Holding

The Supreme Court held that the directions were limited to restoring benefits already enjoyed as of the judgment date and did not create new entitlements; therefore, no contempt occurred and the petitions were dismissed.

Summary

The petitioners, junior engineers who obtained B.Tech (Civil) degrees through distance education between 2001‑2005, passed the AICTE test in June 2018 and claimed that the respondents had violated Supreme Court directions by not granting them promotions and other benefits. The Supreme Court had earlier, in a civil appeal (Orissa Lift Irrigation Corp. Ltd. v. Rabi Sankar Patro), directed that candidates who cleared the test could have their previously enjoyed benefits restored, but not to confer new advantages. The Court held that the petitioners had not been enjoying the contested promotions as of the judgment date, so the respondents’ actions did not amount to contempt. Consequently, the contempt petitions were dismissed and the petitioners were ordered to pay Rs. 5,000 each as costs. The Court emphasized that the directions were intended only to restore the status quo ante, not to create additional rights, and any grievance regarding benefits must be pursued through appropriate judicial review, not contempt proceedings.

Issues considered

The extent of the Supreme Court's directions in the 2017 judgment and 2018 order – whether they compel the respondents to grant benefits not previously enjoyed by the petitioners.
Whether the respondents' alleged failure to grant promotion and other benefits constitutes contempt of court.
Whether a contempt petition is the proper forum to enforce or seek additional benefits arising from the earlier judgment.

Legislation cited

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971s. 12, s. 2(b)

Subjects

contempt of courtdistance education degreesAICTE examinationrestoration of benefitsex‑post facto approvalUGC guidelinespromotionsenioritySupreme Court directionscivil service

Judgment

[2019] 10 S.C.R. 581 581

ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS. A
v.
DEPINDER SINGH DHESI AND ORS.
(Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 408-409 of 2019)
In B
(Civil Appeal Nos. 17869-17870 of 2017)
AUGUST 13, 2019
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
C
Contempt of Court – When not – Judgment dtd. 03.11.17
passed in Civil Appeal Nos.17869-17870/2017 and Clarificatory
Order dtd. 22.01.18 passed in miscellaneous applications arising
from the aforesaid Civil Appeals – Contempt Petitions filed by the
candidates (enrolled in academic sessions 2001-05 and attained
Degrees in Engineering through Distance Education Mode) D
presently posted as Junior Engineers in Public Health Engineering
Department, alleging that the respondents-contemnors violated the
aforesaid judgment and order– As per the petitioners, in terms of
the judgment they appeared in the test held by AICTE and qualified
in the first attempt, however, they were denied benefits arising from
their Degrees which became valid after clearing the examination – E
It was also alleged that their representations for adding their higher
qualification, B.Tech (Civil) and due benefit for promotion at par
with junior candidates who obtained their B.Tech Degrees through
regular mode, were not considered– Held: Though the Degrees
obtained through Distance Education Mode were prima facie not in F
accordance with law, the students enrolled in the academic sessions
2001-05 were given two chances to prove their worth and it was
directed that if they clear the test, they would continue to derive
advantages flowing from such Degrees– If the candidates could
clear the examination in the first attempt itself, there would not even
be any break in continuous enjoyment of those benefits– Idea was, G
candidates should not stand deprived of the status they were
enjoying on the day of the Judgment, provided the candidates prove
their worth– Directions did not confer any additional advantage
which was not even enjoyed as on the date– In the present case,
H
581
582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 10 S.C.R.

