GURUDEEP SINGHversusREGONDA SRINIVAS & ORS.

              [2023] 10 S.C.R. 457 : 2023 INSC 617                      457


                       GURUDEEP SINGH                                   A
                                 v.
                  REGONDA SRINIVAS & ORS.
                    (Civil Appeal No. 128/2023)
                           JULY 04, 2023                                B
                    [B.V. NAGARATHNA AND
              PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.]
       Contempt of Court – Lands were acquired by NTPC and
compensation was awarded – Land oustees were proposed to be
recruited by the NTPC as Junior Mazdoor – Pursuant thereto,             C
Notification No.1 of 2017 issued – High Court directed NTPC to
conclude the entire process of recruitment within two months from
the date of the judgment i.e. 17.12.2021 – However, a fresh
Notification No.1 of 2022 was issued and Notification No.1 of 2017
was cancelled – Contempt case filed – High Court held that the          D
appellants-chairman & managing director and General Manager
of NTPC violated the orders of the Court by issuing a fresh
notification (Notification No.1 of 2022) – High Court allowed the
contempt case and directed appellants to suffer simple imprisonment
and fine – On appeal, held: On perusal of the judgment of High
Court dated 17.12.2021, it does not emerge that it barred the           E
appellants from issuing a fresh notification so as to complete the
process of recruitment – Judgment specified timeline i.e. two months
for completion of recruitment, while manner in which the recruitment
was to be completed was the prerogative of the appellants – There
was no deliberate and willful disobedience of the orders of the High    F
Court – Appellants had also tendered unconditional apology on
the premise of the alleged violation of the order – Therefore, the
punishment imposed by the High Court not correct – Unconditional
apology of the appellants accepted – Consequently, sentence
imposed on them set aside.
                                                                        G
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.128 of
2023.
       From the Judgment and Order dated 30.12.2022 of the High Court
for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in the Contempt Case No.776
of 2022.
                                                                        H
                                457
458             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 10 S.C.R.


A           With
            Civil Appeal No.92 of 2023.
            Tushar Mehta, SG, Gopal Jain, Sr. Adv., Adarsh Tripathi, Vikram
      Singh Baid, Ajitesh Garg, Advs. for the Appellant.
B          Arun K. Sinha, Sumit Sinha, Ms. Anjali Rajput, Advs. for the
      Respondents.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            NAGARATHNA J.
             The present Appeals arise out of the judgment dated 30.12.2022
C
      in Contempt Case No. 776/2022 passed by the High Court of the State
      of Telangana whereby the Appellants, who are the Chairman & Managing
      Director and the General Manager (Human Resources) of the Company
      –NTPC Ltd. have been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for
      a period of two months and a fine of Rs. 2,000, by allowing the Contempt
D     Case filed by the respondents herein.
             2. The present appeals have been filed primarily on the ground
      that there has been no wilful and deliberate disobedience or non-
      compliance by the Appellants of the common judgment dated 17.12.2021
      passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in WA No. 277/2020.
E            3. The present case pertains to the claim of Respondents and
      other similarly placed land oustees as Junior Mazdoors on the basis of a
      tripartite agreement in the year 1988 between NTPC Ltd. with the land
      oustees.
              4. Briefly stated, the facts leading upto these appeals are that the
F     Respondents herein and similarly situated persons were the absolute
      owners and possessors of the lands of various extents situated at different
      villages in Ramagundam Mandal, Karimnagar District. The said lands
      were acquired by NTPC prior to 1980 and an award was passed,
      awarding compensation for the acquisition of the said lands. The land
G     oustees were proposed to be recruited by the NTPC as Junior Mazdoor.
      On 15.05.2015, the NTPC issued an employment notification bearing
      number 2 of 2015 for sponsoring the names of the eligible land oustees
      to fill 25 posts of Junior Mazdoors in NTPC.
             5. W.P. No. 26043/2016 was filed by an aggrieved land oustee
H     assailing the aforesaid notification issued by NTPC in the year 2015 and
      GURUDEEP SINGH v. REGONDA SRINIVAS & ORS.                             459
                [B. V. NAGARATHNA J.]

