Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Contempt Proceedings Against University Officials — No Contempt Found. The Court ruled that a selection does not confer a right to appointment when the post has been abolished.

In Favour of Accused
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved an appeal against contempt proceedings initiated by the High Court of Orissa against the Registrar and Vice-Chancellor of Utkal University of Culture. The respondent had filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus for the completion of the selection process for a Lecturer position. The High Court directed the University to complete the selection process, which was done, but the State Government later abolished the post. The respondent filed a contempt petition alleging non-issuance of an appointment letter despite selection. The appellants contended that the State Government's approval was necessary for appointments, which was denied due to the abolition of the post. The Supreme Court examined whether a writ of mandamus could compel the State Government to appoint someone to a post that no longer existed. The Court concluded that the respondent had no indefeasible right to appointment, as selection alone does not guarantee a right enforceable through a writ petition. The Court found no contempt against the appellants since they had complied with the High Court's order to complete the selection process. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's orders and discharged the contempt notice, allowing the appeal without costs.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Authority to Direct Appointment - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The Court held that a selection does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment, especially when the post has been abolished by the State Government. The respondent's inchoate right does not warrant contempt proceedings against the appellants, who complied with the initial order of the High Court (Paras 10-12).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Court can direct the State Government by a writ of mandamus to appoint a person against a post which has been abolished by the State Government.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's orders dated 24.1.2006 and 27.1.2006, and discharged the notice of contempt against the appellants.

Law Points

  • Writ of mandamus
  • contempt of court
  • selection process
  • inchoate right
  • approval by State Government
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2007 LawText (SC) (10) 4

Appeal (civil) 4179 of 2006

2007-10-22

A.K. Mathur, Markandey Katju

Balakrushna Behera and Anr.

Satya Prakash Dash

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Contempt proceedings initiated against university officials for non-compliance with a High Court order.

Remedy Sought

The respondent sought enforcement of appointment to a lecturer position.

Filing Reason

The respondent alleged non-issuance of an appointment letter despite selection.

Previous Decisions

The High Court had previously directed the completion of the selection process.

Issues

Whether the Court can compel the State Government to appoint someone to an abolished post? Whether there was contempt of court against the appellants?

Submissions/Arguments

The appellants argued that the State Government's approval was necessary for appointments, which was denied. The respondent contended that the selection process was completed and an appointment should follow.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that a selection does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment, especially when the post has been abolished by the State Government, thus no contempt was made out.

Judgment Excerpts

The first and foremost question is whether the Court can direct the State Government by a writ of mandamus to appoint a person against a post which has been abolished by the State Government. The respondent even after selection has no indefeasible right to be appointed on the post.

Procedural History

The High Court initiated contempt proceedings against the appellants for non-compliance with its order, which led to the appeal being filed in the Supreme Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 226
  • Utkal University of Culture First Statute: Statute 4(1), Statute 4(3)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes U.P. Circular Removing Minimum Qualifying Marks for Reserved Category Candidates in Postgraduate Medical Admissions. Reservation of SC/ST/OBC Seats in MD/MS Courses Is Permissible, but Dispensing with Minimum Qualifying Marks fo...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Challenging Lowering of Pass Marks for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Medical Admissions — Upholds Government's Decision.