LexC. CHAKKARAVARTY AND ORS. versus TMT. M. SATYAVATHY, IAS AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
[2015) 12 S.C.R. 950
C. CHAKKARAVARTY AND ORS.
v.
TMT. M. SATYAVATHY, IASAND ORS.
(Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 339 of 2013 etc.)
IN
(Civil Appeal No. 8468 of 2003)
OCTOBER 16, 2015
[T.S.THAKUR AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.]
Contempt of Court- Contempt petition under Art. 129 of
Constitution oflndia rlw. s. 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 19 71
- Alleging violation of order passed by Supreme Court -
0
Whereby the Court had held that the practice of the State
Government of counting the service of Section Officer/Junior
Engineers (who had qualified as graduates while in service)
from the date they passed the degree for the purpose of
promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer ulr.11 (1) of
E Recruitment Rules of 1965, was violative of r. 5 of the Rules
- The Court also held that counting of entire service of such
Junior Engineer for the purpose of seniority and promotion
to the post of Assistant Engineer was to be made only on the
basis of comparative merit of eligible candidates - Direction
F given to the State to consider the cases of Section Officers/
Junior Engineers, who had completed 3 years service in the
grade of SO/JE for promotion to the post of AE, on the basis
of inter se merit- The review DPC issued new list of eligible
candidates on the basis of the date of their acquiring eligibility
G - Contempt petition challenging the procedure adopted by
DoPT - Held: The procedure adopted by DPC is erroneous
- However, the error occurred due to erroneous perception
that the method was sanctioned by law and order of this Court
H - Thus, there is no deliberate or contumacious breach of
950
C. CHAKKARAVARTYv. TMT. M. SATYAVATHY, IAS
951
direction of this Court, to warrant pu_nitive action- Contempt A
of Courts Act, 1971 - s.12 - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Art. 129- Service Law- Promotion.
Disposing of the petition, the Court
HELD: 1. There is no gainsaying that this Court has
unequivocally declared that promotion to the post of
Assistant Engineers in the service shall be on the basis
B
of merit and merit alone and that seniority of the
candidates cannot be taken as an input for determining c
such merit. This Court has also very clearly rejected the
procedure followed by the Government whereby the date
on which the candidate had acquired his degree
qualification was taken as a determining factor. That
being so, and given the large number of candidates D
eligible for consideration, the Government was entitled
to adopt the method of restricting the zone of
consideration based on the number of vacancies.[Para
9) [959-E-G]
.E
2. Inasmuch as the Government relied upon the
DoPT guidelines for achieving that objective, it
committed no fault. As between the date of acquiring
eligibility and the date of entering service as a Section
Officer/Junior Engineer, the latter was a more intelligible,
F
fair and reasonable yardstick to be applied for drawing-
up the list of eligible candidates by the review DPC.
Inasmuch as the review DPC relied upon the date of
acquiring eligibility as the basis for preparation of the
G
list of eligible candidates, it committed a mistake which
needs to be corrected. [Para 9) [959-G-H; 960-C-D]
3. Thus, there is no deliberate or contumacious ·
breach of the directions of this Court to warrant punitive
action against those responsible for taking the said H
952
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 12 S.C.R.
A decision. The error has occurred more because of an
erroneous perception on the part of the Government and
the review DPC that the method adopted by them was
sanctioned by law and the orders of this Court.
Therefore, there is no need .to pass any orders of
13
punishment against the respondent on that score,
although they are expected to be more careful and
circumspect in fl;lture. [Para 1 O] [960-E-F]
c
D
E
N. Suresh Nathan and Ors. v. Union of India &
Ors. 2010 (4) SCR 1014: {'2010) s sec 692-
referred to.
Case Law Reference
2010 (4) SCR 1014
referred to.
Para 1
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Contempt Petition
(Civil) No. 339 of 2013.
IN
Civil Appeal No. 8468 of 2003.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.06.2003 of the
Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition
F No. 11236 of 2000.
G
WITH
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 340 of 2013 in Civil Appeal
No. 8468 of 2003.
K. V. Vishwanathan, P. P. Rao, V. Giri, A. K. Ganguli, ~r.
Advs., M. A. Chinnasamy, Sathyawan Rathee, V. Senthil
Kumar, V. S.Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.