order of this Court, he submitted his unconditional and unqualified apology for the same. Further, he submitted that he shall do everything in due compliance with the orders of this Court as may be directed and the Commission being a constitutional body is duty-bound to comply with the orders of this Court.

22. Prof. Yadav also submitted that he being the Chairman of the Commission has never intended to disobey or to disrespect the orders of this Court or to do anything, which may amount to contempt of the orders of this Court. He submitted that in compliance with the orders of this Court, the petitioners made representation to the Commission and the Commission passed an office order on 7-4-2006 on its interpretation of the order in Mohd. Altaf (3) v. U.P Public Service Commission (2008) 14 SCC 146, in which it was ordered that the orders would be applicable to all concerned who appeared in interview on the relevant date. As the petitioners in the present case had not been called for interview till the passing of the order dated 20-2-2002 (2008) 14 SCC 146, their case could not be considered. However, after rejection of the representation of the petitioners, the Commission realised that the order dated 20-2-2002 (2008) 14 SCC 146 should be made applicable to the petitioners due to their higher marks than the cut-off marks. Accordingly, the Commission took necessary steps by deliberating upon the whole matter in accordance with the orders dated 10-1-2001 (2008) 14 SCC 139, 20-2-2002 (2008) 14 SCC 146, 28-11-2001 (2008) 14 SCC 144, 28-8-2003 and 7-3-2006 (2008) 14 SCC 136 passed by this Court.

23. Respondent 1 submitted that in Contempt Petition No. 372 of 2002 in Civil Appeal No. 962 of 1999, Shamim Khanam v. K.B Pandey and other connected matters, this Court was pleased to consider the cases of all the candidates who had appeared in the years 1996, 1997 and 1999 Examinations for appointment to the post of Principals in government colleges. The relevant extract of the directions contained in the order dated 5-8-2003 (2008) 14 SCC 150 reads as under: (Shamim Khanam case (2008) 14 SCC 150)

“2. It is ordered that the candidates who had appeared in the years 1996, 1997 and 1999 would be considered for vacancies existing as on 30-6-2003 in accordance with the merit list prepared of all the eligible candidates for the various years”.

It is stated that in the said contempt petition a clarificatory order dated 28-8-2003 was passed by this Court, which reads as under:

“It is further made clear that appointment to these 97 posts would be after earmarking the reserved categories and thereafter on the basis of merit list prepared by the U.P Public Service Commission for the year 1996 Examination. If other vacancies still remain, appointments would be after taking into consideration merit list of 1997 Examination and thereafter 1999 Examination result.”

24. The first respondent further submitted that having regard to the various orders passed by this Court, the Commission had disclosed the marks to the petitioners and subsequently called them for interview scheduled to be held on 14-7-2006 in the office of the Commission at Allahabad. All the petitioners appeared before the Interview Board of the Commission. The Commission accordingly revised the combined merit list of PSC Examination, 1997 for the category of Principals on 14-7-2006 itself. The placement of the petitioners in the aforesaid combined merit list has been stated at Sl. Nos. 54, 156, 118 and 104 respectively. The petitioners have been included in the eligibility list of 1997 along with other candidates.

25. It is submitted by Prof. Yadav that the Commission is not in a position to recommend the candidature of the petitioners to the State Government for the following reasons:

“(i) The order dated 28-8-2003 passed by this Hon'ble Court requiring the recommendation against the existing vacancies for the candidates of the 1996 Examination first and thereafter for the candidates of 1997 Examination.

(ii) The petitioners belong to 1997 Examination and in absence of vacancies, their candidature cannot be recommended as directed by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 28-8-2003.

(iii) The State Government vide its Letter dated 11-5-2006 addressed to the Commission had already communicated that the State Government had decided not to fill up the remaining 45 vacancies on ad hoc basis. Even if the State Government had permitted to fill up the 45 vacancies on ad hoc basis it would have gone to 70 candidates of 1996 Examination in terms of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court on 28-8-2003. Therefore, in any case, it would not be possible to make a recommendation in respect of the petitioners who are eligible candidates of 1997 Examination.”

