ASHOK KUMAR SINGH AND ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

Citation: [1991] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 415 · Decided: 22-11-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

ASHOK KUMAR SINGH AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 22, 1991 
[RANGANATH MISRA, CJ., G.N. RAY AND DR. A.S. ANAND, JJ.] 
B 
Contempt of Courts Act, 19 71: 
Court's order-Mis-interpretation of-Whether amounts to contempt 
of Court. 
. 
. 
· 
Bihar Non--Govemment Primary School (Taking over of Control) 
Ordinance, 1976: Para 1 & Para 2: 
Primary school teachers-Appointment-Qualifications -Non-avail-
ability of trained teachers-Whether untrained candidates could be ap-
pointed. 
The Bihar Non-Government Primary School (Taking over of 
Control) Ordinance, 1976 provided by Para 1 and Para 2 that while 
appointing teachers, I.Sc. trained will be appointed on the basis of 
I.Sc trained and only Matric with Science trained will be appointed 
on t~e basis of Matric trained, and where such candidates were not 
available the candidates having qualifications more than these would 
also be appointed. 
The petitioners were untrained primary school teachers in the 
State of Bihar. Later on their services were terminated. They filed 
writ petitions before the High Court which held that their services 
had been terminated because of improper and illegal recruitment 
by the State for which they were not responsible, and that the ter-
mination orders were violative of principle of natural justice, but 
did not quash the orders of termination, and directed the· State 
Government to recruit those dismissed teachers who satisfied the 
requirements, and to relax the age limit in case of those who mean-
while became overage. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
On the special leave petitions filed by the petitioners this Court 
by its order dated 7.2.1991, directed the State Government to carry 
out the selection process ·to take back in the employment the teach-
ers who were found qualified under the Rules in force at the time of H 
415 
416 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1991] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
their initial appointment, and to give them full benefit of continued 
service irrespective of iJny break in service on account of the termi-
nation. In the special circumstances of the case arising out of clo-
sure of a number of school_s for want. of teachers; the Court held 
that in the event of non-availability of trained candidates even un-
trained candidates could be appointed, and gave time till 30.6.1991 
B 
to complete the selection process in accordance with the directions 
of the High Court. 
Consequent there to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Human 
Resources Departmen~, Government of Bihar made an order deter-
mining eligible categories for reappointment out of the dismissed · 
C 
teachers and hold that under the executive directions/regulations 
only trained teachers were eligible for appointment while untrained 
teachers, in exceptional circumstance could. be appointed against 
the reserved categories of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Urdu 
and Sanskrit only, and held that those untrained. teachers who did 
not belong to any of these categories were not eligible for. appoint-
D 
ment. 
The petitioners filed contempt petitions contending that the 
Commissioner gave a completely wrong interpretation to the rel-
evant executive directions/regulations and had deliberately contra-
vened this Court's order dated 7.2.1991. On behalf of the respond-
E 
ents it was contended that the Commissioner had correctly inter-
preted the executive orders/regulations and did not contravenes this 
court's order and, therefore, be committed no contempt. 
F 
G 
H 
Disposing of the contempt petitions, this Court, 
HELD: 1. (1) The directions of the Court provided that even 
the untrained teachers were entitled to be selected and appointed 
not only in the reserved categories but also in the other categor.es, 
provided trained teachers were not available and the untrained teachers 
were otherwise qualified without putting the bar of age against them'. 
[p. 421 D..:.E] 
1.2 The interpretation ~placed by the Commissioner, was not 
correct and if that interpretation pe accepted, it would efface the 
very effect of the order of this Court dated 7.2.1991 and defeat the 
object of that order which was aimed at providing th~t all the schools. 
must have teachers. The Commissioner's order was not in conform-
ity with the directions given by this Court and the High Court.· 
[p. 421 B-D] 
. 
ASHOKKUMAR v. STATE [ANAND, J.) 
417 
l. It appears to be a case of misinterpretation of the execu-
A 
tive directions and order of this Court dated 7.2.1991 and was, 
therefore, not a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.