Holding

The Supreme Court held that the respondents did not wilfully disobey the Court’s orders and therefore no contempt was established; the contempt petitions were dismissed.

Summary

The petitioners, former candidates for principal and senior lecturer posts, claimed that the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (UPPSC) had willfully ignored Supreme Court orders (dated 10 Jan 2001 and 20 Feb 2002) directing it to apply a uniform eligibility criteria. The UPPSC issued an office order on 7 April 2006 declaring the petitioners ineligible and not calling them for interview, prompting contempt petitions under Article 129 of the Constitution and Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act. The Court examined whether the UPPSC’s actions amounted to wilful disobedience, whether a court may alter its own order while exercising contempt jurisdiction, and whether a mere error of judgment or lack of vacancies could constitute contempt. It held that the respondents had made a bona‑fide effort to comply, that a court cannot add to or modify its order in contempt proceedings, and that no wilful disobedience was shown. Consequently, the contempt petitions were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the UPPSC's refusal to call the petitioners for interview amounts to wilful disobedience of Supreme Court orders, attracting contempt under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Whether a court, while exercising contempt jurisdiction, may pass an order that materially adds to or alters its original order.
Whether a mere error of judgment or inability to fill vacancies constitutes civil contempt.
Whether the respondents can be compelled to appoint the petitioners despite the alleged lack of vacancies.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. 129
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971s. 2(a), s. 2(b)

Subjects

Contempt of courtCivil contemptContempt of Courts ActSupreme Court ordersPublic Service CommissionWilful disobedienceEligibility criteriaAppointment vacanciesArticle 129

Judgment

[2008] 11 S.C.R. 211

4 A
ANIL KUMAR SHAHI AND ORS.
v.
~ PROF. RAM SEVAK YADAV AND ORS.
' (Civil Appeal No. 1124 Of 2000)
JULY 24, 2008
B
). [S.B. SINHA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: s.2(a) - Wilful violation of
order of Court - Invocation of contempt jurisdiction under the
Act - Scope of - Held: While exercising jurisdiction under the c
Act, it is not open to the court to pass an order, which would
materially add to or alter the order, for alleged disobedience
of which contempt jurisdiction was invoked - When the Court
directs the authority to consider a matter in accordance with
law, it means that the matter should be considered to the best " D
of understanding by the authority - Mere error of judgment
with regard to the legal position cannot constitute contempt of
court- There is no willful disobedience if best efforts are made -
to comply with the order- Constitution of India, 1950 - Article
129.
E
In an I.A. filed by the petitioners, this Court on
7.3.2006 held that it was not open to the respondents to
raise a fresh controversy on facts before this Court and
directed the respondents to implement the order of Mohd.
A/tat dated 10.1.2001 and 20.2.2002 and apply the same F
eligibility criteria as decided by this Court in these orders.
This Court directed respondents to pass appropriate or-
ders giving reason as to why petitioners were not con-
sidered and disclose the marks obtained by them as well
as cut off marks beyond which candidates were called G
for interview.
In compliance with this order,· the respondents
.... passed an office order dated 7.4.2006 taking a stand that
petitioners were found ineligible and therefore not called
211 H
212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 11 S.C.R.
"
A
.....
for interview and that the order· of this Court dated
20.2.2002, and 10.1.2000, are applicable to only those can- t
I
·- · di dates who had appeared in the interview. Hence the
contempt petitions.
In reply to the contempt petitions, the Chairman of
8
UPPSC in his affidavit submitted that he has highest re-
~
gard for the orders passed by this Court and has taken
necessary action in compliance of order dated 7.3.2006
.- .and that he never intended to disobey orders of this Court
c which may amount to contempt of orders of this Court.
He further submitted that in compliance of orders of this
Court, the petitioners had made representation and Com- .,.._
mission passed office order dated 7.4.2006 on its inter- ....
,_
pretation of order dated 20.2.2002 passed in Mohd. Altaf
case in which it was ordered that orders would be appli-
D cable to all conceq1ed who appeared in the interview.
However, after rejection of representation of the petiticn-
....
ers, the Commission realised that order dated 20.2.2002
should be made applicable to petitioners due to their
higher marks than the cut off marks. It was further sub-
E mitted that having regard to various orders passed by this
Court, Commission had· disclosed the marks to petition-
ers· and subsequently called them for ·interview. All the
petitioners appeared for·the interview~· The Commission
accordingly revised the Combined Merit List of PCS Ex-
F amination-1997 and included the petitioners in Eligibility
List of 1997 along with other candidates. It was submit-
ted that Commission was not in a position to recommend
the candidature of petitioners as they belonged to ·1997
examination and in absence of vacancies, their candida-
G ture could not be recommended as directed by this Court.
The Secretary, UPPSC gave similar statement in a sepa- ,_I-
rate-affidavit. The Chairman and Secretary UPPSC placed
Chart showing vacancy position as obtaining in the. year >-
1996, 1997 and 1998 giving .details of selection for the
H various posts.
ANIL KUMAR SHAHI & ORS. v. PROF. RAM 213
SEVAK YADAV & ORS.

