Telangana High Court
P.Meera Manohar, Nalgonda Dist. vs Ranjeev R Acharya, Hyd Another on 10 June, 2022
Bench: P Naveen Rao
1 PNRJ
CC 1734 OF 2017
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
CONTEMPT CASE NO. 1734 OF 2017
Date: 10.06.2022
Between:
P Meera Manohar
S/o Madan Mohan
Aged about 41 years
Occ Contract Lecturer under oral termination
R/o H No 1310/5 Stadium Road
Nakrekal, Nalgonda District
.....Petitioner
And
Ranjeev R Acharya & Another
Prl Secretary Presently Special Chief Secretary to the Govt of
Telangana
Telangana Secretariat Hyderabad
.....Respondents
The Court made the following:
2 PNRJ
CC 1734 OF 2017
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
CONTEMPT CASE NO. 1734 OF 2017
ORAL ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri M.Venkat Ram Reddy
and learned Government Pleader for Services for respondents.
2. Petitioner was working as Contract Lecturer in
Government Polytechnic, Bellampally, Mancherial District, the 4th
respondent - College. According to petitioner contract lecturers were
engaged in the beginning of the academic year and terminated on the
last day of that academic year and reengaged on the commencement
of the next academic year. For the academic year 2016-17 he was not
reengaged. By representation, dated 24.12.2016, the petitioner
requested to reengage him as a Contract Lecturer. Alleging inaction
on the said representation, the petitioner filed WP No.8819 of 2017.
The writ petition was disposed of directing respondents 1 and 2 to
examine the representation of the petitioner, dated 24.12.2016, with
reference to his claim for reengagement as a Contract Lecturer and
pass appropriate orders as warranted by law by assigning reasons in
support of the decision. Alleging that said orders were not complied,
this Contempt case is filed.
3. Along with the counter affidavit Memo No.
2360/TE/A1/2007-2 dated 13.9.2017 is filed. This memo is in
response to the representation submitted by the petitioner on
24.12.2016 and as directed by this Court. From this memo it is
3 PNRJ
CC 1734 OF 2017
noticed that on 3.5.2017 Government directed Commissioner of
Technical Education to examine the claim and to take appropriate
decision. In the memo dated 13.9.2017 after narrating various
measures taken by the department to fill vacancies directed the
Commissioner to take further necessary action on the claim of
petitioner.
4. Reading of this memo would show that for the academic
year 2016-17 and 2017-18 Government accorded permission to the
Commissioner to engage 435 lecturers on contract basis subject to
actual requirement. Based on the orders of the Government, the
Commissioner was required to take further action.
5. In the additional counter affidavit deposed by Mr Navin
Mittal, Commissioner for Technical Education, it is asserted that as
per AICTE norms ratio prescribed was 25 : 1. For the Diploma course
consisting of 60 students per year only 7 lecturers were required and
seven were working and thus services of petitioner were not required.
It is also asserted that Principal has given the request dated
22.7.2017 without understanding the requirement of faculty.
6. The petitioner asserted that at the relevant time as per
AICTE norms the ratio of student teachers was 20 : 1 and therefore, 9
lecturers were required and that the Principal addressed letter
emphasizing need to employ 2 more.
4 PNRJ
CC 1734 OF 2017
7. In the additional counter affidavit deposed on 24.2.2018,
the then Commissioner, who was later appointed as Secretary to
Telangana State Public Service Commission, stated that the request of
Principal to allot 2 additional lecturers was negatived on the ground
that there was no sanction for the additional lecturer posts.
8. This assertion of the Commissioner is seriously disputed
by the petitioner. According to learned counsel for petitioner,
petitioner was contract lecturer and all contract lecturers were
directed to be reengaged whereas on an erroneous understanding,
petitioner was not reengaged. According to learned counsel as the
Court directed consideration of the representation in accordance with
law, the action of respondents do not amount to compliance.
9. Once an order is passed by the Court to act in a
particular manner, that order must be followed in true letter and
spirit. The sanctity to judicial proceedings is paramount to a society
governed by law. Otherwise, the very edifice of democracy breaks and
anarchy rains in.
