TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (7) TMI 1099
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (a) initiate contempt proceedings against the contemnors for their willful disobedience and uphold the majesty of this Hon'ble Court; and/or (b) direct the respondents to disclose the marks obtained by the petitioner as well as cut-off marks beyond which the candidates were called for interview; and/or (c) quash order dated 7.4.2006 passed by the respondent No. 2 which is in contravention of the order dated 7.3.2006 passed by this Hon'ble Court; and/or (d) direct the respondents that if the candidates are found to have obtained equal to or more than cut-off marks, then to call the candidates for interview and recommend the candidates; and/or (e) direct the respondents/U.P. Government that thereafter to appoint the candidates in order of their post of preference as was submitted by the candidates during the mains examination; and/or (f) pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the filing of the present petition are as under: The petitioners and other candidates had appeared in the prelim....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Secondary or normal School or three years experience of or normal School or three years experience of teaching Intermediate or higher classes or in C.T. or L.T. Training Post Graduate College as lecturer. 6. It was the case of the petitioners before the High Court that experience contemplated by the above-said eligibility criteria No. 3 was not restricted to teaching in Government schools, while the UP Public Service Commission was of the view that the teaching experience could be counted only if it was in a Government School. This controversy was resolved and settled finally by this Court in Mohd. Altaf's case (supra) by holding that the Lecturers having three years teaching experience in CT/LT colleges in Training Colleges were also eligible, since the Rules nowhere prescribed that teaching experience should be that of a teacher in Government College or aided or unaided Government College or institution. Further, it was observed that teaching experience may be from any Higher Secondary School or High School or from an institute having Intermediate or Higher Classes. Having laid down the law, the UPPSC was directed to implement and carry out the directions of the High Court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsel for the parties, this Court on March 07, 2006 held: In our view, it is not open to the respondents to raise a fresh controversy on facts before this Court for the first time. We are informed, and it is not disputed before us, that the respondents did not file a counter affidavit before the High Court opposing the averments made in the writ petition, nor have they done so before us. The new case sought to be set out, about the appellants not having been qualified in the main examination, appears for the first time in reply to IA 4. Since there has been no investigation of facts in this case, we decline to entertain this controversy. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent of directing the respondents to implement the orders in Mohd. Altaf dated 10.01.2001 and 20.2.2002 (C.A. Nos. 961- 962/1999) and apply the same eligibility criteria as decided by this Court in the aforesaid orders to the case of the appellants. If it is the case of the respondents that the appellants did not qualify in the main examination and, therefore, they were not called for the interview, it is open to the respondents to pass appropriate orders giving the reason as to why the case of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spondents are deliberately flouting and circumventing the orders passed by this Court. This Court in its earlier judgment dated 28.11.2001 passed in the case of Mohd. Altaf (supra) while dealing with similar situation was pleased to record and observe as under: ...It appears that the UPPSC is interested in suppressing some facts from the court as well as from the candidates who appeared in the examinations for some ulterior purpose. From a constitutional functionary like Public Service Commissions much higher standards are expected not only by the Courts but also by the Public at large. If there is a mal- administrations at the level of Public Service Commissions there would be rampant favoritism in making appointments to the service of the state. Despite our various orders making abundantly clear, today also the affidavit which is filed on behalf of the UPPSC is not complete and contains half truth.... In our view, this is an absurd stand because it is the duty of the Public Service Commissions to declare on the Notice Board result indicating marks with all other relevant details. In such examinations transparency is expected and results cannot be kept secret.... Here als....