Dismissing the Contempt Petitions, the Court A

HELD: 1. The UPPSC has satisfactorily explained
that the advertisement of 548 posts was made as per the
requisition of the State Government which numbers were
later on found to be wrong, because 216 vacancies which
8
were advertised in 1996 batch, were wrongly included in
548 vacancies. The vacant posts for 1997 batch were only
332 and not 548 and with 111 vacancies carried forward
from 1996 batch, the total vacancies in 1997 were 443.
[Para 25] [240-F,G]
c
2. 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 de-
fine the limit and powers of certain Courts punishing for
contempt of courts and it has laid down the procedure o
for exercise of such powers. Contempt of Court has been
defined under Section 2(a) of the Act, to mean civil con-
tempt or criminal contempt. 'Civil Contempt' has been
defined under Section 2(b) of the Act to mean 'wilful dis-
obedience of any judgment, decree, '~rection, order, writ E
or other process of court of willful breach of undertaking
given to a court.' It is by now well-settled under the Act
and under Article 129 of the Constitution of India that if it
is alleged before this Court that a person has willfully vio-
lated its order it can invoke its jurisdiction under the Act F
to enquire whether the allegation is true or not and if found
to be true, it can punish the offenders for having commit-
ted 'civil contempt' and if need be, can pass consequen-
tial orders for enforcement of execution of the order, as
the case may be, for violation of which, the proceeding
for contempt was initiated. In other words, while exercis- G
ing its power under the Act, it is not open to the court to
pass an order, which will materially add to or alter the or-
der, for alleged disobedience of which contempt jurisdic-
tion was invoked. When the Court directs the authority to
consider a matter in accordance with law, it means that H
1,:

"

214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.

A the matter should be considered to the best of under-
standing by the authority and, therefore, a mere error of
judgment with regard to the l~gal position cannot consti-
tute contempt of court. There is no willful disobedience if
~ best efforts are made to comply with the order. [Para 26]
B [241-D,E,F,G, 242-A,B]
3. Having considered the entire factual backdrop of
the matter and giving due consideration to the various
orders passed by this Court in this case and having con-
sidered the detailed explanations given by the Chairman,
C UPPSC, Secretary, UPPSC, and Deputy Director [Educa-
tion] in their re~pective affidavits which are quite satis-
factory and further examination of the details of year-wise !
vacancies position for the posts in question stated in the
Chart submitted by the UPPSC, it cannot be said that a
0 deliberate circumvention and dubious method was
adopted by the contesting respondents to avoid imple-
mentation of the judgments/orders of this Court nor the ·
facts and circumstances mentioned above would estab-
lish that the contesting respondents have willfully or de-
E liberately disobeyed the judgments/orders of this Court
dated 07 .03.2006 and 09.03.2007 as alleged by the peti-
tioners. In terms of the order dated 07 .03.2006, the respon-
dents have passed an appropriate order which was com-
municated to the petitioners. The UPPSC have placed on
record all the relevant documents relating to these pro-
F ceedings as directed by this Court in its order dated
09.03.2007. [Para 27] [242-B,C,D,E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition
(C) No. 91 of 2006
G IN
Civil Appeal No. 1124 of 2000
WITH
Contempt Petition (C) No. 162 of2007 In Contempt P. (C)
H No. 91 of 2006
ANIL KUMAR SHAHI & ORS. v. PROF. RAM 215
SEVAK YADAV & ORS. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]

