REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CONTEMPT PETITION (C) No. 91 OF 2006

IN

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1124 OF 2000

Anil Kumar Shahi & Ors. ..... Petitioners

Versus

Prof. Ram Sevak Yadav & Ors. ..... Respondents

WITH

CONTEMPT PETITION (C) No. 162 OF 2007

IN CONTEMPT PETITION (C) No. 91 OF 2006

IN

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1124 OF 2000

J U D G M E N T

Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.

Contempt Petition (C) 91 of 2006

This is a petition under Article 129 of the Constitution of

India read with Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971

preferred by Anil Kumar Shahi, Ghanshyam Singh, Davendra

Singh and Raj Narain Lal, petitioners herein, inter alia praying for

the following reliefs:-

“(a) initiate contempt proceedings against the

contemnors for their willful disobedience and

uphold the majesty of this Hon’ble Court;

and/or

(b) direct the respondents to disclose the marks

obtained by the petitioner as well as cut-off

marks beyond which the candidates were

called for interview; and/or

(c)quash order dated 7.4.2006 passed by the

respondent no. 2 which is in contravention of

the order dated 7.3.2006 passed by this

Hon’ble Court; and/or

(d)direct the respondents that if the candidates

are found to have obtained equal to or more

than cut-off marks, then to call the

candidates for interview and recommend the

candidates; and/or

(e)direct the respondents/U.P. Government that

thereafter to appoint the candidates in order

of their post of preference as was submitted

by the candidates during the mains

examination; and/or

(f)pass such other or further orders as this

Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the

circumstances of the present case.”

2

Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the filing of the

present petition are as under:-

The petitioners and other candidates had appeared in the

preliminary and main examinations for the year 1997 conducted

by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission [‘the UPPSC’] for

the posts of Principal, Government Inter College (Boys and Girls)

and Senior Lecturer in District Education and Training Institutes

along with other posts in the State of U.P. and a combined

State/Upper Subordinate Services. A group of candidates

appearing for various posts for the years 1996 and 1997 filed

writ petitions before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

The High Court in the case of Tulsi Ram and Ors. v. State of

U. P. & Ors. [Writ Petition NO.40849 of 1977] while dealing with

the case of 1996 batch was pleased to decide the issue with

regard to the eligibility criteria. Aggrieved thereby, a number of

special leave petitions were preferred by the candidates before

this Court.

The writ petition filed by the petitioners for the posts of

Principals and Senior Lecturers was dismissed by the High Court

with a short order which reads as under:-

3

“The facts of the case are covered by the

judgment of this Court in Tulsi Ram and

others vs. State of U.P. & Others in Writ

Petition No. 40849 of 1997 decided on

13.5.98.

The writ petition is disposed of on same

condition and direction as in aforesaid

judgment.”

The judgment in Tulsi Ram’s case (supra) was challenged

before this Court in a group of matters. By an order made on

10.01.2001 in Civil Appeal Nos. 961-962/1999, Civil Appeal No.

1124 of 2000 filed by the present petitioners, was delinked from

the said group of matters.

In Civil Appeal Nos. 961-962/1999, titled Mohd. Altaf &

Ors. v. Public Service Commission & Anr. this Court decided

the question of law that was raised in the aforesaid case of Tulsi

Ram. The controversy in Tulsi Ram‘s case centered round the

interpretation of the eligibility criteria for holding the posts. The

eligibility criteria as advertised/notified read as under:

“(3) For the Post of Principal, Government

Inter College (Boys/Girls) and Senior

Lecturer in District Education and Training

Institute – (1) Post Graduate degree from a

recognised university or any degree

equivalent thereto recognised by the

4

Government. (2) L.T. Diploma from

Education Department of U.P. or B.T. or

B.Ed. or any other degree of University

equivalent thereto. (3) At least three years’

of teaching experience as head of any Senior

Secondary or normal School or three years

experience of or normal School or three

years experience of teaching Intermediate or

higher classes or in C.T. or L.T. Training

Post Graduate College as lecturer.”

It was the case of the petitioners before the High Court that

experience contemplated by the above-said eligibility criteria No.

3 was not restricted to teaching in Government schools, while

the UP Public Service Commission was of the view that the

teaching experience could be counted only if it was in a

Government School. This controversy was resolved and settled

finally by this Court in Mohd. Altaf’s case (supra) by holding

that the Lecturers having three years teaching experience in

CT/LT colleges in Training Colleges were also eligible, since the

Rules nowhere prescribed that teaching experience should be

that of a teacher in Government College or aided or unaided

Government College or institution. Further, it was observed that

teaching experience may be from any Higher Secondary School

or High School or from an institute having Intermediate or

5

Higher Classes. Having laid down the law, the UPPSC was

directed to implement and carry out the directions of the High

Court and prepare a list of eligible teachers for being appointed

to the post advertised within a stipulated period. After the list

was prepared in accordance with the directions given by this

Court on March 14, 2001, the appeals came up for hearing and

disposed of by a final order made on 20

th

February, 2002 and in

the concluding paragraph of the order, it is said:-

“Lastly, it is clarified that the directions

issued by this Court on 10.1.2001 as well as

today would be implemented in favour of all

the eligible candidates.”

It was observed in the order dated 10.01.2001:-

“The aforesaid direction is to be considered in

the light of the discussion in the judgment,

which specifically provides that if the

teachers who have been substantively

appointed in accordance with the provisions

of the Act and the Regulations framed

thereunder are not paid the salary from the

public treasury as those institutions were not

given maintenance grant/grant-in-aid it

cannot be blamed for the lapse on the part of

the State Government and such teacher

cannot be excluded for being considered to

be appointed. The learned counsel for the

parties have pointed that most of the matters

filed by the teachers are with regard to this

6

clause. It is their contention that if this

direction as explained in the body of this

judgment stands implemented most of the

matters may not survive.”

