SNEHASIS GIRI AND ORS. versus SUBHASIS MITRA

Citation: [2023] 2 S.C.R. 297 · Decided: 02-02-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAVINDRA BHAT · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
297
   [2023] 2 S.C.R. 297
297
SNEHASIS GIRI AND ORS.
v.
SUBHASIS MITRA
(Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 352 of 2022)
FEBRUARY 02, 2023
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND DIPANKAR DATTA, JJ.]
Contempt of Court – Certain provisions of the West Bengal
Madrasa Service Commission Act, 2008 regulating the process of
appointment of teachers in aided Madrasas recognized as minority
institutions, were declared unconstitutional by High Court –
However, Supreme Court declared the provisions of the Act to be
valid and binding – During the pendency of the appeals, some
appointments were made by the madrasas – Contempt proceedings
filed seeking release of salaries of teachers appointed after the
provisions of the Act were declared unconstitutional by the High
Court – Held: Given the nature of the interim orders made during
the pendency of the appeal, there is no doubt that the court declared
the appointments to be valid to the extent, they conformed to the
concerned rules and norms – However, there was no discussion
w.r.t whether the Court had applied its mind as to how the madrasas
had proceeded to appoint teachers as teaching/non-teaching staff
– Also, there was no discussion regarding rules/regulations,
applicable circulars and guidelines in terms of which aided and
unaided recognized institutions could make appointments – In
contempt proceeding, court cannot enlarge its scope and examine
matters which are not part of the directions/orders contained in the
judgement of which contempt is alleged – Argument of the
respondent-alleged contemnors that there ought to be an exercise
of verification, is merited – Further proceedings cannot be
continued as no determination can be made unless there is a due
verification in regard to the employment of each of the petitioners –
Committee constituted to consider the claims of the petitioners –
West Bengal Madrasa Service Commission Act, 2008 – Constitution
of India – Art.142.
Disposing of the petitions, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The judgement of the High Court in the appeal
had declared unconstitutional certain provisions of the Act. This
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
298
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
court, in its judgement set aside those findings of the High Court
regarding validity of the Act. Consequently, the provisions of the
Act were held to be valid and binding. In Para 58, the court
declared the nominations by the Commission in pursuance of the
provisions of the Act as valid, and the appointments made, after
disposal of the matters by the High Court as deemed to be valid
for all purpose. However, there is no discussion with respect to
whether the court had applied its mind as to how the madrasas
had proceeded to appoint teachers as teaching/non-teaching staff.
Also there is no discussion regarding rules/regulations, applicable
circulars and guidelines in terms of which aided and unaided
recognized institutions could make appointments, having regard
to the standard of education required and the requisite
experience; whether a transparent method was followed; whether
the madrasa concerned was recognized one or not; whether the
committee or body selecting the individual was constituted in
accordance with the rules and regulations, etc. The argument of
the respondent/alleged contemnors that there ought to be an
exercise of verification, therefore, appears to be merited and
substantial. Thus, given the nature of the interim orders made
during the pendency of the appeal, there can be no doubt that the
court declared the appointments to be valid to the extent, they
conformed to the concerned rules and binding norms. The court,
in contempt proceeding cannot enlarge its scope and examine
matters which are not part of its remit, i.e. extent of the direction
or orders contained in the judgement of which contempt being
alleged. [Paras 6-9][302-F; 304-D-H; 305-B]
Sudhir Vasudeva v. M. George Ravishekaran (2014) 3
SCC 373 : [2014] 4 SCR 27 – relied on.
1.2 Further proceedings cannot be continued as no
determination can be made unless there is a due verification in
regard to the employment of each of the petitioners. Furthermore,
this court, in lawful exercise of contempt jurisdiction, cannot
examine the merits of a decision, whether the state or the
madrasa’s stand that any of the petitioners is entitled to the
benefits of being treated as an employee, having regard to the
concerned rules and regulations. [Paras 10 and 11][306-E-G]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
299
J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar (1996) 6 SCC 291 :
[199

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