In C.A. No. 1124 of 2000 A

Jyotindra Misra, AG., Shail Kumar Dwivedi, AAG., Collin
Gonsalves, Harish N. Salve, Mohit Chaudhary, .Manish Jain,
Pradeep Chandel, Puja Sharma, Vandana Mishra, Vibha
Dwivedi, R.K. Gupta, S.K. Gupta, Arun Yadav, A.N. Bardiyar, 8
Rakesh Kumar Singh, Jitendra Kumar, G.D. Singh, Shrish
Kumar Misra, Ajay Kumar Singh and Gunnam Venkateswara
Rao for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.
c
Contempt Petition (C) 91 of 2006
1. This is a petition under Article 129 of the Constitution of
India read with Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
preferred by Anil Kumar Shahi, Ghanshyam Singh, Davendra 0
Singh and Raj Narain Lal, petitioners herein, inter a/ia praying
for the following reliefs:-
"(a) initiate contempt proceedings against the
contemnors for their willful disobedience and uphold E
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 F
(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
G
(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 H
216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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:-

C The petitioners and other candidates had appeared in the
preliminary and main examinations for the year 1997 conducted
by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission ['the UPPSC']
for the posts of Principal, Government Inter College (Boys and
Girls) and Senior Lecturer in District Education and Training
Institutes along with other posts in the State of U.P. and a com-
D bined State/Upper Subordinate Services. A group of candidates
appearing for various posts for the years 1996 and 1997 filed
writ petitions before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
The High Court in the case of Tutsi Ram and Ors. v. State of U.
P & Ors. [Writ Petition N0.40849 of 1977] while dealing with
E the case of 1996 batch was pleased to decide the issue with
regard to the eligibility criteria. Aggrieved thereby, a number of
special leave petitions were preferred by the candidates be-
fore this Court.
3. The writ petition filed by the petitioners for the posts of
F
Principals and Senior Lecturers was dismissed by the High
Court with a short order which reads as under:-
"The facts ofthe case are covered by the judgment of this
Court in Tulsi Ram and others vs. State of U.P. & Others
G in Writ Petition No. 40849 of 1997 decided on 13.5.98.
The writ petition is disposed of on same condition and
direction as in aforesaid judgment."
4. The judgment in Tulsi Ram's case (supra) was chal- .
H lenged before this Court in a group of matters. By an order made
/
..

ANIL KUMAR SHAH! & ORS. v. PROF. RAM 217
SEVAK YADAV & ORS. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
v>- A
on 10.01.2001 in Civil Appeal Nos. 961-962/1999, Civil Ap-
peal No. 1124 of 2000 filed by the present petitioners, was
delinked from the said group of matters.
5. In Civil Appeal Nos. 961-962/1999, titled Mohd. A/tat &
Ors. v. Public Service Commission & Anr this Court decided
B
the question of law that was raised in the aforesaid case of
Tutsi Ram. The controversy in Tutsi Ram's case centered round
the interpretation of the eligibility criteria for holding the posts.
The eligibility criteria as advertised/notified read as under:
"(3) For the Post of Principal, Government Inter College c
(Boys/Girls) and Senior Lecturer in District Education and
Training Institute - (1) Post Graduate degree from a
recognised university or any degree equivalent thereto
recognised by the Government. (2) L.T. Diploma from
Education Department of U.P. or B.T. or B.Ed. or any other D
degree of University equivalent thereto. (3) At least three
~ years' of teaching experience as head of any Senior
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
E
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 cri-
teria No. 3 was not restricted to teaching in Government schools,
while the UP Public Service Commission was of the view that F
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 G
nowhere prescribed that teaching experience should be that of
a teacher in Government College or aided or unaided Govern-
ment College or institution. Further, it was observed that teach-
ing experience may be from any Higher Secondary School or
High School or from an institute having Intermediate or Higher H
.z-
218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.

A Classes. Having laid down the law, the UPPSC was directed to --4.""

implement and carry out the directions of the High Court and
'~
prepare a list of eligible teachers for being appointed to the
post advertised within a stipulated period. After the list was pre-
pared in accordance with the directions given by this Court on
B March 14, 2001, the appeals came up for hearing and disposed
of by a final order made on 20th February, 2002 and in the con-
eluding paragraph of the order, it is said:-
"Lastly, it is clarified that the directions issued by this Court
on 10.1.2001 as well as today would be implemented in
c favour of all the eligible candidates."
~
It was observed in the order dated 10.01.2001 :-
"The aforesaid direction is to be considered in the light of
the discussion in the judgment, which specifically provides
D that if the teachers who have been substantively appointed
in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the
Regulations framed thereunder are not paid the salary )..

