LexANIL KUMAR SHAHI AND ORS. versus PROF. RAM SEVAK YADAV AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 11 S.C.R. 211 4 ANIL KUMAR SHAHI AND ORS. A v. ~ PROF. RAM SEVAK YADAV AND ORS. ' (Civil Appeal No. 1124 Of 2000) JULY 24, 2008 B ). [S.B. SINHA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: s.2(a) - Wilful violation of order of Court - Invocation of contempt jurisdiction under the Act - Scope of - Held: While exercising jurisdiction under the c Act, it is not open to the court to pass an order, which would 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 " D of understanding by the authority - Mere error of judgment with regard to the legal position cannot constitute contempt of court- There is no willful disobedience if best efforts are made - to comply with the order- Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 129. E In an I.A. filed by the petitioners, this Court on 7.3.2006 held that it was not open to the respondents to raise a fresh controversy on facts before this Court and directed the respondents to implement the order of Mohd. A/tat dated 10.1.2001 and 20.2.2002 and apply the same F eligibility criteria as decided by this Court in these orders. This Court directed respondents to pass appropriate or- ders giving reason as to why petitioners were not con- sidered and disclose the marks obtained by them as well as cut off marks beyond which candidates were called G for interview. In compliance with this order,· the respondents .... passed an office order dated 7.4.2006 taking a stand that petitioners were found ineligible and therefore not called 211 H 212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 11 S.C.R. " A ..... for interview and that the order· of this Court dated 20.2.2002, and 10.1.2000, are applicable to only those can- t I ·- · di dates who had appeared in the interview. Hence the contempt petitions. 8 In reply to the contempt petitions, the Chairman of UPPSC in his affidavit submitted that he has highest re- ~ gard for the orders passed by this Court and has taken necessary action in compliance of order dated 7.3.2006 .- .and that he never intended to disobey orders of this Court c which may amount to contempt of orders of this Court. He further submitted that in compliance of orders of this Court, the petitioners had made representation and Com- .,.._ mission passed office order dated 7.4.2006 on its inter- .... pretation of order dated 20.2.2002 passed in Mohd. Altaf ,_ D case in which it was ordered that orders would be appli- cable to all conceq1ed who appeared in the interview. However, after rejection of representation of the petiticn- .... ers, the Commission realised that order dated 20.2.2002 should be made applicable to petitioners due to their higher marks than the cut off marks. It was further sub- E mitted that having regard to various orders passed by this Court, Commission had· disclosed the marks to petition- ers· and subsequently called them for ·interview. All the petitioners appeared for·the interview~· The Commission accordingly revised the Combined Merit List of PCS Ex- F amination-1997 and included the petitioners in Eligibility List of 1997 along with other candidates. It was submit- ted that Commission was not in a position to recommend the candidature of petitioners as they belonged to ·1997 examination and in absence of vacancies, their candida- G ture could not be recommended as directed by this Court. The Secretary, UPPSC gave similar statement in a sepa- I- rate-affidavit. The Chairman and Secretary UPPSC placed ,_ Chart showing vacancy position as obtaining in the. year >- 1996, 1997 and 1998 giving .details of selection for the H various posts. ANIL KUMAR SHAHI & ORS. v. PROF. RAM 213 SEVAK YADAV & ORS. Dismissing the Contempt Petitions, the Court A HELD: 1. The UPPSC 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 8 were advertised in 1996 batch, were wrongly included in 548 vacancies. The vacant posts for 1997 batch were only 332 and not 548 and with 111 vacancies carried forward from 1996 batch, the total vacancies in 1997 were 443. [Para 25] [240-F,G] c 2. A cursory glance of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the provisions
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.