The petitioners thereafter made an application, IA No. 4 of

2003 before this Court placing on record the various orders

passed in Mohd. Altaf’s case with a prayer that their appeals be

also allowed in terms of the orders of this Court dated

10.01.2001 and 20.02.2002 made in C.A. Nos. 961-962/1999

and for consequential directions as prayed for by them. While

opposing the prayer made in IA No. 4, the UPPSC filed a counter

affidavit in which they have raised a fresh issue that the

petitioners were not included in the list of successful candidates

because they had failed to qualify the written examination and,

therefore, there was no occasion at all to call the unqualified

candidates for interview. This stand, however, has been denied

by the petitioners in the rejoinder affidavit, wherein it is pointed

out that the UPPSC had wrongly included the names of the

candidates in the select list, who were originally not even notified

7

in the Official Gazette Notification. Having heard the learned

counsel for the parties, this Court on March 07, 2006 held:-

“In our view, it is not open to the

respondents to raise a fresh controversy on

facts before this Court for the first time. We

are informed, and it is not disputed before

us, that the respondents did not file a

counter affidavit before the High Court

opposing the averments made in the writ

petition, nor have they done so before us.

The new case sought to be set out, about

the appellants not having been qualified in

the main examination, appears for the first

time in reply to IA 4. Since there has been

no investigation of facts in this case, we

decline to entertain this controversy.

In the result, the appeal is allowed to the

extent of directing the respondents to

implement the orders in Mohd Altaf dated

10.01.2001 and 20.2.2002 (C.A. Nos. 961-

962/1999) and apply the same eligibility

criteria as decided by this Court in the

aforesaid orders to the case of the

appellants. If it is the case of the

respondents that the appellants did not

qualify in the main examination and,

therefore, they were not called for the

interview, it is open to the respondents to

pass appropriate orders giving the reason as

to why the case of the appellants has not

been considered and disclose the marks

obtained by them as well as cut-off marks

beyond which the candidates were called for

interview. It will be equally open to the

appellants to challenge such an order, if

passed by the UPPSC.

8

The learned counsel appearing for the

UPPSC states that they have already filed a

list of candidates whose cases had been

considered pursuant to the direction of this

Court. As indicated earlier, this controversy

being raised for the first time before this

Court, we decline to go into it and leave it

open.

Since the matter has been considerably

delayed, the respondents are directed to

pass appropriate orders and communicate

them to the appellants within a period of

four weeks from today.

The appeal is accordingly allowed with no

order as to costs.”

It appears from the record that in compliance with the

above-extracted order of this Court, the contesting respondents

took some decision, which according to the petitioners, is

manifestly in violation of the tenor and spirit of the order of this

Court. In this petition, it is stated that the respondents for the

first time in their Office Order dated 7.4 2006 took a different

stand, which reads as under:-

“Because during the relevant time according

to experience contemplated by the eligibility

criterion No. 3 as set by the Commission, the

petitioners were found ineligible, therefore

they were not called for interview and in view

9

of the observations made by Hon’ble

Supreme Court in order dated 20.2.2002, the

order dated 10.1.2000 and 20.2.2002 are

applicable to those candidates who had

appeared in the interview. Therefore in the

expressed situation, it has been decided by

the Hon’ble Commission that in view of the

order dated 20.2.2002 passed by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court it is impossible to call the

candidates for interview.”

It is further stated that in view of the above stand of the

respondents, it is clear that the respondents are guilty of wilful

and deliberate contempt of this Court as they are time and again

changing stands, so as to misguide this Court and are not

disclosing the marks obtained by the petitioners, as well as cut-

off marks beyond which the candidates were called for interview

despite unambiguous directions passed by this Court. It is also

stated that this is not the first time when the respondents are

deliberately flouting and circumventing the orders passed by this

Court. This Court in its earlier judgment dated 28.11.2001

passed in the case of Mohd. Altaf (supra) while dealing with

similar situation was pleased to record and observe as under:-

“….It appears that the UPPSC is interested in

suppressing some facts from the court as

10

well as from the candidates who appeared in

the examinations for some ulterior purpose.

From a constitutional functionary like Public

Service Commissions much higher standards

are expected not only by the Courts but also

by the Public at large. If there is a mal-

administrations at the level of Public Service

Commissions there would be rampant

favoritism in making appointments to the

service of the state. Despite our various

orders making abundantly clear, today also

the affidavit which is filed on behalf of the

UPPSC is not complete and contains half

truth. ….. In our view, this is an absurd

stand because it is the duty of the Public

Service Commissions to declare on the Notice

Board result indicating marks with all other

relevant details. In such examinations

transparency is expected and results cannot

be kept secret…. Here also the UPPSC wants

to play with the court. …. The Chairman and

the Secretary of the UPPSC are directed to

deposits with the registry cost of 10,000/-

each for wasting the court time. Such costs

shall be paid by the concerned personally

and not by the Commission.”

It is further the case of the petitioners that the conduct of

the contending respondents speaks of bias and mala fides on

their part and they on one pretext or the other have tried to

exclude the petitioners from their lawful claim of appointment.

The contempt petition was listed before this Court on

8.5.2006 when this Court passed the following order:-

11

“Issue notice returnable in the month of July,

2006.

