IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.C. No.1450 of 2008 Between: K.R.L.Sarma … Petitioner and Mr.K.V.Ramana Chary and another … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.C. No.1450 of 2008 ORDER: This contempt case has been filed against the respondents for their willful disobedience and disrespect of the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.14579 of 2008 on 09.07.2008. As the respondents have not properly considered the candidature of the petitioner, for appointment as contract lecturer, as such, the respondents are liable to be punished under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Post Graduate in M.A., Sanskirt Sahitya, and Goldmedalist at P.G. level and passed State Level Eligibility Test (SELT). The 3rd respondent in the said writ petition, S.V.V.V.S.College, was established long back by the 2nd respondent, Thirumala Thirupathi Devasthanam, and recognized by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The 3rd respondent is an aided College and governed by the provisions of the A.P. Education Act, 1982. Pursuant to the notification issued by the respondents, inviting applications for the post of Lecturers in the 3rd respondent’s College for the academic year 2004-05, the petitioner along with two others made applications seeking appointment to the post of Lecturers on contract basis. Taking into consideration of experience and the qualifications and performance in the interview, the petitioner was appointed as lecturer on contract basis for the academic year 2004-05 and his appointment was renewed, from time to time, for the academic year 2005-06 and 2006- 07. While so, by Proceedings in R.O.C. No.C1/21/SVVVSC/2006, dated 15.09.2009, issued by the 3rd respondent’s College, the services of the petitioner were terminated on the ground that the services of the petitioner is not satisfactory. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed W.P. No.21198 of 2006, wherein, this Court granted interim order and by virtue of the interim order, the petitioner was continued in service and ultimately, by order dated 29.03.2007, the said writ petition was dismissed as infructuous and by that time, the contract period was expired. In respect of the academic year 2007-08, again the 3rd respondent’s College issued notification dated 28.05.2007 calling for the applications for appointment to the post of lecturers. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner made application, seeking appointment, but as the same was not considered, therefore, the petitioner filed W.P. No.24002 of 2007. During the pendency of the writ petition, the 1st respondent, Executive Officer, T.T.D., issued Proceedings dated 06.12.2007 stating that the petitioner’s representation was received belatedly and therefore, the same was not considered and that the vacancies have already been filled-up. Thereafter, for the academic year 2008-09, the petitioner, along with two others, filed W.P. No.14579 of 2008 seeking to declare the action of the 2nd and 3rd respondents in not renewing the contract period of the petitioners as Lecturers for the academic year 2008-2009 by entering into a fresh agreement, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently sought for a direction to the respondents to renew the contract period of the petitioners as Lecturers by entering into a fresh agreement for the academic year 2008-2009. This Court by order dated 09.07.2008, while disposing of the said writ petition, observed as under: “It is not disputed that the earlier engagement of the petitioners is for a limited period. After the expiry of the contract, they were disengaged. Hence, no exception can be taken for such action of the respondents in disengaging the petitioners. So far as the current academic year is concerned, a notification has already been issued and the petitioners also submitted their applications. It hardly needs to mention that the respondents would consider the petitioners also along with other eligible candidates, in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.” The complaint of the petitioner in the contempt case, who is the 2nd petitioner in W.P. No.14579 of 2008, is that the respondents have willfully disobeyed the order dated 09.07.2008 passed by this Court in W.P. No.14579 of 2008. Hence, they are liable for punishment under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. Before traversing into the issue that as to whether the respondents have willfully disobeyed the order passed by this Court or not, few facts are necessary to be looked into, which reads as under: Pursuant to the notification issued by the respondents, inviting the applications for the post of Lecturers for the academic year 2004- 05 on contract basis in the 3rd respondent’s College, the petitioner applied and got appointed as Lecturer. Thereafter, the appointment of the petitioner was renewed from time to time till 2006- 07 and he was working as such. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent, for the academic year 2007-08, appointment of the petitioner as Lecturer was not renewed though there was Proceedings dated 03.08.2007 of the Commissioner and Director of Collegiate Education to the effect that the Government has taken a decision to renew the contract of existing contract lecturers, who have worked in the academic years 2006-07, without conducting any interview and by entering into a fresh agreement for the period from 08.08.2007 to 15.03.2008. For the academic year 2007-08, the respondents have issued notification dated 28.05.2007, calling applications for the post of Lecturers in various subjects for which also, the petitioner has applied but was not considered. Questioning the same, the petitioner filed W.P. No.24002 of 2007 and pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, the 2nd respondent issued proceedings dated 06.12.2007 stating that the petitioner’s application is received with delay of 12 days and further the selected candidates are already rendering their service for the last five months and no vacant posts are available for consideration. In respect of the academic year 2008-09, another notification was issued seeking to fill-up the vacancies in the 3rd respondent’s college. Pending the said W.P. No.24002 of 2007, the petitioner filed another W.P. No.14579 of 2008 seeking direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court as stated hereinabove on 09.07.2008 and the present contempt case is arose out of the said writ petition i.e. W.P. No.14579 of 2008. In compliance of the order dated 09.07.2008 passed in W.P. No.14579 of 2008 by this Court, the respondents have issued Proceedings dated 22.10.2008 and 21.11.2008 stating that the application of the petitioner was examined in all aspects and found that he was not selected. