BALAKRUSHNA BEHERA AND ANR. versus SATYPRAKASH DASH

Citation: [2007] 11 S.C.R. 605 · Decided: 22-10-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. MATHUR, MARKANDEY KATJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

f 
y-
BALAKRUSHNA BEHERA AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
SA TY A PRAKASH DASH 
OCTOBER 22, 2007 
[A.K. MATHUR AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.] 
B 
t 
1 
Contempt of Court: 
Selection of Lecturer in University-On a writ petition filed by a c 
candidate, High Court directing the University to complete the 
selection process-Accordingly result declared, but selected candidate 
not given appointment-Contempt petition-Notice issued by High 
Court to Registrar and Vice-Chancellor of University-Plea that 
appointment was to be approved by Government-Meanwhile State D 
Government abolished the post-High Court in contempt Proceedings 
directing Registrar and Vice-Chancellor to be present personally in 
Court on given date-HELD : Court cannot direct the State 
Government in a writ of mandamus to appoint a person against a post 
which has been abolished-In view of second proviso to Statute 4(1) E 
of Statutes of University, since no appointment could be made without 
prior approval of State Government and the post having been 
abolished, even after selection, candidate cannot claim a right to the 
post, nor is there any contempt of Court-Thus, no contempt is made 
out against the noticees-Orders of High Court set aside-Notice of 
F 
....., , 
contempt discharged-Constitution of India-Article 226 . 
·~ 
Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, [1991) 3 SCC 47, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4179 of 
2006. 
G 
From the Judgment and final Order dated 24.1.2006 of the High 
' 
~~ 
Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Misc. Case No. 151 of2005. 
Janaranjan Das and Swetaketu Mishra for the Appellant. 
605 
H 
606 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
B.K. Pattnaik, Rutwik Panda and Jana Kalyan Das for the 
Respondent. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
ORDER 
B 
Heard learned counsel for the parties. 
Leave granted. 
This appeal is directed against the judgment and orders dated 
24.1.2006 of the High Court of Orissa whereby contempt proceedings 
C were initiated against the appellants herein and they were directed to be 
present in Court for further proceeding in the matter of Contempt. 
The brief facts r.ecessary for the disposal of the present appeal are 
that the respondent herein filed a writ petition against the Utkal University 
D of Culture and sought a mandamus that the University be directed to 
complete the entire selection process for the post of Lecturer in South & 
~. 
' 
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 
E 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 
mandainus commanding opposite parties 1 & 2 to complete the entire 
process of selection and publish the result in respect of the post of Lecturer 
in South & South East Asian Studies within a period of two months from 
F the date of communication of the said order, It was further observed that 
"it was needless to mention that after declaration of the result, 
-.c: >---
consequences to follow by opposite parties 1 & 2". 
After passing of the said order, the same allegedly having not been 
complied with by the University authorities within the time stipulated, a 
G contempt petition was filed by the respondent herein (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 
,1--"1. 
of Statute 4(3) of the Utkal University of Culture First Statute, 2001 since 
the Board of Management differed from the recommendation of the 
H Selection Committee, the matter had to be referred to the Chancellor of 
f 
BALAKRUSHNA BEHERA v. SA TY A PRAKASH DASH 
607 
y-~ 
the University. In the meantime, the High court issued notice the contempt A 
of Court for alleged disobedience of its judgment dated I 0.3.2005, but 
in view of the results having been published, the contr.mpt 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 B 
24.1.2006 and 27 .1.2006 were passed. By the said orders the Vice 
I' 
Chancellor and Registrar of the University were directed to be personally 
1 
present in Court. 
The pl

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