Mr. Shail Kumar Dwivedi, the learned

counsel, appears and accepts notice for U.P.

Public Service Commission.

Personal presence of respondent Nos. 1 and

2 is dispensed with for the time being.”

The matter came up before this Court on number of dates

and for one reason or the other at the request of the learned

counsel for the U.P. Public Service Commission and the State of

U.P., the matter continued to be adjourned from time to time.

On 9.3.2007, this Court directed the respondent-U.P. Public

Service Commission to bring on record the documents showing

recommendations by it. Thereafter, it was on November 14,

2007 that this Court passed the following order:-

“Put up this matter on 16.11.2007 for further

hearing at 1.30 p.m.

On that day the Secretary of the Education

Department, State of U.P. as also the

Secretary of the U.P. Public Service

Commission shall personally remain present

in the Court with all requisite files.

In the first half, the said documents would be

given to the learned counsel for the

petitioners for inspection.

12

A chart showing the vacancy position as

obtaining in the years 1996, 1997, 1999 shall

be separately prepared. A Chart shall also be

prepared showing the filling up of the

vacancies in respect of those years separately

including the fact as to whether any of those

posts have been filled up from amongst the

reserved category candidates.

It will further be shown as to how and in

what manner the State in spite of order of

this Court, directed the vacancies to be

carried forward despite the fact that

recommendations were made for filling up

the vacancies by the Commission.

The list of 443 candidates in whose favour

the recommendations have been made shall

be produced before this Court.”

Contempt Petition No. 162 of 2007:

In this petition, the petitioners inter alia pray for the

following reliefs:-

“(a) initiate contempt proceedings against the

contemnors for their willful disobedience and

uphold the majesty of this Hon’ble Court;

and/or

(b)direct the respondents to recommend the

names of the petitioners in terms of the order

dated 9.3.2007; and/or

(c) direct the respondents/U.P. Government

that thereafter to appoint the candidates in

order of their post of preference as was

submitted by the candidates during the mains

examination; and/or

13

(d) pass such other or further orders as this

Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the

circumstances of the present case.”

On 16.11.2007, an application for exemption from personal

appearance of Dr. (Prof.) Ram Sewak Yadav, Chairman of U.P.

Public Service Commission and Dr. J.B. Sinha, Secretary U.P.

Public Service Commission, was allowed. The matter was

ordered to be listed on 10

th

December, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. and in

the meantime the State of UP was asked to allow the learned

counsel for the petitioners as also the petitioners to inspect the

record which was produced before this Court on that day. When

the matter was called for hearing on 8.2.2008, this Court made

the following order:-

“Mr. Colin Gonsalves, learned senior counsel

handed over chart to us showing the

discrepancies as obtaining in the records

maintained by the State of Uttar Pradesh and

UPPSC.

Mr. H.N. Salve, learned counsel prays for

some time to respond to the said Chart. Mr.

Shrish Kumar Misra, learned counsel also

joins Mr. Salve, learned counsel in making

the said prayer.

14

List of 443 candidates for the 1997 batch, as

directed, be furnished to Mr. Colin

Gonsalves.

Issue notice on the application for

intervention/direction.

Personal appearance of the alleged

contemnors is dispensed with till further

orders.

Put up after two weeks.”

During the pendency of the contempt petitions, I.A. No. 12

was filed by Mani Ram Singh praying for intervention and

making oral submissions in regard to his claim for appointment

against the above said post. Notice on this application was

issued on 8.2.2008. One application for impleadment in the

contempt petitions was filed by Jamna Prasad Gangwar with a

prayer to issue direction to the State of U.P. to appoint him and

other eligible candidates belonging to the reserved categories of

1996 batch to the posts of Principal of Inter College (Boys/Girls)

in the State of U.P. within 15 days and submit its compliance.

In reply to the Contempt Petition © No. 91 of 2006 and I.A.

No.12 of 2008, three sets of separate affidavits were filed by the

respondents. Prof. Ram Sevak Yadav - respondent No.1 herein,

Chairman U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad, in his

15

affidavit at the outset, submitted that he has the highest regards

for the orders passed by this Court and he has taken necessary

action in compliance of the order dated 07.03.2006 passed by

this Court in C. A. No. 1124 of 2000. However, in compliance

thereto, if there be any kind of discrepancy, bona fide omission

or inadvertence in paying due regard to the order of this Court,

he submitted his unconditional and unqualified apology for the

same. Further, he submitted that he shall do everything in due

compliance of the orders of this Court as may be directed and

the Commission being a constitutional body is duty bound to

comply with the orders of this Court. He also submitted that he

being the Chairman of the Commission has never intended to

disobey or to disrespect the orders of this Court or to do

anything, which may amount to contempt of the orders of this

Court. He submitted that in compliance of the orders of this

Court, the petitioners made representation to the Commission

and the Commission passed an Office Order on 07.04.2006 on

its interpretation of the order dated 20.02.2002 passed by this

Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 961-962 of 1999 titled Mohd. Altaf &

Ors. v. Public Service Commission & Anr., in which it was

16

ordered that the orders would be applicable to all concerned who

appeared in interview on the relevant date. As the petitioners in

the present case had not been called for interview till the passing

of the order dated 20.02.2002, their case could not be

considered. However, after rejection of the representation of the

petitioners, the Commission realised that the order dated

20.02.2002 should be made applicable to the petitioners due to

their higher marks than the cut-off marks. Accordingly, the

Commission took necessary steps by deliberating upon the whole

matter in accordance with the orders dated 10.01.2001,

20.02.2002, 28.11.2002, 28.08.2003 and 07.03.2006 passed by

this Court. He submitted that in Contempt Petition No.372 of

2002 in Civil Appeal No.962 of 1999, Shamim Khanam v. K. B.