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.14579 of 2008 on 09.07.2008 has not been complied with, therefore, the respondents are liable for punishment under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. He further submitted that though the respondents have issued proceedings dated 22.10.2008 and 21.11.2008, the said proceedings does not amounts to compliance of the order passed by this Court, in view of the fact that neither the respondents have followed the procedure i.e. calling the petitioner to attend the interview nor considered the case of the petitioner properly but straightaway issued the Proceedings dated 22.10.2008 and 21.11.2008, which are not in accordance with law. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that this Court upheld the termination of the services of the petitioner on the earlier occasion on expiration of contract period. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner made an application, in response to the notification issued by the respondents for the academic year 2008-09, this Court in W.P. No.14579 of 2008, while disposing of the said writ petition on 09.07.2008, observed that it hardly needs to mention that the respondents would consider the petitioner also along with other eligible candidates, in accordance with law. Therefore, though there is no positive direction by this Court, except observation, and according to the observation, the case of the petitioner was considered and rejected by issuing Proceedings dated 22.10.2008 and 21.11.2008 taking into consideration of his past performance and more qualified to him O.C. (w) candidate was available. Therefore, the respondents have not committed any contempt as alleged by the petitioner, as such contempt case is liable to be dismissed. He also brought to the notice of this Court that in respect of the current academic year i.e. 2010-11, the respondents have issued notification to fill-up certain posts and in respect of the same, the petitioner also filed W.P. No.12887 of 2011 seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not renewing the contract of the petitioner as Sahitya Lecturer for the academic year 2008-09 onwards by entering into a fresh agreement, as arbitrary and illegal. This Court by order dated 28.04.2011 disposed of the same. The petitioner suppressed this fact in the contempt case. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the material on record. The point that arises for consideration is as to whether there is any willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.14570 of 2008 on the part of the respondents, if so, whether the respondents are liable for punishment under the provisions of Section 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971? The learned counsel for the petitioner had elaborately argued the matter on merits of the case, for which the learned counsel for the respondents, while denying the same, argued the matter. Since the case on hand is contempt in nature and the scope of the contempt is very narrow, this Court cannot go into the merits of the case. Once the respondents have acted in compliance of the order passed by this Court and ultimately issued the proceedings in writing, then the validity of the said proceedings can be gone into only in fresh writ petition, if it is filed by the petitioner. If the respondents have not complied with the order passed by this Court, if said non compliance is willful and deliberate, certainly the respondents are liable for punishment for such an inaction. Then this Court will have to consider the case and to pass appropriate orders under the provisions of the Contempt of the Courts Act. But once the respondents have issued proceedings in writing, it cannot be said that the respondents have disobeyed the order passed by this Court. In the instant case, in compliance of the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.14579 of 2008 and based on the representation dated 17.08.2008, made by the petitioner, the Office of the Executive Officer, T.T.Devasthanams, Tirupati, issued the Proceedings dated 22.10.2008 and 21.11.2008, rejecting the case of the petitioner. Whether the said proceedings are proper or improper, this Court cannot go into the merits of the case. Further, if the petitioner aggrieved by the said proceedings, he may seek redressal elsewhere as it constitutes a fresh cause of action. The said view is supported by the judgments rendered by the Apex Court as well as by this Court. In the case of J.S.PARIHAR v. GANPAT DUGGAR[1] the Apex Court observed as under: “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 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 willful violation of the order. After re-exercising the judicial review in contempt proceedings, a fresh direction by the learned Single Judge cannot be given to redraw the seniority list. (emphasis supplied).” From the above, it is clear that when once the order has been passed, based on the directions of the Court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redressal in an appropriate forum. In the case of CHHOTU