from the public treasury as those institutions were not given
maintenance grant/grant-in-aid it cannot be blamed for
E the lapse on the part of the State Government and such
teacher cannot be excluded for being considered to be
appointed. The learned counsel for the parties have
pointed that most of the matters filed by the teachers are . I-
with regard to this clause. It is their contention that if this
F direction as explained in the body of this judgment stands
implemented most of the matters may not survive."
7. The petitioners thereafter made an application, IA No. >---
4 of 2003 before this Court placing on record the various or-
ders passed in Mohd. Aitaf's case with a prayer that their ap-
G peals be also allowed in terms of the orders of this Court dated
10.01.2001 and 20.02.2002 made in C.A. Nos. 961-962/1999
and for consequential directions as prayed for by them. While
opposing the prayer made in IA No. 4, the UPPSC filed a counter ,,...
affidavit in which they have raised a fresh issue that the peti-
H tioners were not included in the list of successful candidates
'
/

ANIL KUMAR SHAHI & ORS. v. PROF. RAM 219
t--~ SEVAK YADAV & ORS. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]

because they had failed to qualify the written examination and, A
therefore, there was no occasion at all to call the unqualified
candidates for interview. This stand, however, has been denied
by the petitioners in the rejoinder affidavit, wherein it is pointed
out that the UPPSC had wrongly included the names of the can-
~ did ates in the select list, who were originally not even notified in B
the Official Gazette Notification. Having heard the learned coun-
sel 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,
c
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 D
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 Aftaf E
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
F
to the respondents to pass appropriate orders giving the
reason as to why the case of the appellants has not been
considered and disclose the· marks obtained by them as
well as cut-off marks beyond which the candidates were
called for interview. It will be equally open to the appellants G
to challenge such an order, if passed by the UPPSC.

The learned counsel appearing for the UPPSC states that
they have already filed a list of candidates whose cases
had been considered pursuant to the direction of this Court. H
220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 11 S.C.R.
...i._.,.-

A As indicated earlier, this controversy being raised for the 'r
I
first time before this Court, we decline to go into it and
leave it open.
Since the matter has been considerably delayed, the
respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders and
B
communicate them to the appellants within a period of )._

four weeks from today.
The appeal is accordingly allowed with no order as to
costs."
c 8. It appears from the record that in compliance with the
above-extracted order of this Court, the contesting respondents
took some decision, which according to the petitioners, is mani-
festly in violation of the tenor and spirit of the order of this Court.
In this petition, it is stated that the respondents for the first time
D in their Office Order dated 7.4 2006 took a different stand, which
reads as under:- ~

"Because during the relevant time according to experience
contemplated by the eligibility criterion No. 3 as set by the
E Commission, the petitioners were' found ineligible,
therefore they were not called for interview and in view of
the observations ma.de by Hon'ble Supreme Court in order
dated 20.2.2002, the order dated 10.1.2000 and
20.2.2002 are applicable to those candidates who had
appeared in the interview. Therefore in the expressed
F
situation; it has been decided by the Hon'ble Commission
)..._-
that in view of the order dated 20.2.2002 passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court it is impossible to call the
candidates for interview."

G 9. It is further stated that in view of the above stand of the
respondents, it is clear that the respondents are guilty of wilful
and deliberate contempt of this Court as they are time and again
changing stands, so as to misguide this Court and are not dis-
closing the marks obtained by the petitioners, as well as cut-off
H marks beyond which the candidates were called for interview
ANIL KUMAR SHAHI & ORS. v. PROF. RAM 221
... )..
SEVAK YADAV & ORS. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]

despite unambiguous directions passed by this Court. It is also A
stated that this is not the first time when the respondents 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. A/tat (supra) while dealing with
similar situation was pleased to record and observe as under:- B
.l
".... 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
c
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 D
) 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 E
examinations transparency is expected and results cannot
be kept secret. ... Here also the UPP SC wants to play
with the court ..... The Chairman and the Secretary of the
UPPSC are directed to deposits with the registry cost of
10,000/- each for wasting the court time. Such costs shall F
--~ be paid by the concerned personally and not by the
Commission."
10. It is further the case of the petitioners that the conduct
of the contending respondents speaks of bias and mala tides
on their part and they on one pretext or the other have tried to G
exclude the petitioners from their lawful claim of appointment.
11. The contempt petition was listed before this Court on
8.5.2006 when this Court passed the following order:-
''Issue notice returnable in the month of July, 2006. H
222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.