26. Dr. J.B Sinha, Secretary, U.P PSC, filed a separate affidavit in which he pleaded identical statement as stated by the Chairman of the Commission. In the rejoinder, the petitioners reiterated the averments made in the contempt petition. Dr. J.B Sinha, Secretary, U.P PSC, in his additional affidavit stated that in compliance with the judgment dated 7-3-2006 (2008) 14 SCC 136 passed by this Court the petitioners were also placed in the list of eligible teachers for appointments in the revised list drawn on 14-7-2006. A meeting in this regard was held in the office of the State Government on 7-3-2007. The State Government has not appointed all the eligible candidates for the examination held in the year 1996. He submitted that no appointment has been made from merit list of eligible candidates for 1997 and 1999 Examinations, which had been prepared pursuant to the orders dated 10-1-2001 (2008) 14 SCC 139 and 20-2-2002 (2008) 14 SCC 146 passed by this Court.

27. Dr. Sinha also stated that the Commission vide its letter dated 23-3-2007 addressed to the Secretary, Government of U.P, sent the revised merit list dated 14-7-2006 as well as Notification of the Commission dated 25-7-2006 for taking necessary action at the State Government level.

28. Dr. Sinha also submitted that there is no wilful disobedience to the judgment/orders of this Court and he bows down before the Majesty of this Court. He tendered his unconditional apology for any inaction on the part of the Commission or on his part in person in understanding the true meaning of the judgment of this Court. Copies of the revised combined merit list of the PSC Examination, 1997 (Main) issued on 14-7-2006 for the posts of Principals along with combined merit list of PSC Examination, 1996 (Main) for eligible candidates in terms of order of this Court dated 14-8-2003 are placed on record.

29. Ms Gayatri Adult, Deputy Director (Services I), Directorate of Education, Allahabad, in compliance with the order of this Court dated 29-8-2007, filed affidavit on behalf of the State of U.P and the Directorate of Education, Allahabad (Respondents 3 and 4) stating therein that 50 posts of Principals, Government Inter Colleges (Boys and Girls) and 47 posts of Senior Lecturers in District Institutes of Education Training were lying vacant as on 28-8-2003.

30. This Court vide order dated 28-8-2003 was pleased to direct the State of U.P to fill 52 posts of Principals strictly on the basis of merit list submitted to this Court and regarding remaining 45 posts, it was ordered to leave the same to the State Government to fill them on ad hoc basis. The State Government made appointments of 50 candidates strictly on the basis of merit list. Two posts of reserved category could not be filled as no eligible SC candidates were found. However, the State Government did not make appointments against the 45 remaining posts as there is no provision for making appointment on ad hoc basis in the U.P Educational (General Educational Cadre) Service Rules, 1992.

31. Ms Adult submitted that after 27-8-2007, 41 vacancies arose against the posts of Principals on account of promotion of 41 Principals to the post of District Inspector of Schools and out of 41 posts, 35 posts are to be filled against the reserved category candidates selected in the year 1996 and the remaining six to clear the backlog posts, are lying vacant.

32. Ms Adult submitted that out of 47 newly upgraded posts of Principals in the colleges, 50% posts of Principals were to be filled by promotion and the remaining 50% by direct recruitment on the basis of the examination conducted by U.P PSC. She submitted that as on 28-10-2007 when this affidavit was filed, there were 29 vacancies of Principals, which are to be filled by direct recruitment and in addition thereto, 3 posts of Senior Lecturers, DIET are also lying vacant.

33. Further, it is submitted by Ms Adult that in the year 1997 the State Government sent requisition for selection of 443 posts of Principals/Senior Lecturers, DIETs and U.P PSC after selecting the candidates, recommended their names for appointment against the required 443 posts. She also submitted that the National Council for Teachers Education has prescribed new educational qualification for appointment to the post of Senior Lecturers for DIETs and the minimum qualification is MEd which earlier was BEd.

34. In reply to IA No. 12 of 2008, Prof. Ram Sevak Yadav, Chairman, U.P PSC, Allahabad, submitted that the applicant, Mani Ram Singh is placed at Serial No. 75 of the combined merit list of PSC Examination, 1996 (Main) eligible candidates. The Commission vide its Letter No. 132/9.E-2/97-98 dated 1-10-2003 had sent recommendation of 52 candidates. Further, 2 posts of Scheduled Tribe candidates could not be filled as suitable candidates were not available in any of the recruitment years 1996, 1997 and 1999.