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ates in whose favour the recommendations have been made shall be produced before this Court. Contempt Petition No. 162 of 2007: 14. In this petition, the petitioners inter alia pray for the following reliefs: (a) initiate contempt proceedings against the contemnors for their willful disobedience and uphold the majesty of this Hon'ble Court; and/or (b) direct the respondents to recommend the names of the petitioners in terms of the order dated 9.3.2007; and/or (c) direct the respondents/U.P. Government that thereafter to appoint the candidates in order of their post of preference as was submitted by the candidates during the mains examination; and/or (d) pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case. 15. On 16.11.2007, an application for exemption from personal appearance of Dr. (Prof.) Ram Sewak Yadav, Chairman of U.P. Public Service Commission and Dr. J.B. Sinha, Secretary U.P. Public Service Commission, was allowed. The matter was ordered to be listed on 10th December, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. and in the meantime the State of UP was asked to allow the learned C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of this Court. He also submitted that he being the Chairman of the Commission has never intended to disobey or to disrespect the orders of this Court or to do anything, which may amount to contempt of the orders of this Court. He submitted that in compliance of the orders of this Court, the petitioners made representation to the Commission and the Commission passed an Office Order on 07.04.2006 on its interpretation of the order dated 20.02.2002 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 961-962 of 1999 titled Mohd. Altaf and Ors. v. Public Service Commission and Anr. in which it was ordered that the orders would be applicable to all concerned who appeared in interview on the relevant date. As the petitioners in the present case had not been called for interview till the passing of the order dated 20.02.2002, their case could not be considered. However, after rejection of the representation of the petitioners, the Commission realised that the order dated 20.02.2002 should be made applicable to the petitioners due to their higher marks than the cut-off marks. Accordingly, the Commission took necessary steps by deliberating upon the whole matter in accordance with the orders dated 10.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the candidates of 1997 examination. (ii) The petitioners belong to 1997 examination and in absence of vacancies, their candidature cannot be recommended as directed by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 28.08.2003. (iii) The State Govt. vide its letter dated 11.05.2006 addressed to the Commission had already communicated that the State Govt. had decided not to fill up the remaining 45 vacancies on ad-hoc basis. Even if the State Govt. had permitted to fill up the 45 vacancies on ad-hoc basis it would have gone to 70 candidates of 1996 examination in terms of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court on 28.08.2003. Therefore, in any case, it would not be possible to make a recommendation in respect of the petitioners who are eligible candidates of 1997 examination. 19. Dr. J. B. Sinha, Secretary, UPPSC, filed a separate affidavit in which he pleaded identical statement as stated by the Chairman of the Commission. In rejoinder, the petitioners reiterated the averments made in the Contempt Petition. Dr. J. B. Sinha, Secretary, UPPSC, in his additional affidavit stated that in compliance with the judgment dated 07.03.2006 passed by this Court the petitioners ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nst the 45 remaining posts as there is no provision for making appointment on ad-hoc basis in U. P. Educational (General Educational Cadre) Service Rules, 1992. She submitted that after 27.08.2007, 41 vacancies arose against the posts of Principals on account of promotion of 41 Principals to the post of District Inspector of Schools and out of 41 posts, 35 posts are to be filled against the reserved category candidates selected in the year 1996 and the remaining six to clear the backlog posts, are lying vacant. She submitted that out of 47 newly upgraded posts of Principals in the Colleges, 50% posts of Principals were to be filled by promotion and the remaining 50% by direct recruitment on the basis of the examination conducted by the UPPSC. She submitted that as on 28.10.2007 when this affidavit was filed, there were 29 vacancies of Principals, which are to be filled by direct recruitment and in addition thereto, 3 posts of Senior Lecturers D.I.E.T. are also lying vacant. Further, it is submitted that in the year 1997 the State Government sent requisition for selection of 443 posts of Principals/Senior Lecturers/D.I.E.Ts. and the UPPSC after selecting the candidates, recommended ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....06 and 09.03.2007 passed by this Court. He submitted that despite the order in Mohd. Altaf's case laying down the eligibility criteria, the respondents intentionally refused to apply the same criteria as decided by this Court in the case of the petitioners herein. This Court vide order dated 07.03.2006 directed that the law laid down in Mohd. Altaf's case would apply in the case of the petitioners as well, but the respondents