A Mr. Shail Kumar Dwivedi, the learned counsel, appears ~-

and accepts notice for U.P. Public Service Commission.
Personal presence of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is dis-
pensed with for the time being."
B 12. The matter came up before this Court on number of
dates and for one reason or the other at the request of the
learned counsel for the U.P. Public Service Gommission and
the State of U.P., the matter continued to be adjourned from
time to time. On 9.3.2007, this Court directed the respondent-
C U.P. Public Service Commission to bring on record the docu-
ments showing recommendations by it. Thereafter, it was on ,
>--

November 14, 2007 that this Court passed the following order:- ;

"Put up this matter on 16.11.2007forfurtherhearing at 1.30 p.m.

D On that day the Secretary of the Education Department,
State of U.P. as also the Secretary of the U.P. Public
Service Commission shall personally remain present in
the Court with all requisite files.
In the first half, the said documents would be given to the
E learned counsel for the petitioners for inspection.
A chart showing the vacancy position as obtaining in the
years 1996, 1997, 1999 shall be separately prepared. A
Chart shall also be prepared showing the filling up of the
vacancies in respect of those years separately including
F
the fact as to whether any of those posts have been fille.d
up from amongst the reserved category candidates. ~-

It will further be shown as to how and in what manner the
State in spite of order of this Court, directed the vacancies
G to be carried forward despite the fact that
recommendations were made for filling up the vacancies
by the Commission.
The list of 443 candidates in whose favour the
recommendations have been made shall be produced
H before this Court."
ANIL KUMAR SHAHI & ORS. v. PROF. RAM 223
SEVAK YADAV & ORS. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]

Contempt Petition No. 162 of 2007: A
13. In this petition, the petitioners inter a/ia pray for the
following reliefs:-
"(a) initiate contempt proceedings against the
contemnors for their willful disobedience and uphold B
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
(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 D
Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances
of the present case."
14. On 16.11.2007, an application for exemption from per-
sonal appearance of Dr. (Prof.) Ram Sewak Yadav, Chairman E
of U.P. Public Service Commission and Dr. J.B. Sinha, Secre-
tary U.P. Public Service Commission, was allowed. The matter
was ordered to be listed on 1Oth December, 2007 at 1:30 p.m.
and in the meantime the State of UP was asked to allow the
learned counsel for the petitioners as also the petitioners to F
inspect the record which was produced before this Court on
that day. When the matter was called for hearing on 8.2.2008,
this Court made the following order:-
"Mr. Colin Gonsalves, learned senior counsel handed over
chart to us showing the discrepancies as obtaining in the G
records maintained by the State of Uttar Pradesh and UPPSC.
Mr. H.N. Salve, learned counsel prays for some time to
respond to the said Chart. Mr. Shrish Kumar Misra, learned
counsel also joins Mr. Salve, learned counsel in making
the said prayer. H
224
..
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.
-'""' ·~
A List of 443 candidates for the 1997 batch, as directed, be
furnished to Mr. Colin Gonsalves.
Issue notice on the application for intervention/direction.
Personal app~arance of the alleged contemnors is r-
B dispensed witn till further orders.
)._
E
I
Put up after two weeks."
15. Du'ring the pendency of the contempt petitions, I.A.
No. 12 was filed by Mani Ram Singh praying for intervention
c and, making oral submissions in regard to his claim for appoint-
rrient against the above said post.' Notice on this application II-
w~s issued on 8.2.2008. qne application for impleadment in
the contempt peti!ions was filed by Jamna Prasad Gangwar
with a prayer to issue direction to the State of U.P. to appoint \--;
D him and other eligible candidates belonging to the reserved
categories of 1996 batch to the posts of Principal of Inter Col-
lege (Boys/Girls) in the State of U.P. within 15 days and submit ...
its c~mplianc;e.
16. In reply to the Contempt Petition © No. 91 of 2006
E and LA. No.12 of 2008, three sets of separate affidavits were
LI-
filed by,the respondents. Prof. Ram Sevak Yadav - respondent
'--
No.1 herein, Chairman _U.P. Public Service Commission,
Allahabad, in his affidavit at the outset, submitted that he has
the highest regards for the orders passed by this Court and he
F has taken necessary action in compliance of the order dated r
..._
07.03.2006 passed by this Court in C. A. No. 1124 of 2000. >---
However, in compliance thereto, if there be any kind of discrep-
ancy, bona fide omission or inadvertence in paying due regard
to the order bf this Court, he subrriitted his unconditional and
G unqualified apologyforthe same. Further, he submitted that he
shall do everything in due compliance of the orders of this Court I
~
~s may be directed and the Commission being a constitutional
body is duty bound to comply with the orders 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
H
I
r
ANIL KUMAR SHAHI & ORS. v. PROF. RAM 225
... )-
SEVAK YADAV & ORS. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]

