J.S. PARIHAR versus GANPAT DUGGAR AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 110 · Decided: 11-09-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

··-
A 
J.S. PARIHAR 
v. 
GANPAT DUGGAR AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 11, 1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDll\J" AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Rajastha.n Civil Engineering Services 
(Public Health 
C Branch}-Seniority list of Engineers--Prepared with retrospective ef-
f ect~uashed by the High Court with a direction to prepare the seniority list 
afresh-Fresh seni01ity list prepared--Contempt proceedings initiated-Single 
Judge giving directions-Appeal by State-Division Bench holding that appeal 
not maintainable under S.19 of the contempt of Courts Act but as a Letters 
Patent Appeal-Set aside the directions of Single Judge-On appeal, held the 
D Single Judge was exercising his jurisdiction to consider the matter on merits 
in contempt proceedings, which is not pennissible-Division Bench rightly 
exercised its power under S.18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance to 
co1Tect the mistake committ~d by the Single Judge-Since Division Bench 
already seized of the matter it was not necessary for the State to go in appeal. 
E 
F 
G 
Contempt of Courts Act. 1971. 
Ss.12, 19-Contempt proceedings-Single Judge going into merits of the 
case and giving directions-Not pennissible-Division Bench of High Court 
exercising power under, S.18 of Rajasthan High Court Ordinance to co17"ect 
the mistake committed by Single Judge-Held, the Division Bench justified in 
doing so, since appeal under S.19 not maintainable-Rajasthan High Cowt 
Ordinance-S.18. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 12494-96 
of 1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.4.96 of the Rajasthan High 
Court in D.B.C.S.A. No. 1-2 of 1995 and D.B.C.L~ .to A. No. 40 of 1995. 
Sushil K. Jain for the Appellant. 
H 
Aruneshwar Gupta for the Respondent. 
110 
..
' . 
J.S. PARIHAR v. GANPATDUGGAR 
111 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
A 
We have heard the counsel on both sides. 
Leave granted. 
l 
These appeals by special leave arise from the order of the Division B 
Bench dated April 3, 1996 made in Special Civil Appeal Nos. 1 & 2 of 
1995. The facts are not in dispute. The controversy relates to the prepara-
tion of the seniority list of the engineers in Rajasthan Civil Engineering 
Services (Public Health Branch). In W.P. No. 560n9 by order dated 
October 6, 1988 the Division. Bench of the High Court declared the 
C 
seniority list prepared with retrospective effect in terms of the amended 
Rules as unconstitutional; it accordingly quashed the list and directed 
preparation of the seniority list afresh to determine the inter se seniority 
on that basis and to grant promotion to the appellants within the specified 
time. The same order came to be reiterated by order of another Division 
Bench dated September 9, 1989 made in W.P. No. 1074/80. It was further D 
reiterated in the order dated March 22, 1990. When the seniority list came 
to be prepared, the contempt proceedings were initiated under Section 12 
of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short the "Act"). The learned 
single Judge on consideration of the merits in the seniority held that the 
respondents had not wilfully disobeyed the orders of the Court and gave 
directions as under : 
"In Gyaneshwar's case, only retrospectivity of these amendments 
was challenged and, therefore, it was felt by the learned Judges of 
E 
the Division Bench that retrospectivity of these amendments has 
already been held to be ultra vires in Kai/ash Chand Goyal's case F 
and so, it had not been declared as such afresh. In that case, the 
notifications whereby amendments were introduced were not chal-
lenged but only their retrospectivity was challenged and, therefore, 
the decision of this Court in Gyaneshwar's case does not hold the 
field. The controversy raised in this case is squarely covered by the 
decision of this Court in Kai/ash Chand Goyal's _case (supra) and G 
in Kai/ash Ozand Goyal's case, the impugned notifications An-
nexures 5 to 6 have been quashed in their entirety and so,k the 
seniority of the petitioner has to be determined on the basiS of the 
directions given by this Court in Kai/ash Chand Goyal's case 
(supra) and promotions have to be accorded accordingly. Of H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
112 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
course, it appears quite just and reasonable that the non-
petitioners did not intend to disobey the directions given by this 
Court on account of the legal advice that has been tendered to 
them and on account of certain interpretations put to the judg

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