Supreme Court emphasizes compliance with promotion rules, directs non-bailable warrants

The Supreme Court considered the impracticality of enforcing an interim promotion order and criticized the appellant's conduct, directing non-bailable warrants and disallowing the Government advocate to defend. The court urged an unconditional apology, emphasizing compliance with rules and the Service Commission's authority for promotions. The judgment allowed the appeals, stressing the need for a merit-based determination of the respondent's eligibility for promotion to Associate Professor.

---

---

Issues:
1. Contempt of court for non-implementation of an interim order granting promotion.
2. Applicability of rules for promotion and authority to accord promotion.

Analysis:

Contempt of Court:
The respondent, a Lecturer in a medical college, sought ad hoc promotion to Associate Professor, claiming denial despite requisite experience and the exclusion of foreign assignment period from teaching experience calculation. The High Court issued an interim order for promotion, leading to contempt proceedings when not implemented. The appellant argued that the promotion was subject to Public Service Commission or Departmental Promotion Committee decisions, and the respondent lacked qualifications. The court directed non-bailable warrants and disallowed the Government advocate to defend the appellant. The appellant expressed genuine difficulties in implementing the order, emphasizing the promotion's violation of rules and the Service Commission's exclusive authority. The Supreme Court considered the impracticality of enforcing an impossible order and criticized the appellant's conduct while allowing the appeals and urging an unconditional apology.

Promotion Rules and Authority:
The appellant contested the interim promotion order's correctness, highlighting the respondent's potential undue advantage and the mandatory qualifications for the post. The appellant emphasized the necessity of compliance with rules and the exclusive authority of the Service Commission for promotions. The Supreme Court acknowledged the appellant's genuine implementation challenges, cautioning against enforcing unfeasible orders through contempt proceedings. The court stressed the importance of respecting judicial authority while advising prompt appellate procedures for grievances. The judgment allowed the appeals, emphasizing the need for the main writ petition's merit-based disposal to determine the respondent's eligibility for promotion to Associate Professor.

---