this Court or to do anything, which may amount to contempt of A
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. 961-962of1999 titled B
..J
Mohd. Altaf & Ors. v. Public Service Commission & 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 inter-
view till the passing of the order dated.20.02.2002, their case c
could not be considered. However, after rejection of the repre-
sentation of the petitioners, the Commission realised that the
order dated 20.02.2002 should be made applicable to the pe-
titioners due to their higher marks than the cut-off marks. Ac-
cordingly, the Commission took necessary steps by deliberat- D
ing upon the whole matter in accordance with the orders dated
,J
10.01.2001, 20.02.2002, 28.11.2002, 28.08.2003 and
07.03.2006 passed by this Court. He submitted that in Con-
tempt Petition No.372 of 2002 in Civil Appeal No.962 of 1999,
Shamim Khanam v. K. B. Pandey and other connected mat-
E
ters, this Court was pleased to consider the cases of all the
candidates who had appeared in the years 1996, 1997 and
1999 Examinations for appointment to the post of Principals in
the Government Colleges. The relevant extract of the directions
contained in the order dated 05.08.2003 reads as under:-
F
,.. ~ "It is ordered that the candidates who had appeared in the
year 1996, 1997 and 1999 would be considered for
vacancies existing as on 30.06.2003 in accordance with
the merit list prepared of all the eligible candidates for the
various years." G
17. It is stated that in the said Contempt Petition a
clarificatory order dated 28.08.2003 was passed by this Court,
which reads as under:-

"It is further made clear that appointment to these 97 posts H
226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.
4...,,-4'.
A would be after earmarking the reserved categories and f
thereafter on the basis of merit list prepared by the U. P. I
Public Service Commission for the year 1996 examination. l
If other vacancies still remain, appointments would be after L

taking into consideration merit list of 1997 examination ~-
B and thereafter 1999 examination result."
,I.__ I
18. The first respondent further submitted that having re- r-
..._
gard to the various orders passed by this Court, the Commis-
sion had disclosed the marks to the petitioners and subsequently
called them for interview scheduled to be held on 14.07.2006
c in the Office of the Commission at Allahabad. All the petitioners
appeared before the Interview Board of the Commission. The
Commission accordingly revised the Combined Merit List of
PCS Examination-1997 for the category of Principals on .-
~
14.07.2006 itself. The placement of the petitioners in the afore-
D said Combined Merit List has been stated at SI. Nos. 54, 156,
118 and 104 respectively. The petitioners have been included
l
in the Eligibility List of 1997 along with other candidates. It is
submitted that the Commission is not in a position to recom-
mend the candidature of the petitioners to the State Govern-
E ment for the following reasons:- I

~
(i) The order dated 28.08.2003 passed by this Hon'ble I-
Court requiring the recommendation against the
existing vacancies for the candidates of the 1996 1..-

examination first and thereafter for the candidates of
F 1997 examination.
).. - 4---
(ii) The petitioners belong to 1997 examination and in I

absence of vacancies, their candidature cannot be
recommended as directed by this Hon'ble Court vide
order dated 28.08.2003.
r
G
(iii) - The State Govt. vide its letter dated 11.05.2006 r
I
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.
H Even if the State Govt. had permitted to fill up the 45
ANIL KUMAR SHAHI & ORS. v. PROF. RAM 227
SEVAK YADAV & ORS. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]