the recruitment process undertaken by NTPC Ltd. pursuant to the said        A
notification and the same was set aside by the Ld. Single Judge of the
High Court as the mode of recruitment provided for was only through
interview.
      6. Another round of litigation ensued as NTPC issued a notification
(No. 01 of 2017) dated 09.03.2017 to recruit junior mazdoors, which         B
was also challenged before the High Court. The Division Bench of the
High Court for the State of Telangana, in W.A.No.277 of 2020 directed
NTPC to conclude the entire process of recruitment in pursuance of
Notification No.01 of 2017 within two months from the date of the said
judgment dated 17.12.2021.
                                                                            C
       7. Pursuant to the direction of the High Court dated 17.12.2021, a
fresh recruitment Notification bearing No.1 of 2022 was issued and the
recruitment process was initiated and the Employment Notification No.01
of 2017, dated 09.03.2017 was cancelled.
       8. While matters stood thus, the Respondents herein filed a          D
Contempt Petition bearing No. 776 of 2022 praying to punish the
Appellants herein for deliberately not obeying/implementing and
deliberately flouting the orders of the High Court dated 17.12.2021 and
to hold the Appellants in contempt of Court. By the impugned judgment
dated 30.12.2022 in Contempt Case No. 776 of 2022, the High Court
concluded that there were deliberate and wilful laches, omissions and       E
commissions on the part of the Appellants herein in spite of being fully
aware of the implication of the judgment dated 17.12.2021 passed in
W.A.No.277 of 2020 and batch, and therefore, the High Court allowed
the contempt case and directed that the Appellants shall suffer simple
imprisonment for a period of two (02) months and to pay a fine of           F
Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) each, within four (04) weeks
from the date of the judgment.
     9. The key observations of the High Court of Telangana in the
impugned judgment are as follows:
      a.     That the Appellants ought to have completed the process        G
             of recruitment following the Notification No.01 of 2017
             dated 09.03.2017 within a period of two months from the
             date of judgment and issued consequential appointment
             orders within such time.
                                                                            H
460              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2023] 10 S.C.R.


A           b.     That the Appellants were the key persons in issuing the
                   Notification No.01 of 2022 and attempting to wish away
                   the judgment dated 17.12.2021 passed by a Division Bench
                   of the High Court in W.A.No.277 of 2020 and Batch.
            c.     That the Appellants and NTPC Ltd. had demonstrated their
B                  scant respect to the law and the Order of the High Court
                   by not making any efforts to comply with the orders of the
                   Court dated 17.12.2021.
            d.     That instead of completing the recruitment process as
                   directed by the High Court, the Appellants violated the
C                  orders of the Court by issuing a fresh notification
                   (Notification No.1 of 2022 dated 01.02.2022) and cancelled
                   the recruitment process initiated vide Employment
                   Notification No.01 of 2017, dated 09.03.2017.
            e.     The High Court took note of the unconditional apology
D                  tendered by the Appellants but declined to accept the same
                   by holding that they deserved no leniency.
            Aggrieved by the said observations of the High Court, the present
      appeals have been filed by the Contemnors-Appellants.
           10. We have heard learned Solicitor General for the appellants
E     and Mr. Arun K.Sinha learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 7.
           11. During the course of submissions, learned Solicitor General
      drew our attention to paragraphs 10 to 12 of the impugned judgment
      which read as under:-
            “10. In view of the circumstances of the case, though an
F
            unconditional apology is tendered by the respondent Nos.1 and 2,
            the manner in which they deliberately and willfully disobeyed the
            orders of this Court, they deserve no leniency and this Court is
            declined to accept such unconditional apology.
            11. For the reasons mentioned above, we hold that respondent
G           Nos.1 and 2 have deliberately and willfully disobeyed the orders
            of this Court passed by a Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in
            W.A. No.277 of 2020 and batch, on 17.12.2021 and they are liable
            to be punished for the same.
            12. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is allowed. The respondent
H           Nos.1 and 2 are sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a
      GURUDEEP SINGH v. REGONDA SRINIVAS & ORS.                                 461
                [B. V. NAGARATHNA J.]

