STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR. versus ASWINI KUMAR BALIARSINGH

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 388 · Decided: 08-08-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
l 
ST A TE OF ORIS SA AND ANR. 
v. 
ASWINI KUMAR BALIARSINGH 
AUGUST 8, 2006 
(S.B. SINHA AND DALVEER BHANDARI, JJ.] 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: 
Contempt jurisdiction-Exercise of-Ambit and scope, explained. 
The respondent was appointed as an Assistant Teacher. The 
Inspector of Schools did not approve his appointment. A writ petition was 
filed by him, wherein by an order dated 3.9.1997 the High Court directed 
the Inspector of Schools to do so. The said order was carried into effect 
D by posting him as Assistant Teacher in a school by an order dated 
19.2.1999. He was removed from service on or about 27.5.2000 in terms 
of the Government Orders. These government orders are under challenge 
in the original application filed by the respondent before the State 
Administrative Tribunal which is pending. He also filed an application for 
initiating proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act before the High 
E Court, inter alia, against the Inspector of Schools for alleged disobedience 
of the said order dated 3.9.1997. The High Court set aside the said order 
of the Inspector of Schools dated 27.5.2000 and directed the appellants to 
take the respondent back in service and to give him appropriate posting 
within one month therefrom. It was further directed that arrears of salary 
F should be paid to him as early as possible, preferably within six months 
from the date of his joining. Hence, this appeal. 
G 
H 
It was contended by the appellant that the High Court exceeded its 
jurisdiction in issuing the aforementioned directions. 
It was contended by the respondent that while exercising its contempt 
jurisdiction, the High Court may, in a given case, issue appropriate 
direction, although no penal action is taken against the contemnors. 
Allowing the appeal, the court 
388 
-
}-
STA TE OF ORIS SA v. AS WINI KUMAR BALIARSINGH [SINHA, J.] 3 89 
HELD: 1.1. The cause of action for filing the contempt petition arose A 
as the Inspector of Schools passed an order consequent upon the 
Government Orders which the Inspector of Schools was bound to give 
effect to. The said Government orders may be legal or illegal; by no stretch 
of imagination, it can be said that the Inspector of Schools committed 
contempt of court in complying with the directions of the State of Orissa. B 
The said Government Orders having been issued subsequent to the order 
of the High Court, no direction indisputably had been or could be issued· 
in that behalf in the writ petition. A contempt petition, thus, was not 
maintainable. The High Court in relation thereto did not have the 
jurisdiction. (391-C-F) 
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Ors., AIR (1997) SC 1125: 
(1997) 3 sec 261, referred to. 
1.2. While exercising its contempt jurisdiction, the High Court may, 
c 
in a given case, issue appropriate direction, although no penal action is 
taken against the contemnors. However a finding would be required to D 
be arrived at to the effect that the contemnors have disobeyed the order 
of the Court. Only when such a finding is arrived at, the court may in 
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction put the parties to the same position as 
if its order was not violated. [391-G-H; 392-A-B] 
All India Regional Rural Bank Officer Federation and Ors. v. Govt. of E 
India and Ors., (2002] 3 SCC 554 and Director of Education, Uttaranchal 
and Ors. v. Ved Prakash Joshi and Ors., (2005] 5 SCALE 529 : (2005] 6 
sec 98, relied upon. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appe~I No. 7472 of2003. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.7.2002 of the High Court of 
Orissa at Cuttack in Original Criminal Misc. Case No. 594/2001. 
Jana Kalyan Das for the Appellants. 
F 
Rajib Roy, Anukul Chandra Pradhan and Pranab Kumar Mullick for G 
the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. The respondent herein was appointed as an Assistant 
Teacher. The Inspector of Schools did not approve his appointment. A writ H 
390 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20061 SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A petition was filed by him, wherein by an order dated 3.9.1997 the High Court 
directed the Inspector of Schools to do so. The said order was carried into 
effect by posting him as Assistant Teacher in a school by an order dated 
19.2.1999. He joined the said school. He acquired the qualification in May, 
1999. He was removed from services on or ahout 27.5.2000 in terms of the 
Government Orders bearing No.11667/SME dated 24.4.2000 and No.13680/ 
B SME dated 11.5.2000 stating 

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