A serious objection were raised by Department that the concerned
candidates enrolled in courses in Engineering through Distance
Education Mode without express permission of the Department and/
or the Department did not recognise Degrees awarded through said
mode or that the concerned candidates were not granted any study
leave to pursue such courses– If there was serious infirmity in the
B
Degrees obtained by the candidates, the matter ought to be sorted
out either through representation or through properly instituted
challenge in that behalf – Representations made claimed conferral
of certain status/benefits which they were not enjoying earlier –
Such entitlement needs to be established in proceedings other than
C Contempt Petition –If the promotion was not granted and was not
being enjoyed as on the day when the judgment was passed, there
was no violation on part of the alleged Contemnors, of any direction
issued by Supreme Court – Cost of Rs.5000/- imposed on the
petitioners to be deposited in the concerned Department within four
weeks, failing which the Department to recover the same in
D
accordance with law – Guidelines/Norms/Directions – 2004
University Grants Commission Guidelines.
Dismissing the contempt petitions, the Court
HELD : 1.1 Two kinds of students were before the Court
E (i) those who were enrolled during the academic sessions 2001-
2005 and (ii) those who were enrolled after the academic sessions
2001-2005. It was noted in para 23.6 that UGC had issued “2004
UGC Guidelines” in terms of which concept of ex-post facto
approval in respect of deemed to be Universities which had started
courses in Distance Education without any approval from the
F concerned authorities was introduced. In accordance with these
“2004 UGC Guidelines” some of the deemed to be Universities
applied for ex-post facto approval and were granted such approval,
as a result of which the students enrolled during academic
sessions 2001-2005 stood on a different footing as against those
G who were enrolled after the academic sessions 2001-2005. Though
the Judgment did not approve of the entire exercise undertaken
by the concerned authorities, including the grant of ex-post facto
approvals, a concession was given to the students who were
enrolled during the academic sessions 2001-2005. Though the

H
ASHOK KUMAR v. DEPINDER SINGH DHESI 583

Degrees obtained through Distance Education Mode were prima A
facie not in accordance with law, the students enrolled during the
academic sessions 2001-2005 were given two chances to prove
their worth and it was directed that if they clear the test, they
would continue to derive advantages flowing from such Degrees.
If any candidate either failed to clear the examination in two
B
attempts or if he chose not to appear in the examination, the
Degree would stand annulled completely disentitling the candidate
to all the benefits and advantages flowing from such degrees.
[Paras 7, 8] [589-D-G; 590-H; 591-A]
1.2 The candidates who, on the strength of such Degrees
awarded through Distance Education Mode, had attained a C
particular level in their career or were enjoying certain benefits
as on the date of the Judgment and if they pass the examination,
those benefits would stand restored. If the candidates could clear
the examination in the first attempt itself, there would not even
be any break in continuous enjoyment of those benefits or D
facilities. The idea was, candidates should not stand deprived of
the status that they were enjoying as on the day of the Judgment
provided the candidates could prove their worth and ability. But
if, the concerned candidates had not attained any particular status,
as on the date when the Judgment was passed, the width of the
directions was not to confer any additional advantage which was E
not even enjoyed as on the date. If the degrees stood restored in
terms of the directions in the Judgment and the Order, the
candidates would certainly be eligible to such entitlements as
are available in accordance with law, but “restoration” would only
be of those benefits, which they were enjoying as on the date of F
the Judgment. In short, the intent was to restore status quo ante
and not to confer any additional advantage by the Judgment and
the Order. In the present case serious objection has been raised
on behalf of Department that the concerned candidates had
enrolled themselves in courses leading to Degrees in Engineering
through Distance Education Mode without express permission G
of the Department and/or the Department did not recognise the
Degrees in Engineering awarded through Distance Education
Mode or that the concerned candidates were not granted any

H
584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 10 S.C.R.