vacancies on ad-hoc basis it would have gone to 70 A
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." B
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 C
that in compliance with the judgment dated 07 .03.2006 passed
by this Court the petitioners were also placed in the list of eli-
gible Teachers for appointments in the revised list drawn on
14.07.2006. A meeting in this regard was held in the Office of
the State Government on 07.03.2007. The State Government·-D
).
has not appointed all the eligible candidates for the examina-
tion held in the year 1996. He submitted that no appointment
has been made from merit list of eligible candidates for 1997
and 1999 examinations, which had been prepared pursuant to
the orders dated 10.01.2001 and 20.02.2002 passed by this E
Court. He also stated that the Commission vide its letter dated
23.03.2007 addressed to the Secretary, Government of U. P.,
sent the revised merit list dated 14.07.2006 as well as Notifica-
tion of the Commission dated 25.07.2006 for taking necessary
action at State Government level. He also submitted that there F
is no willful disobedience to the judgment/orders of this Court
and he bow down before the majesty of this Court. He tendered
his unconditional apology for any inaction on the part of the
Commission or on his part in-person in understanding the true
meaning of the judgment of this Court. Copies of the revised G
combined merit list of the PCS Examination, 1997 (Main) is-
sued on 14.07.2006 for the posts of Principals along with com-
bined merit list of PCS Examination, 1996 (Main) eligible can-
didates in terms of order of this Court dated 14.08.2003 are
placed on record. H
228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.
--' ~~
A 20. Ms. Gayatri Adult, Deputy Director (Services-I), Direc-
torate of Education, Allahabad, in compliance to the order of
this Court dated 29.08.2007, filed affidavit on behalf of the State
of U. P. and Directorate of Education, Allahabad, (Respondent
l,c
Nos. 3 & 4) stating therein that 50 posts of Principals, Govern- ,_
B ment of Inter College (Boys and Girls) and 47 posts of Senior
)..
Lecturers in District Institutes of Education Training were lying
vacant as on 28.08.2003. This Court vide order dated
28.08.2003 was pleased to direct the State of U. P. to fill 52
posts of Principals strictly on the merit list submitted to this Court
c and regarding remaining 45 posts, it was ordered to leave the
same to the State Government to fill them on ad-hoc basis. The
Statement Government made appointments of 50 candidates ~

strictly on the basis of merit list. Two posts of reserved category
~

could not be filled as no eligible SC candidates were found.
._
D However, the State Government did not make appointments I-
against the 45 remaining posts as there is no provision for
~
making appointment on ad-hoc basis in U. P. Educational (Gen-
eral 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 4'1 Principals to the post
E
of District Inspector of Schools and out of 41 posts, 35 posts ~

are to be filled against the reserved category candidates se-
lected in the year 1996 and the remaining six to clear the back-
log posts, are lying vacant. She submitted that out of 47 newly
I
upgraded posts of Principals in the Colleges, 50% posts of Prin- ••.
F cipals 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
G posts of Senior Lecturers D.l.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 Lee- )>-

turers/D.l.E.Ts. and the UPPSC after selecting the candidates,
recommended their names for appointment against the required
H 443 posts. She also submitted that the National Council for
ANIL KUMAR SHAH! & ORS. v. PROF. RAM 229
SEVAK YADAV & ORS. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
~· ,..
Teachers Education has prescribed new educational qualifica- A
tion for appointment to the post of Senior Lecturers for 0.1.E.T.
and the minimum qualification is M.Ed. which earlier was B.E.d.
21. In reply to I.A. No. 12 of 2008, Prof. Ram Sevak Yadav,
Chairman, UPPSC, Allahabad, submitted that the applicant-
B
Mani Ram Singh is placed at Serial No.75 of the Combined
Merit List of PCS Examination, 1996 (Main) eligible candidates.
The Commission vide its letter 132/9/E-2/97-98 dated
01.10.2003 had sent recommendation of 52 candidates. Fur-
ther 2 posts of Scheduled Tribe candidates could not be filled
as suitable candidates were not available in any of the recruit-
c
ment years 1996, 1997 and 1999. Later on, the State Govern-
ment informed the Commission vide its letter No.315/15-1-08-
8(3)/03 dated 05.02.2008 that out of 52 candidates only 46
candidates could get appointment against the posts in ques-
tion. -Four candidates could not join their place of posting, so D
the State Government decided to fill those four vacancies [2
General + 2 OBC] from the eligibility list of 1996 Examination,
which is under consideration of the Commission. He stated that
as far as 45 unfilled vacancies are concerned, State Govern-
ment decided vide its letter No.15/24/97-ka-4-06 dated E
11.05.2006 not to fill those vacancies. On similar line, counter
affidavit has been filed by Shri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, Sec-
retary, UPPSC, Allahabad. Along with their affidavits, copy of
confidential letter dated 01.10.2003 written by Shri Pawan
Kumar, Secretary, UPP SC, Lucknow, to the Secretary, Person- F
,,. ~ nel Section-4, Government of U.P., Lucknow, sending recom-
mendations according to the result of 52 vacancies of tne post
of Principals/Senior Lecturers on the basis of merit list of 120 .
new eligible candidates of Principal Examination, 1996, in com-
pliance with the orders of this Court dated 28.08.2003 giving G
details of the division of the vacancies occurred year-wise upto
30.06.2003 and the number of candidates selected in General
and Reserved categories.