35. Later on, the State Government informed the Commission vide its Letter No. 315/15-1-08-8(3)/03 dated 5-2-2008 that out of 52 candidates only 46 candidates could get appointment against the posts in question. Four candidates could not join their place of posting, so the State Government decided to fill those four vacancies (2 General + 2 OBC) from the eligibility list of 1996 Examination, which is under consideration of the Commission.

36. Prof. Yadav stated that as far as 45 unfilled vacancies are concerned, the State Government decided vide its Letter No. 15/24/97-ka-4-06 dated 11-5-2006 not to fill those vacancies. On similar line, counter-affidavit has been filed by Shri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, Secretary, U.P PSC, Allahabad. Along with their affidavits, copy of confidential letter dated 1-10-2003 written by Shri Pawan Kumar, Secretary, U.P PSC, Lucknow, to the Secretary, Personnel, Section 4, Government of U.P, Lucknow, sending recommendations according to the result of 52 vacancies of the post of Principals/Senior Lecturers on the basis of merit list of 120 new eligible candidates of Principal Examination, 1996, in compliance with the orders of this Court dated 28-8-2003 giving details of the division of the vacancies occurred year wise up to 30-6-2003 and the number of candidates selected in general and reserved categories.

37. Mr Colin Gonsalves, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners, contended that the Chairman of U.P PSC, the Secretary of U.P PSC and the Department of Education of the U.P Government have wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the orders dated 7-3-2006 (2008) 14 SCC 136 and 9-3-2007 passed by this Court.

38. Mr Gonsalves submitted that despite the order in Mohd. Altaf case (2008) 14 SCC 139 laying down the eligibility criteria, the respondents intentionally refused to apply the same criteria as decided by this Court in the case of the petitioners herein. This Court vide order dated 7-3-2006 (2008) 14 SCC 136 directed that the law laid down in Mohd. Altaf case (2008) 14 SCC 139 would apply in the case of the petitioners as well, but the respondents firstly took the stand that the petitioners have not qualified the written examination and later on, they have admitted that the petitioners had qualified in the written examination, but they had not appeared in the interview. He submitted that at least the respondents have entirely taken a new stand that there existed no vacancies against which the petitioners could be appointed.

39. Mr Gonsalves has brought to our notice the order passed by this Court in Mohd. Altaf (2) v. U.P Public Service Commission (2008) 14 SCC 144 whereunder strictures were passed against U.P PSC for acting arbitrarily, for showing “rampant favouritism” for taking an “absurd stand” and for “playing with the court by taking the stand that there are no vacancies”.

40. The learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the statement of the then Education Minister made in the U.P Legislative Council stating that there were 113 vacancies for the year 1996, 164 vacancies for the year 1997 and 90 vacancies for the year 1999 as on 3-3-2005 as per Annexure R-3 attached with the rejoinder to contend that the stand of the respondents that there are no vacancies available against which the petitioners can be appointed, is absolutely incorrect and in violation of the order of this Court.

41. In compliance with the order dated 14-11-2007, Mr Harish N. Salve, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Chairman and the Secretary, U.P PSC, has placed before us chart showing vacancy position as obtaining in the year 1996, 1997 and 1999. The details of 1996, 1997 and 1999 selection for the post of Principals in Government Inter Colleges (Boys and Girls) and for the post of Senior Lecturer in District Education and Training Institutes before 28-8-2003 are given as under:

“Break-up for the year 1996, 1997 and 1999 vacancies

Year Vacancy posts Selected posts Carry-forwarded posts 1996 216 105 (104 + 1) 216−105 = 111 1997 443 (332 + 111) 279 (19 + 124 + 124 + 12) 443−279 = 164 1999 64 (General recruitment) 54 64−54=10 1999 164 (Special recruitment) 164−51* = 113 51* = Vide High Court order in Writ Petition No. 26986 of 1998—selection for 51 posts stayed. Hence, selection for 113 was made. 75 113−75=38

After 28-8-2003

97 vacancies were informed by the Government vide Letter dated 19-9-2003 out of which 50 names were recommended as per directions of the Hon'ble Court in the order dated 28-8-2003.

