THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CONTEMPT CASE NO.560 OF 2011 ORDER: This Contempt Case is filed under Section 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondents individually for their willful and deliberate violation of the order, dated 18-06-2010 made in WPMP No.10786 of 2010 as modified by order, dated 29-06-2010 in W.P.M.P.No.2647 of 2010 in W.P.No.8375 of 2010. 2. Modified interim order, dated 29-06-2010 reads thus: “However, after retirement of the fifth respondent, the case of the petitioner and others, who are eligible may be considered for the post of Principal by a duly constituted selection committee as per G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 20-02-2010. Whether it is on permanent basis or in-charge basis, they should follow this procedure strictly.” 3. The factual matrix is not in dispute. The 5th respondent retired from service. Thereafter, Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was constituted. One Smt.Y.Ratna Kumari was selected by DPC considering her seniority, qualification and experience. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed strong reliance on the guidelines issued by the University Grants Commissioner (UGC), which was adopted by the State Government in G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 20-02-2010, wherein it was stated the selection of post of Principal, which reads thus: “1.A Master’s Degree with at least 55% of the marks or a relevant grade regarded as equivalent to 55% wherever grading system is followed by a recognized University. 2.Ph.D. qualification in concerned /allied/relevant discipline with evidence of published work and research guidance. 3.Associate Professor/Professor with a total experience of 15 years of teaching/research/administration in Universities/Colleges and other institutions of higher education. 4.A minimum score as stipulate in the Academic Performance Indicator (API) based on Performance “Based Appraisal System (PBAS) for Professors as developed by UGC in these regulations.” It is contended that seniority is not a criteria for selecting a Principal by transfer and same is illegal and contrary to the directions given by this Court directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in terms of G.O.Ms.No.14, dated 20-02-2010. A person to whom a writ has been directed is bound to obey and comply with it. The violation of disobedience of an order of the Court must be intentional and should not be casual or unintentional. Both the counsel have not properly apprised this Court at the time of interim order is modified. If the counsel appearing for parties apprised the correct rule applicable in case of transfer by promotion to the post of Principal, the interim direction as modified would not have been granted by this Court. Under these circumstances, the question of violation of interim direction does not arise. As seen from the above G.O., there is no procedure prescribed for appointment or selection of Principal by transfer, but as seen from the Appendix-III appended to the G.O., UGC guidelines have been incorporated for promotion of the Principal. These guidelines are applicable only to the direct recruitment for the post of Principal. For appointment or selection of Principal, the guidelines as appended to Appendix-III have no application for the purpose of giving promotion by transfer to the post of Principal. As seen from the minutes of DPC, it is clear that DPC has taken into consideration the seniority, qualification and experience and recommended the name of Smt.Y.Ratna Kumari as Principal. Therefore, that procedure adopted by the respondents cannot be said to be willful disobedience of the directions issued by this Court. It is stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that they have followed the procedure as contemplated in G.O.Ms.No.127, dated 07-06-1993. As seen from the said G.O., it is only applicable to the private aided colleges, whereas 4th respondent institution is admittedly an autonomous body recognized by UGC and therefore, the rules and circular instructions framed and issued by UGC are only applicable to the facts of this case. As there is no willfull disobedience of the orders passed by this Court, question of contempt does not arise. 5. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed. ---------------------- K.C.BHANU, J. DATED: 27-06-2011 Hsd