A study leave to pursue such courses. If the Degrees were so
obtained in violation of the norms and parameters laid down by
the concerned Department, the matter assumes completely
different complexion. If there was serious infirmity in the Degrees
so obtained by the candidates, the matter ought to be sorted out
either through representation or through properly instituted
B
challenge in that behalf. If the promotion was not granted and
was not being enjoyed as on the day when the judgment was
passed, there was no violation of any direction issued by this
Court. The representations made by the Contempt Petitioner
claimed conferral of certain status and benefits which they were
C not enjoying earlier. If there be any grievance on that front, the
entitlement needs to be established in proceedings other than a
Contempt Petition. There is no violation on part of the alleged
Contemnors. Contempt Petitions are dismissed. Each of the
petitioners shall deposit Rs.5000/- by way of costs in the
concerned Department within four weeks, failing which the
D
Department shall recover the same in accordance with law.
[Paras 10, 11, 13 and 14] [592-G-H; 593-A; 594-C]
Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited v. Rabi
Sankar Patro and others (2018) 1 SCC 468 : [2017]
13 SCR 921 ; Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited
E v. Rabi Sankar Patro and others (2018) 2 SCC 298 :
[2018] 1 SCR 839 – referred to.
J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar and others (1996) 6
SCC 291 : [1996] 6 Suppl. SCR 110 – relied on.

F Case Law Reference
[2017] 13 SCR 921 referred to Para 1
[2018] 1 SCR 839 referred to Para 1
[1996] 6 Suppl. SCR 110 relied on Para 12
G INHERENT JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos.
408-409 of 2019 in Civil Appeal Nos. 17869-17870 of 2017.
Contempt Petition filed against the Judgment dated 03.11.2017 of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.17869-17870 of 2017.

H
ASHOK KUMAR v. DEPINDER SINGH DHESI 585

Siddharth Dave, Sr. Adv., Tahir Ashraf Siddiqui, Ms. Madhusmita A
Bora, Advs. for the Petitioners.
Maninder Singh, Sr. Adv., Shekhar Raj Sharma, Ms. Shruti Goyal,
Ms. Aastha Mehta, Prabhas Bajaj, Ms. Monika Gussain, Sanjay Kumar
Visen, Ms. Shruti Dag, Advs. for the alleged Contemnors.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B

UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.
1. These Contempt Petitions filed by nine Petitioners submit inter
alia that the alleged Contemnors have wilfully and deliberately violated
the Judgment dated 03.11.20171 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal C
Nos.17869-17870 of 2017 and other connected matters (“the Judgment”,
for short) and clarificatory Order dated 22.01.20182 passed by this Court
in Miscellaneous Application Nos.1795-1796 of 2017 arising from
aforesaid Civil Appeals (“the Order”, for short). In the submission of
the Contempt Petitioners the following directions issued by this Court in
the Judgment stand violated:- D
“58. AICTE is directed to devise within one month from the date
of this judgment modalities to conduct appropriate test(s) both in
written examination as well as in practicals for the students
concerned admitted during the academic sessions 2001-2005
covering all the subjects concerned. It is entirely left to the E
discretion of AICTE to come out with such modalities as it may
think appropriate and the tests in that behalf shall be conducted in
the National Institutes of Technology in the respective States
wherever the students are located. The choice may be given to
the students to appear at the examination which ideally should be F
conducted during May-June 2018 or on such dates as AICTE
may determine. Not more than two chances be given to the students
concerned and if they do not pass the test(s) their degrees shall
stand recalled and cancelled. If a particular student does not wish
to appear in the test(s), the entire money deposited by such student
towards tuition and other charges shall be refunded to that student G
by the deemed to be university concerned within a month of the

1
(2018) 1 SCC 468 – Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited vs. Rabi Sankar Patro
and others
2
(2018) 2 SCC 298 – Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited vs. Rabi Sankar Patro
and others H
586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 10 S.C.R.