Fresh eligibility list after the Hon'ble Supreme Court order dated 28-8-2003

Year 1996

List of 120 candidates (pp. 193-97), all categories

(i) Break-up of 120 candidates

Sl. No. Requisition received from the Government Total no. of candidates General Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Other Backward Classes Remarks 1. 120 52 22 Nil 46

Year 1997

List of 154 candidates (pp. 206-12), all categories

(i) Break-up of 154 candidates

Sl. No. Requisition received from the Government Total no. of candidates General Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Other Backward Classes Remarks 1. 154 121 07 Nil 26 2. Merit list revised on 14-7-2006 158 125 07 Nil 26

Year 1999

List of 98 candidates, all categories

(i) Break-up of 98 candidates

Sl. No. Requisition received from the Government Total no. of candidates General Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Other Backward Classes Remarks 1. 98 53 14 Nil 31

Note.—In compliance with the Hon'ble Supreme Court order dated 28-8-2003 only 50 candidates recommended from the eligible candidates of the year 1996 as per vacancy informed by the State Government on 19-9-2002.

Break-up for year 1996 vacancies for the post of Principals in Government Inter Colleges (Boys and Girls)

Sl. No. Requisition received from the Government Total no. of posts General Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Other Backward Classes Remarks 1. 216 108 46 04 58 2. Selected 104 + 1* 101 03 Nil Nil * 1 (one) general vacancy reserved as per orders of the Hon'ble High Court in Subhash Babu v. U.P PSC 3. Carry-forwarded vacancies 111 06 43 04 58

Details of vacancies filled up by 1997 Examination

The Government sends requisition for 548 posts of Principals in Government Inter Colleges (Boys and Girls) and for the post of Sr. Lecturer in District Education and Training Institutes. Thereafter, the Government vide Letter No. 1978/15-1-97-8(2)/95 T.C, dated 5-9-1997 informed U.P PSC that 548 posts include 216 posts for which requisition has already been sent to U.P PSC in 1996 as a result of which only 332 vacancies are available for 1997 Examination and 111 carry-forwarded vacancies of 1996 Examination are available. Details of break-up of these posts were sent by Government Letter No. 2561/15-1-96-8(2)/95, dated 19-8-1996.

Total number of posts 332 are bifurcated as below:

Principals — 146 (19 for Plains Cadre + 127 for Hills Cadre)

Sr. Lecturers — 186 (162 for Plains Cadre + 24 for Hills Cadre)

Carry-forwarded vacancies of 1996 Examination for

Principals, Hills Cadre — 111 posts

Total no. of vacancies (146+186+111)=443 for which

selection was made.

A. Details of 19 posts for Principals (Plains Cadre)

Sl. No. Requisition received from the Government Total no. of posts General Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Other Backward Classes Remarks 1. 19 09 04 Nil 06 2. Selected 19 09 04 Nil 06

B. Details of 127 posts for Principals (Hills Cadre)

Sl. No. Requisition received from the Government Total no. of posts General Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Other Backward Classes Remarks 1. 127 63 27 02 35 2. Carry-forwarded vacancies of 1996 examination 111 06 43 04 58 Total 238 69 70 06 93 3. Selected 124 69 26 01 28 4. Carry-forwarded vacancies 114 Nil 44 05 65

C. Details of 162 posts for Sr. Lecturers (Plains Cadre)

Sl. No. Requisition received from the Government Total no. of posts General Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Other Backward Classes Remarks 1. 162 81 34 03 44 2. Selected 124 81 18 Nil 25 3. Carry-forwarded vacancies 38 Nil 16 03 19

D. Details of 24 posts for Sr. Lecturers (Hills Cadre)

Sl. No. Requisition received from the Government Total no. of posts General Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Other Backward Classes Remarks 1. 24 12 05 Nil 07 2. Selected 12 12 Nil Nil Nil 3. Carry-forwarded vacancies 12 Nil 05 Nil 07

Details of vacancies filled up by 1999 Examination (Special Recruitment)

A. Details of 164 posts for Principals (Plains Cadre)

Sl. No. Requisition received from the Government Total no. of posts General Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Other Backward Classes Remarks 1. 164 0 65 08 91 Vide High Court order in Writ Petition No. 26986 of 1998—selection for 51 posts stayed. Hence, selection for 113 was made.

