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 20th 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 10th 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

1996 216 105(104+1) 216-105=111 1997 443 (332 +111) 279(19+124+124+12) 443-279=164 1999 64(General Recruitment 54 64-54=10 1999 164(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

1 120 52 22 Nil 46

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

1 154 121 07 Nil 26 2 Merit  List

revised  on 14.07.2006

158 125 07 Nil 26

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 98 53 14 Nil 31

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

1 216 10 8

46 04 58

2 Selected 104 + 1*

10 1

03 Nil Nil *  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

111 06 43 04 58

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 05th 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 19th 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 09 04 Nil 06 2 Selected 19 09 04 Nil 06

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

1 127 63 27 02 35 2 Carry  forward

vacancies  of  1996 exam.

111 06 43 04 58

3 Total 238 69 70 06 93 4 Selected 124 69 26 01 28 5. Carry  forwarded

vacancies 114 Nil 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

1 162 81 34 03 44 2 Selected 124 81 18 Nil 25 3 Carry  forward

vacancies 38 Nil 16 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 12 05 Nil 07 2 Selected 12 12 Nil Nil Nil 3 Carry  forward

vacancies 12 Nil 05 Nil 07

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

0 65 08 91 Vide  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 63 0 24 03 36 2 Selected 44 0 20 01 23 3 Carry

Forward 19 0 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 38 0 16 03 19 2 Selected 31 0 12 Nil 19

33

3 Carry Forward

07 0 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 0 05 Nil 07 2 Selected Nil 0 Nil Nil Nil 3 Carry Forward 12 0 05 Nil 07

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 08 03 Nil 04 2 Selected 15 08 03 Nil 04

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 25 11 01 12 2 Selected 39 24 05 Nil 10 5. Carry

forwarded vacancies

10 01 06 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 19th September, 2003 informed that there are 97 vacancies available till 30th 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 26 13 02 09 2 Selected 48 26 13 Nil 09 3 Carry  forward

vacancies 02 Nil Nil 02* 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 47 35 08 03 01 2 Selected 02 02 Nil Nil Nil 3 Carry  forward

vacancies 45 33 08 03* 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