LexSTATE OF BIHAR ETC. ETC. versus KRIPALU SHANKER ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF BIHAR ETC. ETC. A v. KRIPALU SHANKER ETC. ETC. APRIL 28, 1987 [V. KHALID AND G.L. OZA, JJ.] B ,.[. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971-Notings made by officers on Government files cannot be made the basis of contempt action against 4 them. The first Respondent who was discharging the functions of a ~ Public Relations Officer in the Bihar Irrigation Department when that c post fell vacant in 1979, tiled a writ petition claiming the post for himself when another person was appointed to that post for six months. At the time of hearing, it was represented on behalf of the State that the other person had been appointed only on ad hoc basis for a period of six months and that after the expiry of that period, the matter would D be referred to the Public Service Commission and that, at that stage, the case of the first Respondent would also be considered. On this assurance, the petition was allowed to be withdrawn on 19th Decem- 'y' ber, 1979. However, the assurance was not respected and no reference was made to the Public Service Commission for making a regular appointment to the post, and, in April, 1983, yet another person was E appointed to the post, again on ad hoc basis, and the same was chal- lenged by another writ petition. When that petition was heard, the ,,.. Advocate General informed the High Court that the appointment was ~ only ad hoc and gave the impression that a regular appointment would be made after the expiry of six months and, on that representation, the High Court disposed of the petition on May 4, 1983, directing inter alia, F .y that the post should be filled up in a regular way, and that, in case the appointment was not made within a period of six months, the ad hoc appointment shall stand terminated. The six months' period was to expire on October 17, 1983, and according to the State Government, the Irrigation Department had written to the Public Service Commission on April 4, 1983 to give concurrence to the appointment of the ad hoc G incumbent since it was an ex-cadre post and he had been selected by a ~ Selection Committee but that the concurrence was given only on April 2, 1985 and thereafter the matter was further examined with reference to the provisions of the Rules governing reservations and a decision was taken to send a requisition to the Public Service Commission for advertising the post. Accordingly, the post was advertised on May 12, H 1985, setting out the eligibility criteria for selection to the post. The I 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 3 S.C.R. A advertisement was challenged by yet another petition on the ground that the eligibility criteria had been so drafted as to suit only the ad hoc incumbent of the post. The High Court, which summoned the relevant records from the Government, felt, on their examination, that the direction given by it while disposing of the earlier writ petition on May 4, 1983 had been disregarded, and, issued notices to the appellants B calling upon them to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt for ignoring the order dated May 4, 1983. The appellants expressed regret but contended that no contempt had been committed by them for the reason that expression of views in the notings made on the f"tles, whether they were right or wrong, did not amount to contempt of Court, as no order had been passed appointing the ad hoc incumbent C after October 17, 1983. The officials of the Public Service Commission pleaded that the appointment of the ad hoc incumbent from October 18, 1983 should be treated as a fresh appointment, that they did not know about the order passed by the High Court, and that though concurrence was given, it had been withdrawn when the correct facts were made known to them. D The High Court, after going through the relevant files of the State Government and the Public Service Commission came to the conclusion that, although the State of Bihar as a juristic person was not liable for contempt for the reason that the Chief Minister had minuted that its order must be obeyed and the Chief Secretary had noted that the adhoc E incumbent should not be granted further adhoc appointment, the appellants, inspite of the advice of the Advocate General that taking any step to appoint the adhoc incumbent would amount to contempt of Court, were busy trying to find out how to ignore its earlier order. The High Court further observed that when its earlier direction
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.