A exercise of such option. The students be given time till 15-1-2018
to exercise such option. The entire expenditure for conducting
the test(s) in respect of students who wish to undergo test(s) shall
be recovered from the deemed to be universities concerned by
31-3-2018. If they clear the test(s) within the stipulated time, all
the advantages or benefits shall be restored to the candidates
B
concerned. We make it clear at the cost of repetition that if the
candidates concerned do not clear the test(s) within the time
stipulated or choose not to appear at the test(s), their degrees in
Engineering through distance education shall stand recalled and
cancelled. It goes without saying that any promotion or
C advancement in career on the basis of such degree shall also
stand withdrawn, however, any monetary benefits or advantages
in that behalf shall not be recovered from them.
66.6. If the students clear the test(s) within the stipulated time, all
the advantages/benefits shall be restored to them and their degrees
D will stand revived fully.”
It is also submitted that the directions issued above were reiterated
in following terms in the Order:-
“A] All such candidates, who wish to appear at the forthcoming
test to be conducted by AICTE in May-June 2018 and who
E exercise option to appear at the test in terms of the judgment, can
retain the degrees in question and all the advantages flowing
therefrom till one month after the declaration of the result of such
test or till 31.07.2018 whichever is earlier.
B] This facility is given as one-time exception so that those who
F have the ability and can pass the test in the first attempt itself,
should not be put to inconvenience. If the candidates pass in
such first attempt, they would be entitled to retain all the
advantages. … …”
2. According to the Contempt Petitioners:-
G
(i) They had enrolled themselves in courses leading to
Degrees in Engineering through Distance Education
Mode during the period 2001-2005.

H
ASHOK KUMAR v. DEPINDER SINGH DHESI 587
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

(ii) In terms of the Judgment, the Petitioners appeared in A
the test held by AICTE3 on 03.06.2018 and qualified in
the first attempt.
(iii) The Petitioners are presently posted as Junior Engineers
in Public Health Engineering Department, Haryana.
(iv) Soon after clearing the examination, representations B
were made by the Petitioners that they were entitled to
all the benefits arising from their Degrees in terms of
the Judgment and the Order.
(v) The representations so preferred were more or less
identical in terms and by way of sample one of the C
submissions made therein was:-
“Therefore, it is requested to add my higher
qualification i.e. B.Tech (Civil) and due benefit for
promotion may please be given to me.”
D
3. Alleging that no action was taken in respect of representations
preferred by the Petitioners, it is submitted in the Contempt Petition:-
“6. That the above said representation has not been replied to till
date nor any action has been taken on the same. Rather the
ACRs of the candidates who are junior to the Petitioners have
E
been called for and their files have been forwarded to the Additional
Chief Secretary for issuing orders of promotion. It is pertinent to
mention that the above mentioned junior candidates had obtained
their B.Tech degree through regular mode and the Petitioners
herein had obtained their B.Tech Degrees from the Deemed
Universities through the ODL Mode. However, after the F
Petitioners have cleared the June 2018 AICTE exam their degrees
have become valid and hence they are to be treated at par with
those Junior Engineers who have obtained their Degrees through
the Regular Mode. The fact that the Petitioners have been ignored
and the ACRs of the Junior Candidates have been called for shows
G
that the Contemnors / Respondents have deliberately and wilfully
violated the directions of this Hon’ble Court passed in Judgment
dated 03.11.2017 and 22.01.2018.”