Pandey and other connected matters, this Court was pleased to

consider the cases of all the candidates who had appeared in the

years 1996, 1997 and 1999 Examinations for appointment to the

post of Principals in the Government Colleges. The relevant

extract of the directions contained in the order dated 05.08.2003

reads as under:-

17

“It is ordered that the candidates who had

appeared in the year 1996, 1997 and 1999

would be considered for vacancies existing

as on 30.06.2003 in accordance with the

merit list prepared of all the eligible

candidates for the various years.”

It is stated that in the said Contempt Petition a clarificatory

order dated 28.08.2003 was passed by this Court, which reads

as under:-

“It is further made clear that appointment

to these 97 posts would be after earmarking

the reserved categories and thereafter on

the basis of merit list prepared by the U. P.

Public Service Commission for the year

1996 examination. If other vacancies still

remain, appointments would be after taking

into consideration merit list of 1997

examination and thereafter 1999

examination result.”

The first respondent further submitted that having regard

to the various orders passed by this Court, the Commission had

disclosed the marks to the petitioners and subsequently called

them for interview scheduled to be held on 14.07.2006 in the

Office of the Commission at Allahabad. All the petitioners

appeared before the Interview Board of the Commission. The

Commission accordingly revised the Combined Merit List of PCS

18

Examination-1997 for the category of Principals on 14.07.2006

itself. The placement of the petitioners in the aforesaid

Combined Merit List has been stated at Sl. Nos. 54, 156, 118

and 104 respectively. The petitioners have been included in the

Eligibility List of 1997 along with other candidates. It is

submitted that the Commission is not in a position to

recommend the candidature of the petitioners to the State

Government for the following reasons:-

(i) The order dated 28.08.2003 passed by this Hon’ble

Court requiring the recommendation against the

existing vacancies for the candidates of the 1996

examination first and thereafter for the candidates

of 1997 examination.

(ii) The petitioners belong to 1997 examination and in

absence of vacancies, their candidature cannot be

recommended as directed by this Hon’ble Court

vide order dated 28.08.2003.

(iii) The State Govt. vide its letter dated 11.05.2006

addressed to the Commission had already

communicated that the State Govt. had decided not

to fill up the remaining 45 vacancies on ad-hoc

basis. Even if the State Govt. had permitted to fill

up the 45 vacancies on ad-hoc basis it would have

gone to 70 candidates of 1996 examination in

terms of the order passed by this Hon’ble Court on

28.08.2003. Therefore, in any case, it would not be

possible to make a recommendation in respect of

the petitioners who are eligible candidates of 1997

examination.”

19

Dr. J. B. Sinha, Secretary, UPPSC, filed a separate affidavit

in which he pleaded identical statement as stated by the

Chairman of the Commission. In rejoinder, the petitioners

reiterated the averments made in the Contempt Petition. Dr. J.

B. Sinha, Secretary, UPPSC, in his additional affidavit stated that

in compliance with the judgment dated 07.03.2006 passed by

this Court the petitioners were also placed in the list of eligible

Teachers for appointments in the revised list drawn on

14.07.2006. A meeting in this regard was held in the Office of

the State Government on 07.03.2007. The State Government

has not appointed all the eligible candidates for the examination

held in the year 1996. He submitted that no appointment has

been made from merit list of eligible candidates for 1997 and

1999 examinations, which had been prepared pursuant to the

orders dated 10.01.2001 and 20.02.2002 passed by this Court.

He also stated that the Commission vide its letter dated

23.03.2007 addressed to the Secretary, Government of U. P.,

sent the revised merit list dated 14.07.2006 as well as

Notification of the Commission dated 25.07.2006 for taking

necessary action at State Government level. He also submitted

20

that there is no willful disobedience to the judgment/orders of

this Court and he bow down before the majesty of this Court. He

tendered his unconditional apology for any inaction on the part

of the Commission or on his part in-person in understanding the

true meaning of the judgment of this Court. Copies of the revised

combined merit list of the PCS Examination, 1997 (Main) issued

on 14.07.2006 for the posts of Principals along with combined

merit list of PCS Examination, 1996 (Main) eligible candidates in

terms of order of this Court dated 14.08.2003 are placed on

record.

Ms. Gayatri Adult, Deputy Director (Services-I), Directorate

of Education, Allahabad, in compliance to the order of this Court

dated 29.08.2007, filed affidavit on behalf of the State of U. P.

and Directorate of Education, Allahabad, (Respondent Nos. 3 &

4) stating therein that 50 posts of Principals, Government of

Inter College (Boys and Girls) and 47 posts of Senior Lecturers in

District Institutes of Education Training were lying vacant as on

28.08.2003. This Court vide order dated 28.08.2003 was

pleased to direct the State of U. P. to fill 52 posts of Principals

strictly on the merit list submitted to this Court and regarding

21

remaining 45 posts, it was ordered to leave the same to the State

Government to fill them on ad-hoc basis. The Statement

Government made appointments of 50 candidates strictly on the

basis of merit list. Two posts of reserved category could not be

filled as no eligible SC candidates were found. However, the

State Government did not make appointments against the 45

remaining posts as there is no provision for making appointment

on ad-hoc basis in U. P. Educational (General Educational

Cadre) Service Rules, 1992. She submitted that after

27.08.2007, 41 vacancies arose against the posts of Principals

on account of promotion of 41 Principals to the post of District

Inspector of Schools and out of 41 posts, 35 posts are to be filled

against the reserved category candidates selected in the year

1996 and the remaining six to clear the backlog posts, are lying

vacant. She submitted that out of 47 newly upgraded posts of

Principals in the Colleges, 50% posts of Principals were to be

filled by promotion and the remaining 50% by direct recruitment

on the basis of the examination conducted by the UPPSC. She

submitted that as on 28.10.2007 when this affidavit was filed,

there were 29 vacancies of Principals, which are to be filled by

22

direct recruitment and in addition thereto, 3 posts of Senior

Lecturers D.I.E.T. are also lying vacant. Further, it is submitted

that in the year 1997 the State Government sent requisition for

selection of 443 posts of Principals/Senior Lecturers/D.I.E.Ts.

