Rajasthan High Court

Rajesh Chandra Sharma S/O Shree ... vs Pawan Kumar Goyal ... on 11 August, 2023

Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal

[2023:RJ-JP:17594]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 1403/2018
                                    IN
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5890/2016

Rajesh Chandra Sharma S/o Shree Prasad Sharma, Aged About
51 Years, R/o Village And Post Manpur, Tehsil Sikrai, Distt. Dausa
(Raj.)
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.       Pawan Kumar Goyal, Additional Education Secretary Rural
         Development And Panchayat Raj Department Govt. Of
         Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.       Kesardan Ratnu, District Education Officer, Elementary
         Education, Badmer.
3.       Mohan Das Ratnu, Chief Executive Officer                              Distt.
         Establishment Committee Zila Parishad, Badmer.
4.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Panchayat Raj
         Department, Secretariat Jaipur
                                                                   ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Rakh Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.L. Saini, AAG

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Judgment / Order

11/08/2023

This contempt petition has been filed alleging willful

disobedience of the order dated 10.08.2017 passed by this Court

whereby, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of in

limine in terms of judgement of this Court dated 23.01.2009

passed in case of Neeraj Saxena Vs. State & Ors.: S.B. Civil

Writ Petition No.6829/2006.

Inviting attention of this Court towards the judgement in

case of Neeraj Saxena (supra) and the order dated 08.07.2015

passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in petition for

Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.......15 (CC No.10866/2015): State

[2023:RJ-JP:17594] (2 of 6) [CCP-1403/2018]

of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Neeraj Saxena and the appointment order

of Neeraj Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

while, after dismissal of the special leave to appeal preferred by

the State Government in case of Neeraj Saxena, he has been

extended appointment on the post of Teacher Grade III, a benefit

denied to the petitioner. He submits that the order dated

29.06.2022 passed by the respondents purportedly in compliance

of direction of this Court dated 10.08.2017, speaks of rejection of

his representation; but, there was no direction by this Court to

decide his representation. He, therefore, prays that the

respondents may be directed to purge the contempt and they may

also be punished suitably.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that

in case of Neeraj Saxena (supra), a direction was issued to the

respondents to consider the petitioner for appointment on the post

of Primary School Teacher and since, Shri Neeraj Saxena was

found eligible and suitable for appointment, he was extended

appointment; but, while considering the case of the petitioner for

appointment, he was not found eligible for appointment. He,

therefore, prays for dismissal of the contempt petition.

Heard. Considered.

This Court has, vide order dated 10.08.2017, contempt

whereof is alleged, disposed of the writ petition filed by the

petitioner in terms of order in case of Neeraj Saxena (supra)

wherein, the respondents were directed to consider case of the

petitioner for appointment. A perusal of the order dated

29.06.2022 (Annexure R/1) passed by the respondents reveals

that upon consideration of case of the petitioner for appointment,

[2023:RJ-JP:17594] (3 of 6) [CCP-1403/2018]

he was not found eligible. In absence of any direction in the order

dated 10.08.2017 to extend the petitioner appointment, the

respondents cannot be held guilty of willful disobedience merely

because upon consideration of case of Neeraj Saxena, he was

found eligible for appointment.

Their Lordships have succinctly explained the scope of

contempt jurisdiction in case of Midnapore Peoples' Co-op.

Bank Ltd. & Ors. versus Chunilal Nanda & Ors.: AIR 2006

Supreme Court 2190 as under:-

"10.5 J. S. Parihar vs. Ganpat Duggar (supra) is nearest to this case, on facts. A contempt petition was filed alleging that the seniority list drawn pursuant to the order of the High Court was not in conformity with the said order. The High Court found it to be so, but held that the disobedience was not willful and, therefore, did not punish for contempt. But the High Court gave a direction to redraw the seniority list. The State Government challenged the said direction in an intra court appeal. The Division Bench held that the appeal was not maintainable under section 19 of the CC Act, but was maintainable as an intra-court appeal as the direction issued by the single Judge would be a "judgment" within the meaning of that expression in section 18 of Rajasthan High Court Ordinance.

Accordingly, the Division Bench set aside the direction of the learned Single Judge to re-do the list. The said order was challenged before this Court. This Court

[2023:RJ-JP:17594] (4 of 6) [CCP-1403/2018]

confirmed the decision of the Division Bench and held as follows :

"Therefore, an appeal would lie under section 19 when an order in exercise of the jurisdiction of the High Court punishing the contemnor has been passed. In this case, the finding was that the respondents had not wilfully disobeyed the order. So there is no order punishing the respondent for violation of the orders of the High Court. Accordingly, an appeal under section 19 would not lie.

The question is whether seniority list is open to review in the contempt proceedings to find out, whether it is in conformity with-the directions issued by the earlier Benches. It is seen that once there is an order passed by the Government on the basis of the directions issued by the Court, there arises a fresh cause of act on to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. The preparation of the seniority list may be wrong or may be right or may or may not be in conformity with the directions. But that would be a fresh cause of action for the aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity of judicial review. But that cannot be considered to be the wilful violation of the order. After re-exercising the judicial review in contempt proceedings, a fresh direction by the learned single Judge cannot be given to redraw the seniority list. In other words, the learned Judge was exercising the jurisdiction to consider the matter on merits in the contempt proceedings. It would not be permissible...."

[2023:RJ-JP:17594] (5 of 6) [CCP-1403/2018]

11 (IV). Any direction issued or decision made by the High Court on the merits of a dispute between the parties, will not be in the exercise of 'jurisdiction to punish for contempt' and therefore, not appealable under section 19 of CC Act. The only exception is where such direction or decision is incidental to or inextricably connected with the order punishing for contempt, in which event the appeal under section 19 of the Act, can also encompass the incidental or inextricably connected directions.

11 (V). If the High Court, for whatsoever reason, decides an issue or makes any direction, relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties, in a contempt proceedings, the aggrieved person is not without remedy. Such an order is open to challenge in an intra-court appeal (if the order was of a learned Single Judge and there is a provision for an intra-court appeal), or by seeking special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India (in other cases).

The first point is answered accordingly.

Re : Point No. (ii) :

21. There was also no justification for the further direction by the learned Single Judge in the contempt proceedings, that too by an interlocutory order, that the complainant should immediately and forthwith be reinstated into the service of the Bank, and shall be deemed to be in the

[2023:RJ-JP:17594] (6 of 6) [CCP-1403/2018]

service of the Bank all through, that the employee shall not be prevented in any manner from discharging his duties and that he shall be paid all arrears of salary within four weeks, and that the suspension order shall be deemed to have been revoked. These were totally outside the scope of the proceedings for contempt and amounted to adjudication of rights and liabilities not in issue in the contempt proceedings. At all events, on the facts and circumstances, there was no disobedience, breach or neglect on the part of the Bank and its President and Secretary, to provoke the court to issue such directions, even assuming that such directions could be issued in the course of the contempt proceedings. Hence, directions (2) and (3) and the direction relating to revocation of suspension are liable to be set aside.

Re : SLP (C) Nos.13045-46/2003"

In the backdrop of aforesaid precedential law, the contention

advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner does not merit

acceptance.

Resultantly, this contempt petition is dismissed.

Notices are discharged.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

PRAGATI/S-361