IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2420 of 2009 MAHATAM SINGH . Versus SRI ANAND SHANKAR & ANR . ----------- 4. 10.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Advocate General for the Opposite parties. C.W.J.C. No. 11418 of 2002 was filed by the petitioner with a claim to shift back his date of promotion from 24.6.1999 to 3.11.1982, the date from which his juniors have been promoted. The controversy originated on the issue whether the period of ad-hoc promotion on the post of Sub Inspector of Police was to be counted for the purposes of seniority or it shall be counted from the date of substantive promotion as held by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal no. 3006 0f 2000 (State of Bihar Vs. Brij Bihari Pd Singh.) The Opposite parties in their counter affidavit explicitly accepted that his juniors had been given promotion on the post of Inspector, taking into account their period of ad-hoc service as Sub- Inspector. The respondents were directed to consider his case for promotion accordingly. Alternatively they were required to take corrective action with regard to the juniors granted such promotion. The Opposite parties have passed a reasoned order dated 1.10.2010 denying the relief for 2 shifting of the date of promotion of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the direction of the Court was in two parts. This Court directed consideration of the case of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Inspector from the date his juniors had been promoted by taking into consideration period of ad-hoc service as Sub Inspector. If it was to be denied, corrective action was required to be taken with regard to the juniors wrongly promoted by taking into consideration their ad-hoc service. He submits that the denial of corrective promotion to the petitioner without corrective action with regard to the juniors granted promotion by taking into consideration the period of ad-hoc service as Sub Inspectors tantamounts to flouting the order of the Court. It is submitted that in C.W.J.C. No. 11418 of 2002, the petitioner had stated that in pursuance of an earlier writ filed by him, C.W.J.C. No. 1752 of 1998, directions were given to consider his case for which M.J.C. No. 588 of 2001 was filed. The contempt application came to be dismissed after the respondents passed a reasoned order dated 2.1.2002 rejecting his claim. There was thus no concealment by the petitioner. There was no need for the petitioner 3 to directly challenge the order dated 2.1.2002 as the prayer in C.W.J.C. No. 11418 of 2002 for shifting the date of promotion obviously encompassed the fact that the petitioner had a grievance against the order dated 2.1.2002. Learned Advocate General emphasizes that the order dated 2.1.2002 was individual to the petitioner. He has suffered the order. There is no challenge to the same in C.W.J.C. No. 11418 of 2002. In litigation with regard to seniority and promotion there may be general orders on an issue. But if on that issue an individual has suffered an individual order prejudicial to him alone, it is his bounden duty to challenge that order. The petitioner has been unable to demonstrate before the Court that the order dated 2.1.2002 was questioned by him in C.W.J.C. No. 4418 of 2002. There has been no concealment or suppression by the petitioner when he mentions the fact in Paragraph-24 and 25 of the writ petition. But there is no challenge to the order dated 2.1.2002 either in Paragraph-1 or the prayer portion of the application which are crucial Paragraphs on basis of which relief is claimed. In a writ petition many issues are urged to create a safe haven and foundation. But all of them are not urged or pressed. 4 Only those are urged or pressed which the petitioner considers important in his discretion. It was for the petitioner to raise a specific challenge to the order dated 2.1.2002. So long as it existed as a fact, there could be no ground for fresh consideration. In (1990) 1 SCC 234 ( Shiv Chander Kapoor v. Amar Bose) the Supreme Court considering the effect of an unchallenged administrative order has held at paragraph 22 and 23 as follows :- “22. There is another aspect of the matter. The Controller‟s permission when granted to create a limited tenancy under Section 21 of the Act is presumed to be valid unless declared otherwise. It is, therefore, for the person assailing its validity to get such a declaration from a proper forum in a proper proceeding. Unless this is done, the order remains enforceable. The duty is clearly on the tenant himself to raise the plea of invalidity and unless the order is declared invalid at his instance, its enforceability cannot be doubted. 23. In Wade‟s Administrative Law, 6th edn. at pp. 351-53, there is an illuminating discussion of this topic. It has been pointed out that „void‟ is meaningless in an absolute sense; and „unless the necessary proceedings are taken at law to establish the cause of invalidity and to get it quashed or otherwise upset, it will remain as effective for its ostensible purpose as the most impeccable of orders‟. In the words of Lord Diplock, “the order would be presumed to be valid unless the presumption was rebutted in competent legal proceedings by a party entitled to sue” If the order had not been challenged, much less it finds no reference in the order of the writ Court, this Court finds it difficult to hold that by a process of 5 reasoning applying principle of logic, the contempt proceeding shall nonetheless lie. In ,(2006) 1 SCC 613 (Union of India v. Subedar Devassy PV) the Supreme Court at paragraphs 2 and 6 has held as follows :- “2. While dealing with an application for contempt, the court is really concerned with the question whether the earlier decision which has received its finality had been complied with or not. It would not be permissible for a court to examine the correctness of the earlier decision which had not been assailed and to take a view different from what was taken in the earlier decision. …..The court exercising contempt jurisdiction cannot take upon itself the power to decide the original proceedings in a manner not dealt with by the court passing the judgment or order….” 6. Rightness or wrongness of the order cannot be urged in contempt proceedings. Right or wrong, the order has to be obeyed. Flouting an order of the court would render the party liable for contempt. While dealing with an application for contempt, the court cannot traverse beyond the order, non-compliance with which is alleged. In other words, it cannot say what should not have been done or what should have been done. It cannot traverse beyond the order. It cannot test the correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional direction or delete any direction. That would be exercising review jurisdiction while dealing with an application for initiation of contempt proceedings. The same would be impermissible and indefensible.” There is no merit in this contempt application. It is accordingly dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)