and the UPPSC after selecting the candidates, recommended

their names for appointment against the required 443 posts.

She also submitted that the National Council for Teachers

Education has prescribed new educational qualification for

appointment to the post of Senior Lecturers for D.I.E.T. and the

minimum qualification is M.Ed. which earlier was B.Ed.

In reply to I.A. No. 12 of 2008, Prof. Ram Sevak Yadav,

Chairman, UPPSC, Allahabad, submitted that the applicant-

Mani Ram Singh is placed at Serial No.75 of the Combined Merit

List of PCS Examination, 1996 (Main) eligible candidates. The

Commission vide its letter 132/9/E-2/97-98 dated 01.10.2003

had sent recommendation of 52 candidates. Further 2 posts of

Scheduled Tribe candidates could not be filled as suitable

candidates were not available in any of the recruitment years

1996, 1997 and 1999. Later on, the State Government informed

the Commission vide its letter No.315/15-1-08-8(3)/03 dated

23

05.02.2008 that out of 52 candidates only 46 candidates could

get appointment against the posts in question. Four candidates

could not join their place of posting, so the State Government

decided to fill those four vacancies [2 General + 2 OBC] from the

eligibility list of 1996 Examination, which is under consideration

of the Commission. He stated that as far as 45 unfilled

vacancies are concerned, State Government decided vide its

letter No.15/24/97-ka-4-06 dated 11.05.2006 not to fill those

vacancies. On similar line, counter affidavit has been filed by

Shri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, Secretary, UPPSC, Allahabad.

Along with their affidavits, copy of confidential letter dated

01.10.2003 written by Shri Pawan Kumar, Secretary, UPPSC,

Lucknow, to the Secretary, Personnel Section-4, Government of

U.P., Lucknow, sending recommendations according to the result

of 52 vacancies of the post of Principals/Senior Lecturers on the

basis of merit list of 120 new eligible candidates of Principal

Examination, 1996, in compliance with the orders of this Court

dated 28.08.2003 giving details of the division of the vacancies

occurred year-wise upto 30.06.2003 and the number of

candidates selected in General and Reserved categories.

24

Mr. Colin Gonsalves, learned Senior Advocate for the

petitioners, contended that the Chairman of UPPSC, the

Secretary of UPPSC and the Department of Education of the U.P.

Government have willfully and deliberately disobeyed the orders

dated 07.03.2006 and 09.03.2007 passed by this Court. He

submitted that despite the order in Mohd. Altaf’s case laying

down the eligibility criteria, the respondents intentionally refused

to apply the same criteria as decided by this Court in the case of

the petitioners herein. This Court vide order dated 07.03.2006

directed that the law laid down in Mohd. Altaf’s case would

apply in the case of the petitioners as well, but the respondents

firstly took the stand that the petitioners have not qualified the

written examination and later on, they have admitted that the

petitioners had qualified in the written examination, but they

had not appeared in the interview. He submitted that at least

the respondents have entirely taken a new stand that there

existed no vacancies against which the petitioners could be

appointed. He has brought to our notice the order dated

28.11.2001 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal Nos.961-962 of

1999 titled Mohd. Altaf & Ors. v. Public Service Commission

25

& Anr. whereunder strictures were passed against UPPSC for

acting arbitrarily, for showing “rampant favourtism” for taking an

“absurd stand” and for “playing with the court by taking the

stand that there are no vacancies.” The learned senior counsel

has relied upon the statement of the then Education Minister

made in the U. P. Legislative Council stating that there were 113

vacancies for the year 1996, 164 vacancies for the year 1997 and

90 vacancies for the year 1999 as on 03.03.2005 as per

Annexure R-3 attached with the rejoinder to contend that the

stand of the respondents that there are no vacancies available

against which the petitioners can be appointed, is absolutely

incorrect and in violation of the order of this Court.

In compliance with the order dated 14.11.2007, Mr. Harish

N. Salve, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the

Chairman and the Secretary, UPPSC, has placed before us Chart

showing vacancy position as obtaining in the year 1996, 1997

and 1999. The details of 1996, 1997 and 1999 selection for the

post of Principals in Government Inter Colleges (Boys and Girls)

and for the post of Senior Lecturer in District Education &

Training Institutes before 28.08.2003 are given as under:-

26

“ Break-up for the year 1996, 1997 and 1999 vacancies

YEAR VACANCY POSTS SELECTED POSTS CARRY FORWARD

POSTS

1996216 105(104+1) 216-105=111

1997443 (332 +111) 279(19+124+124+12) 443-279=164

199964(General Recruitment 54 64-54=10

1999164(Special Recruitment)

164-51* = 113

51* = Vide High Court order in

Writ Petition No. 26986/1998 –

selection for 51 posts stayed.

