Balakrushna Behera And Anr vs Satya Prakash Dash

The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are that the respondent herein filed a writ petition against the Utkal University 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 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 mandamus 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 the date of communication of the said order, It was further observed that "it was needless to mention that after declaration of the result, 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 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 of Statute 4(3) of the Utkal University of Culture First Statute, 2001 since the Board of Management differed from the recommendation of the Selection Committee, the matter had to be referred to the Chancellor of the University. In the meantime, the High court issued notice the contempt of Court for alleged disobedience of its judgment dated 10.3.2005, but in view of the results having been published, the contempt 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 24.1.2006 and 27.1.2006 were passed. By the said orders the Vice Chancellor and Registrar of the University were directed to be personally present in Court.

The State Government took the stand that in view of the restructuring/reorganising of the whole set up the posts of Lecturer in South & South 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 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.

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 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.