V. SENTHUR AND ANOTHER versus M. VIJAYAKUMAR, IAS,SECRETARY, TAMIL NADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2021] 10 S.C.R. 200 · Decided: 01-10-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Directions issued

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
200
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
200
V. SENTHUR AND ANOTHER
v.
M. VIJAYAKUMAR, IAS,SECRETARY, TAMIL NADU
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ANOTHER
(Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 638 of 2017)
In
(Civil Appeal No. 4954 of 2016)
OCTOBER 01, 2021
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND B.R. GAVAI, JJ.]
Contempt of Court – Service Law – Doctrine of Merger –
Seniority List – Dispute w.r.t fixation of inter se seniority – Principle
of law to be applied – Wilful/deliberate non-compliance of directions
– Division Bench of the High Court directed the official respondents
to consider the rank assigned to the selectees by Tamil Nadu Public
Service Commission (TNPSC) as the basis for fixation of seniority –
SLPs thereagainst – Dismissed by Supreme Court by a speaking
order dtd. 22.01.16 – Contempt petitioners allege non-compliance
of the said order, contending merger of the High Court judgment
into it – Held: If the order of dismissal of SLPs is supported by
reasons, then also the doctrine of merger is not attracted – However,
the reasons stated by the Supreme Court would attract Article 141
and the law declared would be binding on all the courts/tribunals
and the parties thereto – Thus, in the present case, though the
judgment of the High Court did not merge into the order dtd.
22.01.16, still the declaration of law made in the said order was
binding on the parties – While dismissing the SLPs, the Supreme
Court held that after the judgment in Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of
Haryana and Others reported as [2003] 2 SCR 757, the fundamental
principle governing the determination of seniority was that, it should
be based on merit list of selection and that the list made on the basis
of roster point would not be permissible in law – Respondents were
bound to follow the law laid down and determine the inter se seniority
on the basis of selection by TNPSC and not on the basis of roster
point – Seniority list purportedly published in accordance with the
said order is in breach of the directions of Supreme Court –
Respondents to revise and publish the seniority list– Contemnors to
[2021] 10 S.C.R. 200
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
201
be heard on the quantum of punishment – Constitution of India –
Article 141.
Contempt of Court – Contempt jurisdiction – Limit of –
Discussed.
Issuing directions in the contempt petitions and disposing
of the SLPs, the Court
HELD: 1. In a contempt jurisdiction, the court will not travel
beyond the original judgment and direction; neither would it be
permissible for the court to issue any supplementary or incidental
directions, which are not to be found in the original judgment and
order. [Para 14][209-C-D]
2. The High Court clearly observed that the case before
the High Court was not individualistic in nature, depending upon
individual dates, facts and sequence of events. It further observed
that it arose out of the most fundamental question as to the
principle of law to be applied in the matter of fixation of seniority.
[Para 17][210-B]
3.1 If the order of dismissal of SLPs is supported by reasons,
then also the doctrine of merger would not be attracted. Still the
reasons stated by the court would attract applicability of Article
141of the Constitution of India, if there is a law declared by this
Court which obviously would be binding on all the courts and the
tribunals in India and certainly, the parties thereto. No court,
tribunal or party would have the liberty of taking or canvassing any
view contrary to the one expressed by this Court. Such an order
would mean that it has declared the law and in that light, the case
was considered not fit for grant of leave. [Para 22][212-F-H]
Kunhayammed and Others v. State of Kerala and
Another (2000) 6 SCC 359 : [2000] 1 Suppl. SCR 538
– relied on.
3.2 This Court, while dismissing the SLPs against the
judgment clearly held that after the emergence of the judgment
in Bimlesh Tanwar, the fundamental principle governing the
determination of seniority was that, it should be based on merit
list of selection and that the list made on the basis of roster point,
V. SENTHUR v. M. VIJAYAKUMAR, IAS,SECRETARY, TAMIL NADU
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
202
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
would not be permissible in law. Thus, while dismissing the SLPs,
this Court has reiterated the legal position as laid down in the
case of Bimlesh Tanwar to the effect that while determining
seniority, what is relevant is the inter se merit in the selection list
and not the roster point. It i

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