B. Selection for 113 posts:

Principals — 63 (Hills Cadre)

Sr. Lecturers — 50 (38 for Plains Cadre + 12 for Hills Cadre)

(i) Break-up for post of Principals — 63 (Hills Cadre)

Sl. No. Requisition received from the Government Total no. of candidates General Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Other Backward Classes Remarks 1. 63 0 24 03 36 2. Selected 44 0 20 01 23 3. Carry-forward 19 0 04 02 13

(ii) Break-up for post of Sr. Lecturers — 38 (Plains Cadre)

Sl. No. Requisition received from the Government Total no. of candidates General Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Other Backward Classes Remarks 1. 38 0 16 03 19 2. Selected 31 0 12 Nil 19 3. Carry-forward 07 0 04 03 Nil

(iii) Break-up for post of Principals — 12 (Hills Cadre)

Sl. No. Requisition received from the Government Total no. of candidates General Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Other Backward Classes Remarks 1. 12 0 05 Nil 07 2. Selected Nil 0 Nil Nil Nil 3. Carry-forward 12 0 05 Nil 07

Details of vacancies filled up by 1999 Examination (General Recruitment)

Special selection for 64 posts which are bifurcated as below:

A. Details of 64 posts for Principals (15 for Plains Cadre + 49 for Hills Cadre)

(i) Break-up for post of Principals — 15 for Plains Cadre

Sl. No. Requisition received from the Government Total no. of posts General Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Other Backward Classes Remarks 1. 15 08 03 Nil 04 2. Selected 15 08 03 Nil 04

(ii) Break-up for post of Principals — 49 for Hills Cadre

Sl. No. Requisition received from the Government Total no. of posts General Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Other Backward Classes Remarks 1. 49 25 11 01 12 2. Selected 39 24 05 Nil 10 3. Carry-forwarded vacancies 10 01 06 01 02

The Hon'ble High Court vacated the stay order passed in Writ Petition No. 26986 of 1998 on 16-3-2001 as a result of which 51 posts which were of Hills Cadre after creation of Uttaranchal State U.P PSC was unable to fill up the aforesaid vacancies.

The U.P Government vide its Letter No. 2513/15-1-2003-27(40)/02 dated 19-9-2003 informed that there are 97 vacancies available till 30-6-2003. Details of abovementioned posts are as follows:

Principals, Government Inter Colleges (Boys and Girls) Total posts — 50 Sr. Lecturer in Education and Training Institutes Total posts — 47 Total 97 vacancies

Principals, Government Inter College (Boys and Girls):

Total posts — 50

(i) Break-up of 50 post for Principals, Government Inter Colleges (Boys and Girls)

Sl. No. Requisition received from the Government Total no. of posts General Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Other Backward Classes Remarks 1. 50 26 13 02 09 2. Selected 48 26 13 Nil 09 3. Carry-forwarded vacancies 02 Nil Nil 02* Nil *No ST candidate was available.

Sr. Lecturer in Education and Training Institutes

Total posts — 47

(i) Break-up of 47 posts for Sr. Lecturer in Education and Training Institutes

Sl. No. Requisition received from the Government Total no. of posts General Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Other Backward Classes Remarks 1. 47 35 08 03 01 2. Selected 02 02 Nil Nil Nil 3. Carry-forwarded vacancies 45 33 08 03* 01 *No ST candidate was available.

42. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contended that as per the vacancies indicated in the abovestated chart, general category appointments for 1996 batch were overstated and reserved category appointments were understated, thus, the seats available to the general category were not completely reflected in the said chart. According to the petitioners, transfer of reserved category candidates getting age relaxation, lower cut-off marks in Preliminary Examination and also in Main Examination coupled with fees relaxation cannot validly be transferred to general category.

43. The petitioners also contended that neither U.P PSC nor the Deputy Director of Education in their affidavits have whispered a word about any mistake having occurred while giving 548 vacancies in advertisement issued on 1-1-1997 and the stand now taken in the chart that 548 vacancies for 1997 batch was wrongly published in the advertisement can now be accepted.

