Holding

The court cannot direct the State Government to appoint a person to an abolished post; selection does not create a enforceable right, and no contempt lies.

Summary

A writ petition was filed by Balakrushna Behera seeking a mandamus directing Utkal University of Culture to complete the selection and appoint him as Lecturer in South & South East Asian Studies. The High Court ordered the university to complete the selection and publish the result, which was done, but the appointment was not made because the State Government, whose prior approval was required under Statute 4(1) of the university's statutes, abolished the post. A contempt petition was filed against the university's Registrar and Vice‑Chancellor for allegedly disobeying the High Court order. The Supreme Court held that a selection does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment and that the court cannot issue a mandamus directing the State Government to appoint a person to a post that has been abolished. Consequently, no contempt was found, the High Court's contempt orders were set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Can a court issue a writ of mandamus directing the State Government to appoint a person to a post that has been abolished?
Does selection for a university post confer a right enforceable by a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution?
Is contempt of court appropriate against university officials when appointment requires State Government approval and the post no longer exists?

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 226

Subjects

contempt of courtmandamusuniversity appointmentstate government approvalselection processArticle 226abolished post

Judgment

f
y-
BALAKRUSHNA BEHERA AND ANR. A
v.
SATYA PRAKASH DASH

OCTOBER 22, 2007
B
[A.K. MATHUR AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.]
t
1
Contempt of Court:

Selection ofLecturer in University-On a writ petition filed by a
c
candidate, High Court directing the University to complete the
selection process-Accordingly result declared, but selected candidate
not given appointment-Contempt petition-Notice issued by High
Court to Registrar and Vice-Chancellor of University-Plea that
appointment was to be approved by Government-Meanwhile State
D
Government abolished the post-High Court in contempt Proceedings
directing Registrar and Vice-Chancellor to be present personally in
Court on given date-HELD : Court cannot direct the State
Government in a writ ofmandamus to appoint a person against a post
which has been abolished-In view ofsecond proviso to Statute 4(1)
ofStatutes ofUniversity, since no appointment could be made without E
prior approval of State Government and the post having been
abolished, even after selection, candidate cannot claim a right to the
post, nor is there any contempt ofCourt-Thus, no contempt is made
out against the noticees-Orders ofHigh Court set aside-Notice of
....., ,
contempt discharged-Constitution ofIndia-Article 226. F
·~

Shankarsan Dash v. Union ofIndia, [1991) 3 SCC 47, relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4179 of
2006.
G
From the Judgment and final Order dated 24.1.2006 of the High
~~ Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Misc. Case No. 151 of2005.
'

Janaranjan Das and Swetaketu Mishra for the Appellant.
605 H
606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A B.K. Pattnaik, Rutwik Panda and Jana Kalyan Das for the
Respondent.
The Order of the Court was delivered by
ORDER
B
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
~.
Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and orders dated '
24.1.2006 of the High Court of Orissa whereby contempt proceedings
C were initiated against the appellants herein and they were directed to be
present in Court for further proceeding in the matter of Contempt.
The brief facts r.ecessary for the disposal of the present appeal are
that the respondent herein filed a writ petition against the Utkal University
D of Culture and sought a mandamus that the University be directed to
complete the entire selection process for the post of Lecturer in South &
South East Asian Studies. The Division Bench of the High Court vide order "'<-
dated 10.3.2005 disposed of the writ petition and directed that "it is a fit
case where the opposite parties should be directed by issuing a writ in
E the nature of mandamus to complete the entire process of selection and
publish the result." The Court accordingly issued a writ in the nature of
mandainus commanding opposite parties 1 & 2 to complete the entire
process of selection and publish the result in respect of the post of Lecturer
in South & South East Asian Studies within a period of two months from
F the date of communication of the said order, It was further observed that
"it was needless to mention that after declaration of the result, -.c: >---
consequences to follow by opposite parties 1 & 2".
After passing of the said order, the same allegedly having not been
complied with by the University authorities within the time stipulated, a
G contempt petition was filed by the respondent herein (writ petitioner before
the High Court). In reply to the contempt petition, the appellants herein
(the Registrar and Vice-Chancellor of the University) stated that in view ,1--"1.
of Statute 4(3) of the Utkal University of Culture First Statute, 2001 since
the Board of Management differed from the recommendation of the
H Selection Committee, the matter had to be referred to the Chancellor of
f BALAKRUSHNA BEHERA v. SATY A PRAKASH DASH 607
y-~