3
All India Council for Technical Education
H
588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 10 S.C.R.

A 4. In the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the alleged
Contemnors/Respondents, it was submitted that opinion of the Advocate
General was sought inter alia, on the following issue:-
“ii) Whether the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP
No.17869-17870 of 2017 titled as Orissa Lift Corporation Ltd.
B vs. Rabi Sankar Patro and others in the matter is applicable to the
candidates to whom no benefit of acquisition of higher qualification
has been granted till date and the said Judgment is applicable only
to those officer/officials to whom benefit of such degrees had
already been given in the matter of recruitment / promotion etc.”
C The opinion given by the Deputy Advocate General was to the
following effect:-
“The very intent of the aforesaid direction is to restore the degrees
of such candidates (enrolled during academic sessions 2001-2005)
from the date of issuance itself, so that the benefits granted to
D them on the basis of such degrees are not withdrawn and further,
that they become eligible for consideration for various benefits
denied to them owing to lack of validity of such degrees. However,
the said directions cannot be construed in a manner, so as to include
any advantage/benefit not granted to a candidate/employee viz.
initial entry into service, promotion, increment etc. because of
E lack of validity of such degree at that particular point of time.
Moreover, such an interpretation of the directions of the Hon’ble
Court would lead to administrative chaos especially in the matters
of selection and promotions.”
5. An additional affidavit has also been filed on behalf alleged
F Contemnor No.3 placing reliance on letter No.3712-2CS-II-72/21209
dated 18.07.1972 in terms of which an employee could be permitted to
join academic courses/appear in examinations after appropriate
permissions. The letter stated inter alia:-
“It has been noticed that Government employees who are
G permitted to join academic instructions/appear in examinations
proceed on leave on one pretext or the other, for a major part of
the year in order to make preparations. As this tendency is
undesirable and affects Government work adversely, it has been
decided to place certain restrictions on permission accorded to
Government employees in this respect, as under:-
H
ASHOK KUMAR v. DEPINDER SINGH DHESI 589
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

(i) Ad hoc employees should not be permitted to join courses A
or appear in examination.
(ii) Only those regular employees who have completed 5 years
of service should be accorded such permission. In reckoning
the 5 years period service rendered by the employee in any
other Office/Department of Government should also be B
considered.
2. However, those regular employees who have already been
permitted to join a particular course of study, or who were studying
for a particular course at the time they joined Government service,
should be allowed to complete that course, without the necessity C
to having to obtain any permission.”
6. We heard Mr. Siddharth Dave, learned Senior Advocate for
the Petitioners and Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Senior Advocate for
the alleged Contemnors.
7. At the outset, the reasons for issuing directions which are relied D
upon by the Petitioners as evident from the Judgment and the Order are
required to be stated and taken into account. Two kinds of students
were before the Court (i) those who were enrolled during the academic
sessions 2001-2005 and (ii) those who were enrolled after the academic
sessions 2001-2005. It was noted in para 23.6 that UGC4 had issued E
“2004 UGC Guidelines” in terms of which concept of ex-post facto
approval in respect of deemed to be Universities which had started
courses in Distance Education without any approval from the concerned
authorities was introduced. In accordance with these “2004 UGC
Guidelines” some of the deemed to be Universities applied for ex-post
facto approval and were granted such approval, as a result of which the F
students enrolled during academic sessions 2001-2005 stood on a different
footing as against those who were enrolled after the academic sessions
2001-2005.
Though the Judgment did not approve of the entire exercise
undertaken by the concerned authorities, including the grant of ex-post G
facto approvals, a concession was given to the students who were enrolled
during the academic sessions 2001-2005 and the matter in that behalf
was dealt with in paragraph 57 as under:-

4
University Grants Commission H
590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 10 S.C.R.

A “57. Having found the entire exercise of grant of ex post facto
approval to be incorrect and illegal, the logical course in normal
circumstances would have been not only to set aside such ex post
facto approvals but also to pass consequential directions to recall
all the degrees granted in pursuance thereof in respect of courses
leading to award of degrees in Engineering. However, since the
B
2004 UGC Guidelines themselves had given liberty to the deemed
to be universities concerned to apply for ex post facto approval,
the matter is required to be considered with some sympathy so
that interest of those students who were enrolled during the
academic sessions 2001-2005 is protected. Though we cannot
C wish away the fact that the deemed to be universities concerned
flagrantly violated and entered into areas where they had no
experience and started conducting courses through distance
education system illegally, the overbearing interest of the students
concerned persuades us not to resort to recall of all the degrees in
Engineering granted in pursuance of the said ex post facto
D
approval. However, the fact remains that the facilities available
at the study centres concerned were never checked nor any
inspections were conducted. It is not possible at this length of
time to order any inspection. But there must be confidence and
assurance about the worthiness of the students concerned. We,
E therefore, deem it appropriate to grant some chance to the students
concerned to have their ability tested by authorities competent in
that behalf. We, therefore, direct that all the degrees in Engineering
granted to students who were enrolled during the academic years
2001 to 2005 shall stand suspended till they pass such examination
under the joint supervision of AICTE-UGC in the manner indicated
F
hereinafter. Further, every single advantage on the basis of that
degree shall also stand suspended.”
8. In spite of the conclusion that (a) courses leading to Degrees in
Engineering could not be taught through Distance Education Mode without
there being express guidelines issued by AICTE3 permitting such mode;
G and (b) the deemed to be Universities in question were not entitled to
start courses in Engineering through Distance Education Mode without
prior approval under the AICTE3, the facility of benefit as detailed in
paragraphs 57 and 58 of the Judgment was extended to the students.
Though the Degrees obtained through Distance Education Mode were
H
ASHOK KUMAR v. DEPINDER SINGH DHESI 591
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