Hence, selection for 113 was

made.

75 113-75=38

AFTER 28.08.2003:

97 – Vacancies were informed by the Government vide letter

dated 19.09.2003 out of which 50 names were recommended as

per directions of Hon’ble Court in the order dated 28.08.2003

FRESH ELIGIBILITY LIST AFTER HON’BLE SURPEME COURT

ORDER DATED 28.08.2003.

YEAR 1996

List of 120 candidates (pg. 193-197) all categories

i) Break-up of 120 candidates

S.No.Requisition

received

from the

Governmen

t

To

tal

No

.

of

ca

nd

id

at

es

Ge

ner

al

Sc

he

dul

ed

Ca

ste

s

Sc

he

dul

ed

Tri

be

s

Oth

er

Bac

k-

war

d

clas

ses

Re

ma

rks

1 12052 22 Nil46

YEAR 1997

List of 154 candidates (pg. 206-212) all categories

i) Break-up of 154 candidates

27

S.No.Requisition

received

from the

Governmen

t

To

tal

No

.

of

ca

nd

id

at

es

Ge

ner

al

Sc

he

dul

ed

Ca

ste

s

Sc

he

dul

ed

Tri

be

s

Oth

er

Bac

k-

war

d

clas

ses

Re

ma

rks

1 15412107 Nil26

2 Merit List

revised on

14.07.2006

15812507 Nil26

YEAR 1999

List of 98 candidates all categories

i) Break-up of 98 candidates

S.No.Requisition

received

from the

Governmen

t

To

tal

No

.

of

ca

nd

id

at

es

Ge

ner

al

Sc

he

dul

ed

Ca

ste

s

Sc

he

dul

ed

Tri

be

s

Oth

er

Bac

k-

war

d

clas

ses

Re

ma

rks

1 9853 14 Nil31

Note: In compliance of Hon’ble Supreme Court order dated

28.08.2003 only 50 candidates recommended from the eligible

candidates of the year 1996 as per vacancy informed by State

Government on 19.09.2002.

Break-up for year 1996 vacancies for the post of Principals

in Government Inter Colleges (Boys & Girls)

28

S.No

.

Requisition

received

from the

Government

To

tal

No

. of

Po

sts

G

e

n

er

al

S

c

h

e

d

ul

e

d

C

a

st

es

S

c

h

e

d

ul

e

d

Tr

ib

es

Ot

he

r

Ba

ck

-

wa

rd

cla

ss

es

Remarks

1 21610

8

460458

2 Selected 104

+ 1*

10

1

03NilNil* 1 (one) General

General vacancy

reserved as per

orders of Hon’ble

High Court in

Subhash Babu Vs.

U.P.P.S.C. & Ors.

3 Carry

forward

vacancies

11106430458

Details of vacancies filled-up by 1997 Examination

Government sends requisition for 548 posts of

Principals in Government Inter Colleges (Boys & Girls)

and for the post of Sr. Lecturer in District Education &

Training Institutes. Thereafter, Government vide letter

no. 1978/15-1-97-8(2)/95 T.C., dated 05

th

September,

1997. Informed U.P.P.S.C. that 548 posts includes 216

posts for which requisition has already been sent to the

U.P.P.S.C. in 1996 as a result of which only 332

vacancies are available for 1997 Examination and 111

carry forward vacancies of 1996 Examination are

available. Details break-up of these posts were sent by

29

Government Letter No. 2561/15-1-96-8(2)/95, dated

19

th

August 1996.

Total no. of posts 332 are bifurcated as below:-

Principals – 146 (19 for Plain Cadre + 127 for Hill

Cadre)

Sr. Lecturers – 186 (162 for Plain Cadre + 24 for Hill

Cadre)

Carry forward vacancies of 1996 Exam. For

(Principals) Hill Cadre – 111 Posts

Total No. of Vacancies (146+186+111)=443 for which

selection was made.

A. Details of 19 posts for Principals (Plain Cadre)

S.No

.

Requisition

received from

the

Government

To

tal

No

. of

Po

sts

G

e

n

er

al

Sc

he

dul

ed

Ca

ste

s

Sc

he

dul

ed

Tri

be

s

Ot

he

r

Ba

ck

-

wa

rd

cla

ss

es

R

emark

s

1 19 0904 Nil06

2 Selected 19 0904 Nil06

B. Details of 127 Posts for Principals (Hill Cadre)

30

S.No

.

Requisition

received from the

Government

Tot

al

No.

of

Po

sts

G

e

n

er

al

S

c

h

e

d

ul

e

d

C

a

st

e

s

Sc

he

dul

ed

Tri

be

s

Ot

her

Ba

ck-

wa

rd

cla

sse

s

Re

ma

rks

1 127632702 35

2 Carry forward

vacancies of 1996

exam.

111064304 58

3 Total 238697006 93

4 Selected 124692601 28

5. Carry forwarded

vacancies

114Nil 44 05 65

C. Details of 162 Posts for Sr. Lecturers (Plain Cadre)

S.No

.

Requisition

received from

the

Government

To

tal

No

. of

Po

sts

G

e

n

er

al

Sc

he

dul

ed

Ca

ste

s

Sc

he

dul

ed

Tri

be

s

Ot

her

Ba

ck-

wa

rd

cla

sse

s

Rema

rks

1 1628134 03 44

2 Selected 1248118 Nil25

3 Carry forward

vacancies

38 Nil16 03 19

31

D.Details of 24 Posts for Sr. Lecturers (Hill Cadre)

S.No

.