firstly took the stand that the petitioners have not qualified the written examination and later on, they have admitted that the petitioners had qualified in the written examination, but they had not appeared in the interview. He submitted that at least the respondents have entirely taken a new stand that there existed no vacancies against which the petitioners could be appointed. He has brought to our notice the order dated 28.11.2001 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 961-962 of 1999 titled Mohd. Altaf and Ors. v. Public Service Commission and Anr. whereunder strictures were passed against UPPSC for acting arbitrarily, for showing "rampant favouritism" for taking an "absurd stand" and for "playing with the court by taking the stand that there ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....candidates General Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Other Backward classes Remarks 1 154 121 07 Nil 26 2 Merit List revised on 14.07.2006 158 125 07 Nil 26 YEAR 1999 List of 98 candidates all categories i) Break-up of 98 candidates S. No. Requisition received from the Government Total No. of Candidates General Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Other Backward classes Remarks 1 98 53 14 Nil 31 Note: In compliance of Hon'ble Supreme Court order dated 28.08.2003 only 50 candidates recommended from the eligible candidates of the year 1996 as per vacancy informed by State Government on 19.09.2002. Break-up for year 1996 vacancies for the post of Principals in Government Inter Colleges (Boys & Girls) S. No. Requisition received from the Government Total No. of Posts General Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Other Backward classes Remarks 1 216 108 46 04 58 2 Selected 104+ 1* 101 03 Nil Nil * 1 (one) General vacancy reserved as per orders of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Nil 25 3 Carry forward vacancies 38 Nil 16 03 19 C. Details of 162 Posts for Sr. Lecturers (Plain Cadre) S. No. Requisition received from the Government Total No. of Posts General Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Other Backward classes Remarks 1 24 12 05 Nil 07 2 Selected 12 12 Nil Nil Nil 3 Carry forward vacancies 12 Nil 05 Nil 07 Details of Vacancies filled-up by 1999 Examination (Special Recruitment) A. Details of 164 Posts for Principals (Plain Cadre) S. No. requisition received from the Govt. Total No. of Posts General Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Other Backward classes Remarks 164 0 65 08 91 Vide High Court order in Writ Petition No. 26986/1998 - selection for 51 posts stayed. Hence. selection for 113 was made. B. Selection for 113 posts: Principals - 63 (Hill Cadred\) Sr. Lecturers - 50 (38 for Plain Cadre + 12 for Hill Cadre) i) Break up for post of Principals - 63 Hill Cadre S. No. Requisit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../02 dated 19th September, 2003 informed that there are 97 vacancies available till 30th June, 2003. Details of abovementioned posts as follows: Principals Government Inter College (Boys & Girls) ] ] Total 97 ] Vacancies Total Post - 50 Sr. Lecturer in Education & Training Institutes Total Post - 47 Principals Government Inter College (Boys & Girsl) Total Post - 50 i) Break-up of 50 post for Principals Government Inter College (Boys & Girls) S. No. Requisition received from the Government Total No. of Posts General Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Other Backward classes Remarks 1 50 26 13 02 09 2 Selected 48 26 13 Nil 09 3 Carry forward vacancies 02 Nil Nil 02* Nil * No ST candidate was available Sr. Lecturer in Education & Training Institutes Total Post - 47 i) Break-up of 47 posts for Sr. Lecturer in Education & Training Institutes S. No. Requisition received from the Government Total No. of Posts General Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes Other Backward classes Remarks 1 47 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to be filled from the list of successful/recommended candidates of 1997 batch. As per the Chart produced before us, the petitioners have stated that there are as many as 338 total vacancies for general category available with the State of U.P. against which the four petitioners who filed Civil Appeal No. 1124 of 2000 can be conveniently adjusted/appointed and the stand of the respondents not appointing the petitioners against the available posts is wholly unwarranted and unjustified. We regret our inability to accede to the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. 26. A cursory glance of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and the provisions thereof makes it abundantly clear that the Act has been brought in the Statute book to define the limit and powers of certain Courts punishing for contempt of courts and it has laid down the procedure for exercise of such powers. Contempt of Court has been defined under Section 2(a) of the Act, to mean civil contempt or criminal contempt. `Civil Contempt' has been defined under Section 2(b) of the Act to mean `wilful disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of court of willful brea....