prima facie not in accordance with law, the students enrolled during the A
academic sessions 2001-2005 were given two chances to prove their
worth and it was directed that if they clear the test, they would continue
to derive advantages flowing from such Degrees.
It may be mentioned here that there could possibly be variety of
advantages derived by the candidates on the basis of such Degrees B
awarded at least 10 years before the Judgment was pronounced. During
this period some of the candidates might have progressed in career on
the basis of such Degree, while some could possibly have acquired Post-
Graduate qualifications such as M.Tech and M.B.A. on the strength of
such Degrees. It was in this light, that the Court ruled that though from
the date of the Judgment all the advantages and benefits flowing or C
arising from such Degrees would stand suspended, the benefits or
advantages would get revived after the candidates had cleared the
examination, spoken of in said paragraphs 57 and 58. If any candidate
either failed to clear the examination in two attempts or if he chose not
to appear in the examination, the Degree would stand annulled completely D
disentitling the candidate to all the benefits and advantages flowing from
such degrees.
9. Some candidates approached this Court submitting that if in
terms of the Judgment the benefits or advantages were to be withdrawn
and could be regranted or restored only after the candidates had cleared E
the examination, it may entail some prejudice to the candidates. Some
of the candidates who had obtained Post-Graduate Degrees and were
employed on the strength of such Degrees would be required to surrender
such benefits; and even if they were to pass the examination in the first
attempt, it may still require restoration of the benefits leading to situations
of inconvenience and prejudice. The directions in the Judgment were F
therefore modified to a certain extent in the Order. It was, therefore,
laid down by way of further concession in the Order that all the candidates
who desired to appear in the upcoming examination could retain all the
advantages and benefits till one month after declaration of the result of
test or till 31.07.2018 whichever was later. The benefit of retaining the G
advantages was thus extended only till the first attempt. Those who
could not clear the examination in first attempt or chose not to appear in
the examination conducted in May/June, 2018 were not entitled to the
concessions extended by the Order.

H
592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 10 S.C.R.

