High Court overturns seniority list, orders fresh list for promotions. State appeal upheld. Supreme Court dismisses appeals.

The Division Bench of the High Court declared the seniority list prepared with retrospective effect as unconstitutional and directed the preparation of a fresh seniority list to determine inter se seniority and grant promotions to the appellants within a specified time. The State's appeal against these directions was held maintainable as a letters patent appeal by the Division Bench. The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench's decision to set aside the Single Judge's direction to redraw the seniority list, dismissing the appeals and allowing the aggrieved party to challenge the list's correctness in an appropriate forum if needed.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case include the preparation of the seniority list of Engineers in Rajasthan Civil Engineering Services (Public Health Branch), the contempt proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and the maintainability of an appeal against the directions issued by the learned Single Judge.

Preparation of Seniority List:
The Division Bench of the High Court declared the seniority list prepared with retrospective effect as unconstitutional and directed the preparation of a fresh seniority list to determine inter se seniority and grant promotions to the appellants within a specified time. The State filed an appeal against these directions, which was held maintainable as a letters patent appeal by the Division Bench.

Contempt Proceedings:
The learned Single Judge, after considering the merits, held that the respondents had not wilfully disobeyed the court orders. The Single Judge directed compliance with the court's order dated 22-3-1990 based on previous decisions, and the Division Bench set aside these directions. The question arose whether an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act was maintainable, and it was found that since there was no order punishing the respondents for violation, an appeal under Section 19 would not lie.

Maintainability of Appeal:
The Division Bench's decision to set aside the direction issued by the Single Judge to redraw the seniority list was challenged. The appellant argued that the Single Judge needed to review the correctness of the seniority list prepared by the Government in light of previous decisions to determine if there was wilful disobedience. However, the Supreme Court held that the Division Bench was correct in correcting the mistake of the Single Judge, and it was not necessary for the State to file an appeal against the Single Judge's judgment.

In conclusion, the appeals were dismissed, allowing the aggrieved party to challenge the correctness of the seniority list in an appropriate forum if it is not in conformity with the court's directions.

---