      period of two (02) months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees         A
      Two Thousand Only) each, within four (04) weeks from today.
      The petitioners are directed to deposit subsistence allowance @
      Rs.500/- per day within four (04) weeks. The sentence of
      imprisonment imposed on the respondent Nos.1 and 2 is suspended
      for a period of six (06) weeks from today.”
                                                                                B
       He submitted that the High Court ought to have accepted the
unconditional apology tendered by the appellants herein as there was
clearly no deliberate and willful disobedience of the order passed by the
High Court on 17.12.2021.
       In this regard, our attention was drawn to the order dated               C
17.12.2021 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in Writ
Appeal Nos.270, 277 and 268 of 2020, the relevant portion of the said
order reads as under:
             “The NTPC is going ahead with the process of selection
      for the post of Group “D” employees based upon the policy                 D
      decision to grant employment to the land oustees and since 2017
      the recruitment is held up on account of litigation. The NTPC has
      adopted a transparent procedure by holding a written examination
      and has amended the rules also and this Court does not find any
      fault with the decision taken by the NTPC in setting aside the
      Notification dated 15.05.2015 and by issuing a fresh Notification         E
      on 12.03.2017. Even if it is assumed that the NTPC has earlier
      held the process of interview, the process of recruitment was not
      finalised and no appointments were made by the NTPC pursuant
      to the advertisement dated 15.05.2015 and it is a well settled
      proposition of law that inclusion in the selection list does not confer   F
      a right upon an individual for appointment.
            The reasons for cancelling the earlier advertisement dated
      15.05.2015 are cogent and valid reasons and as the NTPC is now
      adopting a transparent process, the impugned order passed by the
      learned Single Judge is set aside. The NTPC is directed to conclude       G
      the entire process of subject recruitment within a period of two
      months from today issue consequential appointment orders.
             With the aforesaid, the writ appeals stand allowed. The
      miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There
      shall be no order as to costs.”
                                                                                H
462            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 10 S.C.R.


A            Learned Solicitor General submitted that having regard to the
      directions issued by the High Court to conclude the entire process of
      recruitment within a period of two months from that day and to make
      the consequential appointment orders, the process of appointment was
      taken forward, the select list has also been made. However, the
      appointment orders have only been provisionally issued in view of the
B
      Contempt Petition initiated by the respondents herein.
            He submitted that this is a case where this Court may interfere in
      the matter and pass an appropriate order.
             12. Learned counsel Mr. Arun K. Sinha submitted that the reasons
C     as to why the respondents were constrained to file the Contempt Petition
      was on account of the fact that the respondents were the land oustees
      who are entitled to be considered for appointment and in fact their names
      were earlier found in the select list of 2015. However, no appointments
      were made and therefore they were constrained to file the Contempt
      Petition. He, however, submitted that the reasons for not accepting the
D     unconditional apology tendered by the appellants herein by the High Court
      may be considered and appropriate orders may be made in the Contempt
      Petition. He further submitted that the appellants may be directed to
      consider the case of the respondents herein for appointment in the
      appellants’ company.
E            13. On perusal of the judgment dated 17.12.2021, it does not
      emerge that it barred the appellants from issuing a fresh notification so
      as to complete the process of recruitment. The said judgment only directed
      that the process of recruitment be completed within a period of two
      months and appointment orders be issued to the successful candidates.
F     Whether the recruitment was to be concluded in pursuance of the
      notification of 2017, or by way of issuing a fresh notification, was not
      specified in the said judgment and therefore, in our view, this aspect of
      the matter was left to the discretion of the appellants. In the absence of
      a specific direction to the effect that the recruitment be concluded in
      pursuance of the notification of 2017 alone, we are unable to hold that
G     issuance of a fresh recruitment notification would constitute contempt
      of court. The timeline for completion of recruitment was stipulated by
      the court, while the manner in which the recruitment was to be completed,
      was the prerogative of the appellants.
           We also take note of the contention of the Learned Solicitor
H     General that only provisional appointment orders could be issued in view
       GURUDEEP SINGH v. REGONDA SRINIVAS & ORS.                                463
                 [B. V. NAGARATHNA J.]

of the fact that the contempt petition initiated by the respondents, was        A
pending.
        14. Having heard the learned Solicitor General for the appellants
and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents in
light of what we have extracted above and in the light of the order dated
17.12.2021 passed by the High Court, we find that there has been no             B
“deliberate and willful” disobedience of the orders of the High Court. In
fact, the appellants herein had also tendered an unconditional apology on
the premise of an alleged violation of the order of the High Court dated
17.12.2021. Even if the High Court came to a conclusion that there was
a deliberate and willful disobedience of the order of the court, it could
have considered the said unconditional apology tendered by appellants           C
and concluded the matter. However, we find that the High Court has,
instead of considering the unconditional apology tendered by the
appellants herein, sentenced them to suffer simple imprisonment and
pay fine. We do not think that the said punishment imposed was correct
having regard to the facts of the case and the order passed by the Division     D
Bench of the High Court on 17.12.2021.
      15. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we find it
appropriate to accept the unconditional apology of the appellants herein
and consequently set aside the sentence imposed on them. The Civil
Appeals are allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.                     E
       Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Ankit Gyan                                                   Appeals allowed.
(Assisted by : Aarsh Choudhary, LCRA)
                                                                                F




                                                                                G




                                                                                H