Requisition

received from

the

Government

To

tal

No

. of

Po

sts

G

e

n

er

al

Sc

he

dul

ed

Ca

ste

s

Sc

he

dul

ed

Tri

be

s

Ot

he

r

Ba

ck

-

wa

rd

cla

ss

es

R

emark

s

1 24 1205 Nil07

2 Selected 12 12Nil NilNil

3 Carry forward

vacancies

12 Nil05 Nil07

Details of Vacancies filled-up by 1999 Examination (Special

Recruitment)

A. Details of 164 Posts for Principals (Plain Cadre)

S

.

N

o

.

Requ

isitio

n

recei

ved

from

the

Govt.

T

ot

al

N

o.

of

P

o

st

s

G

e

n

e

r

a

l

Sc

he

du

le

d

Ca

ste

s

S

c

h

e

d

ul

e

d

T

ri

b

e

s

O

t

h

er

B

a

c

k

-

w

a

r

d

cl

a

s

s

e

s

Remarks

32

1 16

4

0650891Vide High Court order in

Writ Petition No.

26986/1998 – selection for

51 posts stayed. Hence,

selection for 113 was

made.

B.Selection for 113 posts:-

Principals – 63 (Hill Cadre)

Sr. Lecturers – 50 (38 for Plain Cadre + 12 for Hill Cadre)

i) Break up for post of Principals – 63 Hill Cadre

S.No.Requisition

received

from the

Governmen

t

To

tal

No

.

of

ca

nd

id

at

es

Ge

ner

al

Sc

he

dul

ed

Ca

ste

s

Sc

he

dul

ed

Tri

be

s

Oth

er

Bac

k-

war

d

clas

ses

Re

ma

rks

1 630 24 03 36

2 Selected 440 20 01 23

3 Carry

Forward

190 04 02 13

i) Break up for post of Sr. Lecturers – 38 PlainCadre

S.No.Requisition

received

from the

Governmen

t

To

tal

No

.

of

ca

nd

id

at

es

Ge

ner

al

Sc

he

dul

ed

Ca

ste

s

Sc

he

dul

ed

Tri

be

s

Oth

er

Bac

k-

war

d

clas

ses

Re

ma

rks

1 380 16 03 19

2 Selected 310 12 Nil19

33

3 Carry

Forward

070 04 03 Nil

i) Break up for post of Principals – 12 Hill Cadre

S.No.Requisition

received from the

Government

Tot

al

No.

of

ca

ndi

dat

es

G

e

n

e

r

a

l

S

c

h

e

d

ul

e

d

C

a

st

e

s

Sc

he

dul

ed

Tri

be

s

Ot

her

Ba

ck-

wa

rd

cla

sse

s

R

e

m

ar

k

s

1 12 005Nil07

2 Selected Nil0NilNilNil

3 Carry Forward 12 005Nil07

Details of vacancies filled-up by 1999 Examination

(General Recruitment)

Special Selection for 64 posts which are bifurcated as

below:-

A. Details of 64 posts for Principals (15 for Plain Cadre + 49 for

Hill Cadre)

i) Break up for post of Principals – 15 for Plain Cadre

34

S.No

.

Requisition

received from

the

Government

To

tal

No

. of

Po

sts

G

e

n

er

al

Sc

he

dul

ed

Ca

ste

s

Sc

he

dul

ed

Tri

be

s

Ot

he

r

Ba

ck

-

wa

rd

cla

ss

es

R

emark

s

1 15 0803 Nil04

2 Selected 15 0803 Nil04

ii) Break up for post of Principals – 49 for Hill Cadre

S.No

.

Requisition

received from

the

Government

To

tal

No

. of

Po

sts

G

e

n

er

al

Sc

he

dul

ed

Ca

ste

s

Sc

he

dul

ed

Tri

be

s

Ot

her

Ba

ck-

wa

rd

cla

sse

s

Rem

arks

1 49 2511 01 12

2 Selected 39 2405 Nil10

5. Carry

forwarded

vacancies

10 0106 01 02

Hon’ble High Court vacated the stay order passed in Writ Petition

No. 26986/1998 on 16.03.2001 as a result of 51 posts which

were of Hill Cadre after creation of Uttaranchal State U.P.P.S.C.

unable to fill up the aforesaid vacancies.

U.P. Government vide its letter No. 2513/15-1-2003-27(40)/02

dated 19

th

September, 2003 informed that there are 97 vacancies

available till 30

th

June, 2003. Details of abovementioned posts

as follows:-

35

Principals Government Inter College (Boys & Girls) ]

Total Post – 50 ] Total 97

Sr. Lecturer in Education & Training Institutes: ] vacancies

Total Post – 47 ]

Principals Government Inter College (Boys & Girls):

Total Post – 50

i) Break-up of 50 post for Principals Government Inter College

(Boys & Girls)

S.No

.

Requisition

received from

the

Government

To

tal

No

. of

Po

sts

G

e

n

er

al

Sc

he

dul

ed

Ca

ste

s

Sc

he

dul

ed

Tri

be

s

Ot

her

Ba

ck-

wa

rd

cla

sse

s

Remarks

1 50 2613 02 09

2 Selected 48 2613 Nil09

3 Carry forward

vacancies

02 NilNil02*Nil* No ST

candidate

was

available

Sr. Lecturer in Education & Training Institutes

Total Post - 47

i) Break-up of 47 posts for Sr. Lecturer in Education & Training

Institutes

36

S.No

.