the University. In the meantime, the High court issued notice the contempt A
of Court for alleged disobedience of its judgment dated I0.3.2005, but
in view of the results having been published, the contr.mpt proceedings
were dropped. It is alleged that despite the selection of the respondent
herein, no appointment letter was issued to the respondent. Hence, he
filed yet another contempt petition on which the impugned orders dated B
24.1.2006 and 27 .1.2006 were passed. By the said orders the Vice
I' Chancellor and Registrar of the University were directed to be personally
1 present in Court.
The plea taken by the appellants herein the reply to show cause was
that as per the Second proviso to Statute 4(1) of the Utkal University of ,C
Culture First Statute, 200 I, all appointment have to be approved by the
State Government. The second proviso to Statute 4(1) of the Utkala
University of Culture First Statute, 200 l reads as under:
"Provided further that the appointment of all the teaching faculties D
including Professors, Deans, Experts and Consultants are subject
to availability of funds and on prior approval of administrative
department and Finance Department of State Government."
The State Government took the stand that in view ofthe restructuring/
reorganising of the whole set up the posts of Lecturer in South & South E
East Asian Studies have been abolished and therefore the respondent
herein could not be appointed to the said post. The appellants herein of
Course wrote to the State Government for grant of approval for their
appointment and funds for the said posts but the State Government
declined to grant approval and abolished the posts and consequently no F,
--.J )o-
appointments could be made to the said post. Thereafter, the Division
Bench by the impugned order dated 24.1.2006 directed the Registrar and
Vice Chancellor of the University (appellants herein) to be present in Court
on 27.1.2006.
Aggrieved against the impugned orders dated 24.1.2006 and G
27.1.2006 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, the present
- \..~ appeal by special leave has been filed.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record. H
608 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A The first and foremost question is whether the Court can direct the
State Government by a writ of mandamus to appoint a person against a
post which has been abolished by the State Government. Our answer to
this question is in the negative. The respondent even after selection has
no indefeasible rightto be appointed on the post because a selection does
B not confer a right of getting appointment which can be enforced by filing
a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. In this view we are
supported by a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of ~
Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, [1991] 3 SCC 47. Since the "
respondent has only an inchoate right to the post, there is no question of
C contempt against the appellants herein. The initial direction of the High
Court was to complete the selection process and publish the results. That
was done by the appellants herein. There was no order of the High Court
directing that the respondent be appointed. Hence we fail to see how
there is any contempt of Court.
D Subsequently some developments took place and the State
Government abolished the posts in question and re-organized the set up
of the University. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view 'Y·
the High Court could not have directed the initiation of contempt
proceedings against the appellants when the respondent has no perfect
E or complete right to seek a mandamus for appointment to the post. The
appellants have complied with the order of the Division Bench of the High
Court and completed the process of selection and Published the reults
within the time granted by the High Court. In view of second proviso to
Statute 4(1) of the Statutes of the University, since no appointment could
F be made without the prior approval of the State Government, and. the
State Government having abolished the posts in question, the respondent _. ~
cannot claim a right to the post, nor is there any contemt of Court.
In view of the aforegoing reasons, we are of the view that no
contempt is made out against the appellants herein and the orders dated
G 24.1.2006 and 27 .1.2006 are accordingly set aside and the notice of
contempt against the appellants is discharged.
The appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.
RP. Appeal allowed.
H