44. Having gone through the details of vacancies for the years 1996, 1997 and 1999 for the post of Principals and Senior Lecturers in District Education and Training Institutes, as shown in the above-extracted chart, we find that U.P PSC has satisfactorily explained that the advertisement of 548 posts was made as per the requisition of the State Government which numbers were later on found to be wrong, because 216 vacancies which were advertised in 1996 batch, were wrongly included in 548 vacancies. The vacant posts for 1997 batch were only 332 and not 548 and 111 vacancies were carried forward from 1996 batch; the total vacancies in 1997 were 443.

45. The petitioners also contended that 14 new District Institutes of Education and Training have come into existence, thus, creating 84 more vacancies for the post of Senior Lecturers and the petitioners' version is that there are, in all, 180 total vacancies for general category [46 unfilled from 1996 batch, 41 from 1997 batch (less requisitioned) and 93 from 1997 batch (persons not joined)].

46. The petitioners have also submitted a chart in which they have given position of additional seats becoming available due to various miscellaneous reasons as on date in addition to the seats which still remained to be filled from the list of successful/recommended candidates of 1997 batch.

47. As per the chart produced before us, the petitioners have stated that there are as many as 338 total vacancies for general category available with the State of U.P against which the four petitioners who filed Civil Appeal No. 1124 of 2000 can be conveniently adjusted/appointed and the stand of the respondents not appointing the petitioners against the available posts is wholly unwarranted and unjustified. We regret our inability to accede to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

48. A cursory glance at the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the provisions thereof makes it abundantly clear that the Act has been brought in the statute book to define the limit and powers of certain courts punishing for contempt of courts and it has laid down the procedure for exercise of such powers.

49. Contempt of court has been defined under Section 2(a) of the Act, to mean civil contempt or criminal contempt. “Civil contempt” has been defined under Section 2(b) of the Act to mean “wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of court or wilful breach of undertaking given to a court”.

50. It is by now well settled under the Act and under Article 129 of the Constitution of India that if it is alleged before this Court that a person has wilfully violated its order it can invoke its jurisdiction under the Act to enquire whether the allegation is true or not and if found to be true it can punish the offenders for having committed “civil contempt” and if need be, can pass consequential orders for enforcement of execution of the order, as the case may be, for violation of which, the proceeding for contempt was initiated. In other words, while exercising its power under the Act, it is not open to the Court to pass an order, which will materially add to or alter the order for alleged disobedience of which contempt jurisdiction was invoked. When the Court directs the authority to consider a matter in accordance with law, it means that the matter should be considered to the best of understanding by the authority and, therefore, a mere error of judgment with regard to the legal position cannot constitute contempt of Court. There is no wilful disobedience if best efforts are made to comply with the order.

51. Having considered the entire factual backdrop of the matter and given our due consideration to the above-extracted various orders passed by this Court in this case and having considered the detailed explanations given by the Chairman, U.P PSC, Secretary, U.P PSC and Deputy Director (Education) in their respective affidavits as noticed above which in our view are quite satisfactory and further examination of the details of year wise vacancies position for the posts in question stated in the above-extracted chart submitted by U.P PSC, it cannot be said that a deliberate circumvention and dubious method was adopted by the contesting respondents to avoid implementation of the judgments/orders of this Court nor the facts and circumstances mentioned above would establish that the contesting respondents have wilfully or deliberately disobeyed the judgments/orders of this Court dated 7-3-2006 (2008) 14 SCC 136 and 9-3-2007 as alleged by the petitioners.

52. In terms of the order dated 7-3-2006 (2008) 14 SCC 136, the respondents have passed an appropriate order which was communicated to the petitioners. U.P PSC has placed on record all the relevant documents relating to these proceedings as directed by this Court in its order dated 9-3-2007.

53. In the result, there is no merit in these contempt petitions and they are, accordingly, dismissed. We, however, make it clear that the contesting respondents are not precluded from considering the legitimate claims of the petitioners as well as the applicants who have filed interlocutory applications before this Court if they are otherwise eligible in accordance with law. As no substantive relief, as prayed for by the applicants in their applications, can be granted to them in these contempt proceedings these applications shall stand disposed of.