RAM v. STATE OF HARYANA[2] the Apex Court directed the respondent therein to consider the case of Chhotu Ram for promotion to the post of Sub-Divisional Officer in Haryana Service of Engineers Class II, on the basis that he was qualified by the cut off dated 01-01-1980. The Supreme Court also directed to give all consequential benefits, if he was considered fit for promotion as in September, 1980. The case of the petitioner therein was considered, and by order dated 20-11-2000, the Government rejected the case of Chhotu Ram on the ground that his name did not find a place for promotion in the list of sub-Divisional Officer, and his claim does not hold good. Before the Supreme Court, two questions were raised. The first question was as to the burden of standard of proof required. It was held that “it would be too hazardous to sentence in exercise of contempt jurisdiction on mere probabilities”, and further ruled that the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act being quasi-criminal, the breach alleged, has to be established beyond reasonable doubt. The second question was whether the contemnors therein committed contempt in spite of the fact that the case of Chhotu Ram was considered and rejected. Answering the issue in negative, the Supreme Court observed as under: “…..This Court by reason of the order dated 8-10-1999 did not issue a mandate but issued a direction for consideration only. In the event, however, the matter being not considered or in the event consideration was effected in a manner to whittle down the claim of the petitioner, initiation of the proceedings cannot but be said to be justified. But in the event, however, contextual facts depict that the consideration was effected in accordance with the normal rules, practice and procedure and upon such consideration, no promotion could be offered to the petitioner, question of there being any act of contempt would not arise……”. This Court in the case of Dr.SUBHENDU SEN (VSM) EX- LIEUTENANT COLONEL (ARMY) – MR 3152 v. SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR, SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND OTHERS[3] observed at para 8 and 11, which reads as under: “…..This is certainly an order in consideration of the mandamus issued by this Court. The petitioner’s counsel, however, submits that the said order is not in accordance with the true letter and spirit of the mandamus issued by this Court and also Regulation 16(a) of the Regulations. We are afraid, the Court cannot go into this question in contempt proceedings. The respondents passed necessary orders as directed by this Court. Whether the orders are passed in accordance with the directions by this Court cannot be subject matter of a contempt case. If so advised, the petitioner has to seek redressal elsewhere as it might itself provide a fresh cause of action. We are well supported by the decisions of the Supreme Court in J.S. Parihar V. Ganpat Duggar (4) (1996) 6 SCC 291 = AIR 1997 SC 113 = 1997 (4) ALT 10 (D.N.), Chhotu Ram V. Urvashi Gulati (5) (2001) 7 SCC 530 = AIR 2001 SC 3468 = 2001 (6) ALT 21.2 (DN SC) and Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh (6) (2002) 4 SCC 21 = AIR 2002 SC 1405. 11. For the reasons as above, it cannot be said that the respondents willfully disobeyed the order of this Court. If so advised, the petitioner may seek judicial review of the order, dated 02.02.2011. This contempt case is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.” From the above all, it is to be seen when the respondent issues any proceedings, based on the direction passed by the Court, whether it is proper or improper, which cannot be gone into the merits of the case in a contempt case, that itself suffice to say that the proceedings cannot but be said to be justified. If the petitioner aggrieved by those proceedings, he can seek redressal before the appropriate forum, if so advised, as it arises a fresh cause of action. In the instant case, Proceedings dated 21.11.2008 has been issued pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.14579 of 2008 on 09.07.2008. It is also to be noted here that based on a representation dated 17.08.2008 of the petitioner, which appears requesting the authorities to comply with the order passed in W.P. No.14579 of 2008, the Office of the Executive Officer, T.T.Devasthanams, Tirupati, also issued Proceedings dated 22.10.2008. Under those circumstances, it cannot be held that the respondents have disobeyed the order passed by this Court. Having regard to the fact that in compliance of the order passed by this Court, the respondents have issued the proceedings, whether those proceedings are proper or improper, cannot be gone into in the instant contempt case and if the petitioner so aggrieved by the said proceedings, he can seek redressal before the appropriate forum, if so advised. In the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.14579 of 2008, this Court observed that “it hardly needs to mention that the respondents would consider the petitioner also along with other eligible candidates, in accordance with law”. The said observation, in other words, the respondents hope to consider the case of the petitioner along with other eligible candidates. Therefore, taking into consideration the said observation only, the respondents have issued the elaborate proceedings. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and for the aforesaid reasons, this contempt case is devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this contempt case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. However, it is made clear that this order does not come in the way of the petitioner for questioning the validity of the proceedings issued by the respondents, if it is so advised. _________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 15.07.2011 LSK [1] (1996) 6 SCC 291, which equivalent to AIR 1997 SC 113 [2] (2000) 10 SCC 399 [3] 2011(3) ALT 132 (D.B.)