A 10. It was, therefore, clear that the candidates who, on the strength
of such Degrees awarded through Distance Education Mode, had attained
a particular level in their career or were enjoying certain benefits as on
the date of the Judgment and if they pass the examination, those benefits
would stand restored. If the candidates could clear the examination in
the first attempt itself, there would not even be any break in continuous
B
enjoyment of those benefits or facilities. The idea was, candidates should
not stand deprived of the status that they were enjoying as on the day of
the Judgment provided the candidates could prove their worth and ability.
But if, the concerned candidates had not attained any particular
status, as on the date when the Judgment was passed, the width of the
C directions was not to confer any additional advantage which was not
even enjoyed as on the date. It was not the idea to hold the candidates
to be entitled to certain additional benefits which the candidates were,
as a matter of fact, not even enjoying on the date of the judgment. If the
degrees stood restored in terms of the directions in the Judgment and
D the Order, the candidates would certainly be eligible to such entitlements
as are available in accordance with law, but “restoration” would only be
of those benefits, which they were enjoying as on the date of the Judgment.
In short, the intent was to restore status quo ante and not to confer any
additional advantage by the Judgment and the Order.
E 11. In the present case serious objection has been raised on behalf
of Department that the concerned candidates had enrolled themselves
in courses leading to Degrees in Engineering through Distance Education
Mode without express permission of the Department and/or the
Department did not recognise the Degrees in Engineering awarded
through Distance Education Mode or that the concerned candidates were
F not granted any study leave to pursue such courses. If the Degrees
were so obtained in violation of the norms and parameters laid down by
the concerned Department, the matter assumes completely different
complexion. The directions issued by this Court in the Judgment and the
Order never directed to confer such advantages which the candidates
G were otherwise not enjoying on the date when the Judgment and
clarificatory Order were passed. If there was serious infirmity in the
Degrees so obtained by the candidates, the matter ought to be sorted out
either through representation or through properly instituted challenge in
that behalf. If the promotion was not granted and was not being enjoyed
as on the day when the judgment was passed, there was no violation of
H
ASHOK KUMAR v. DEPINDER SINGH DHESI 593
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

any direction issued by this Court. As is evident, the representations A
made by the Contempt Petitioner claimed conferral of certain status and
benefits which they were not enjoying earlier. If there be any grievance
on that front, the entitlement needs to be established in proceedings other
than a Contempt Petition.
12. Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Senior Advocate, was, therefore B
completely justified in relying upon the following observations passed by
this Court in J.S. Parihar vs. Ganpat Duggar and others5 :-
“6. The question then is whether the Division Bench was right in
setting aside the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to
redraw the seniority list. It is contended by Mr S.K. Jain, the C
learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that unless the learned
Judge goes into the correctness of the decision taken by the
Government in preparation of the seniority list in the light of the
law laid down by three Benches, the learned Judge cannot come
to a conclusion whether or not the respondent had wilfully or
deliberately disobeyed the orders of the Court as defined under D
Section 2(b) of the Act. Therefore, the learned Single Judge of
the High Court necessarily has to go into the merits of that question.
We do not find that the contention is well founded. It is seen that,
admittedly, the respondents had prepared the seniority list on 2-7-
1991. Subsequently promotions came to be made. The question is E
whether seniority list is open to review in the contempt proceedings
to find out whether it is in conformity with the directions issued by
the earlier Benches. It is seen that once there is an order passed
by the Government on the basis of the directions issued by the
court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an
appropriate forum. The preparation of the seniority list may be F
wrong or may be right or may or may not be in conformity with
the directions. But that would be a fresh cause of action for the
aggrieved party to avail of the opportunity of judicial review. But
that cannot be considered to be the wilful violation of the order.
After re-exercising the judicial review in contempt proceedings, a G
fresh direction by the learned Single Judge cannot be given to
redraw the seniority list. In other words, the learned Judge was
exercising the jurisdiction to consider the matter on merits in the

5
(1996) 6 SCC 291 H
594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 10 S.C.R.

A contempt proceedings. It would not be permissible under Section
12 of the Act. Therefore, the Division Bench has exercised the
power under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance
being a judgment or order of the Single Judge; the Division Bench
corrected the mistake committed by the learned Single Judge.
Therefore, it may not be necessary for the State to file an appeal
B
in this Court against the judgment of the learned Single Judge
when the matter was already seized of the Division Bench.”
13. We, therefore, do not find any violation on part of the alleged
Contemnors.
C 14. These Contempt Petitions are dismissed. Each of the petitioners
shall deposit Rs.5000/- by way of costs in the concerned Department
within four weeks, failing which the Department shall recover the same
in accordance with law.

D
Divya Pandey Contempt petitions dismissed.

E

F

G

H