Requisition

received from

the

Government

To

tal

No

.

of

Po

st

s

G

e

n

e

r

al

Sc

he

du

led

Ca

ste

s

Sc

he

du

led

Tri

be

s

Ot

he

r

B

ac

k-

w

ar

d

cl

as

se

s

Remar

ks

1 4735080301

2 Selected 0202Nil NilNil

3 Carry forward

vacancies

45330803*01* No ST

candidate

was

available

Learned senior counsel for the petitioners contended that

as per the vacancies indicated in the above-stated Chart,

General Category appointments for 1996 batch were over-stated

and Reserved Category appointments were under-stated, thus,

the seats available to the General Category were not completely

reflected in the said Chart. According to the petitioners, transfer

of Reserved Category candidates getting age relaxation, lower

cut-off marks in Preliminary Examination and also in Main

Examination coupled with fees relaxation cannot validly be

37

transferred to General Category. The petitioners also contended

that neither UPPSC nor the Deputy Director of Education in their

affidavits have whispered a word about any mistake having

occurred while giving 548 vacancies in advertisement issued on

01.01.1997 and the stand now taken in the chart that 548

vacancies for 1997 batch was wrongly published in the

advertisement can now be accepted.

Having gone through the details of vacancies for the years

1996, 1997 and 1999 for the post of Principals and Senior

Lecturers in District Education & Training Institutes, as shown

in the above-extracted Chart, we find that the UPPSC has

satisfactorily explained that the advertisement of 548 posts was

made as per the requisition of the State Government which

numbers were later on found to be wrong, because 216

vacancies which were advertised in 1996 batch, were wrongly

included in 548 vacancies. The vacant posts for 1997 batch

were only 332 and not 548 and 111 vacancies carried forward

from 1996 batch, the total vacancies in 1997 were 443. The

petitioners also contended that 14 new District Institutes of

Education & Training have come into existence, thus, creating

38

84 more vacancies for the post of Senior Lecturers and the

petitioners’ version is that there are, in all, 180 total vacancies

for General Category (46 unfilled for 1996 batch, 41 from 1997

batch less (requisitioned) and 93 from 1997 batch (persons not

joined). The petitioners have also submitted a chart in which

they have given position of additional seats becoming available

due to various miscellaneous reasons as on date in addition to

the seats which still remained to be filled from the list of

successful/recommended candidates of 1997 batch. As per the

Chart produced before us, the petitioners have stated that there

are as many as 338 total vacancies for general category available

with the State of U.P. against which the four petitioners who filed

Civil Appeal No.1124 of 2000 can be conveniently

adjusted/appointed and the stand of the respondents not

appointing the petitioners against the available posts is wholly

unwarranted and unjustified. We regret our inability to accede

to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the

petitioners.

A cursory glance of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and

the provisions thereof makes it abundantly clear that the Act has

39

been brought in the Statute book to define the limit and powers

of certain Courts punishing for contempt of courts and it has laid

down the procedure for exercise of such powers. Contempt of

Court has been defined under Section 2(a) of the Act, to mean

civil contempt or criminal contempt. ‘Civil Contempt’ has been

defined under Section 2(b) of the Act to mean ‘wilful disobedience

of any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of

court of willful breach of undertaking given to a court.’ It is by

now well-settled under the Act and under Article 129 of the

Constitution of India that if it is alleged before this Court that a

person has willfully violated its order it can invoke its

jurisdiction under the Act to enquire whether the allegation is

true or not and if found to be true it can punish the offenders for

having committed ‘civil contempt’ and if need be, can pass

consequential orders for enforcement of execution of the order,

as the case may be, for violation of which, the proceeding for

contempt was initiated. In other words, while exercising its

power under the Act, it is not open to the court to pass an order,

which will materially add to or alter the order for alleged

disobedience of which contempt jurisdiction was invoked. When

40

the Court directs the authority to consider a matter in

accordance with law, it means that the matter should be

considered to the best of understanding by the authority and,

therefore, a mere error of judgment with regard to the legal

position cannot constitute contempt of court. There is no willful

disobedience if best efforts are made to comply with the order.

Having considered the entire factual backdrop of the matter

and given our due consideration to the above extracted various

orders passed by this Court in this case and having considered

the detailed explanations given by the Chairman, UPPSC,

Secretary, UPPSC, and Deputy Director [Education] in their

respective affidavits as noticed above which in our view are quite

satisfactory and further examination of the details of year-wise

vacancies position for the posts in question stated in the above-

extracted Chart submitted by the UPPSC, it cannot be said that a

deliberate circumvention and dubious method was adopted by

the contesting respondents to avoid implementation of the

judgments/orders of this Court nor the facts and circumstances

mentioned above would establish that the contesting

respondents have willfully or deliberately disobeyed the

41

judgments/orders of this Court dated 07.03.2006 and

09.03.2007 as alleged by the petitioners. In terms of the order

dated 07.03.2006, the respondents have passed an appropriate

order which was communicated to the petitioners. The UPPSC

have placed on record all the relevant documents relating to

these proceedings as directed by this Court in its order dated

09.03.2007.

In the result, there is no merit in these contempt petitions

and they are, accordingly, dismissed. We, however, make it clear

that the contesting respondents are not precluded from

considering the legitimate claims of the petitioners as well as the

applicants who have filed Interlocutory Applications before this

Court if they are otherwise eligible in accordance with law. As no

substantive relief, as prayed for by the applicants in their

applications, can be granted to them in these contempt

proceedings these applications shall stand disposed of.

........................................J.

(S. B. Sinha)

42

........................................J.

(Lokeshwar Singh Panta)

New Delhi,

July 24, 2008.

43