10. The Contempt of Courts Act is intended to correct a
person deviating the norm and trying to breach the law/ assuming
law on to himself. It intends to secure confidence of the people in the
administration of justice by disciplining those erring in disobeying the
orders of the Court.
5 PNRJ
CC 1734 OF 2017
11. Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 defines
'civil contempt' to mean wilful disobedience of any judgment, decree,
direction, order, writ or other process of a court.
12. Constitutional Courts have laid down principles on when
to exercise contempt jurisdiction. It is emphasised that there can be
no laxity, as otherwise orders of court would be the subject of mockery
(Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh1; Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai v.
Patel Chandrakant Dhulabhai2). Disobedience of orders of the Court
strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which the judicial system
rests.
13. Disobedience of an order of court, whether prohibitive or
mandatory, whether made ex parte or upon hearing both parties, or
interim or perpetual, amounts to contempt if it is calculated or tends
to interfere with the administration of justice, or brings it into
disrespect or disregard (Jagarlmudi Chandramouli v. K.Appa Rao3).
The power, to punish for contempt, is exercised to prevent perversion
of the course of justice. (Kapildeo Prasad Sah v. State of Bihar4).
14. The following conditions must be satisfied before a person
can be held to have committed civil contempt:
(i) there must be a judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or
other process of a court or an undertaking given to a court;
1 2002(4) SCC 21
2 (2008) 14 SCC 561
3 1967(1) An.W.R.129
4 (1999) 7 SCC 569
6 PNRJ
CC 1734 OF 2017
(ii) there must be disobedience to such judgment, decree, direction,
order, writ or other process of a court; and (iii) such disobedience of
the judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court
or breach of undertaking must be wilful. [Patel Rajnikant Dhulabhai
(supra)].
15. It behoves the court to act with as great circumspection as
possible, making all allowances for errors of judgment. It is only when
a clear case of contumacious conduct, not explainable otherwise,
arises that the contemnor must be punished. Punishment under the
law of contempt is called for when the lapse is deliberate and in
disregard of one's duty and in defiance of authority. Contempt
proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, and the standard of proof is
the same as in other criminal cases. The alleged contemnor is entitled
to the protection of all safeguards/ rights, including benefit of doubt.
Kanwar Singh Saini v. High Court of Delhi5.
16. To hold a person guilty of civil contempt 'wilful
disobedience' is an indispensable requirement. Whether the conduct
of contemnor is deliberate and wilful can be considered by assessing
the material on record and attendant circumstances.
17. This Court disposed of writ petition No. 8819 of 2017 at
the admission stage without expressing opinion on merits directing
respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representation and pass orders in
5(2012) 4 SCC 307
7 PNRJ
CC 1734 OF 2017
accordance with law. In response Government passed orders on
13.9.2017. The decision points out steps taken by the Government to
fill vacancies in the posts of lecturers. Though, no further steps are
taken by the Commissioner the averments in the affidavits filed by the
Commissioners point out that they were not willing to appoint
petitioner. Though reasons assigned are not in tune with the
correspondence but it indicates their decision to not to accede to the
request of petitioner positively.
18. Having regard to broad principles noted above, looking at
the facts in this case, it is seen that the decisions/actions may not be
correct that there may not be application of mind but that is an issue
require consideration in an appropriate proceedings. What is urged
by the learned counsel for petitioner would require decision on merits.
Such course cannot be adopted in contempt case. What is required to
be seen is whether the actions of respondents were deliberate and
willful amounting to committing contempt. Having regard to facts of
this case, it cannot be said that the actions of respondents in denying
renewal of contract appointment amounts to willful and deliberate
disobedience of the order of this Court to hold them guilty.
Contemnors are discharged. The Contempt case is closed. Pending
miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand closed.
__________________________
JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
Date: 10.07.2022
Tvk/Pt
8 PNRJ
CC 1734 OF 2017
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
CONTEMPT CASE NO. 1734 OF 2017
Date: 10.06.2022
Tvk/pt