22. Mr. Colin Gonsalves, learned Senior Advocate-for the
petitioners, contended that the Chairman of UPPSC, the Sec- H
230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.

A retary of UPPSC and the Department of Education of the U.P.
Government have willfully and deliberately disobeyed the or-
ders dated 07.03.2006 and 09.03.2007 passed by this Court.
He submitted thc;it despite the order in Mohd. Altaf's case lay-
ing down the eligibility criteria, the respondents intentionally re-
B fused to apply the same criteria as decided by this Court in the
case of the petitioners herein. This Court vioe 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 re-
c spondents firstly took the stand that the petitioners have not
qualified the written examination and later on, they have admit-
ted 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
o existed no vacancies against which the petitioners could be
appointed. He has brought to our notice the order dated
28.1_1.2001 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal Nos.961-962
of 1999 titled Mohd. A/tat & Ors. v. Public Service Commis-
sion & Anr whereunder strictures were passed against UPPSC
E for acting arbitrarily, for showing "rampant favourtism" for tak-
ing an "absurd stand" and for "playing with the court by taking
the stand that there are no vacancies." The learned senior coun-
sel has relied upon the statement of the then Education Minis-
ter made in the U. P. Legislative Council stating that there were
F 113 vacancies for the year 1996, 164 vacancies for the year
1997 and 90 vacancies for the year 1999 as on 03.03.2005 as
. per Annexure R-3 attached with the rejoinder to contend that
the stand of the respondents that there are no vacancies avail-
able against which the petitioners can be appointed, is abso-
G lutely incorrect and in violation of the order of this Court.
23. In compliance with the order dated 14.11.2007, Mr.
Harish N. Salve, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the Chairman and the Secretary, UPPSC, has placed before
H us Chart showing vacancy position as obtaining in the year 1996,
ANIL KUMAR SHAHI & ORS. v. PROF. RAM 231
>, ). SEVAK YADAV & ORS. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]

1997 and 1999. The details of 1996, 1997 and 1999 selection A
for the post of Principals in Government Inter Colleges (Boys and
Girls) and for the post of Senior Lecturer in District Education &
Training Institutes before 28.08.2003 are given as under:-

"Break-up for the year 1996, 1997 and 1999 vacancies B

YEAR VACANCY SELECTED CARRY FOR-
POSTS POSTS WARD POSTS
1996 216 105(104+1) 216-105 =111

1997 443 (332 + 111) 279(19+124+ 443-279=164
c
124+12)

1999 64 General Recrument 54 64-54=10

1999 164 (Special Recruitment) 75 113-75=38 D
164-51 * =113
51* =Vide High Court
order in Writ Petition
No. 26986/1998 section
E
for 51 posts stayed.
Hence, selection for
113 was made.

AFTER 28. 08. 2003:
F
~ "4 97 - Vacancies were informed by the Government vide
letter dated 19.09.2003 out of which 50 names were
recommended as per directions of Hon'ble Court in the
order dated 28.08.2003
FRESH ELIGIBILITY LIST AFTER HON'BLE G
SURPEME COURT ORDER DATED 28.08.2003.
YEAR 1996

List of 120 candidates (pg. 193-197) all categories
H
232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 11 S.C.R.

A i) Break-up of 120 candidates
S.No. Requisition ,_
"O
ctl
received from ...... (/") 3:
.¥.
"O "O u
the Govern- 0 .......Q)
Q) Q)

ment
0 ctl -ctl,_ :J (/") :J
ctl
co,_ Q) (/")
(/")
,_
.¥.
B z :S! Q)
"O Q) "O (/") ctl
- "O
c
Q) ......
..r: (/")
Q) Q) Q) (/")
.E
.E c Q) u ctl
..r: .0
u ·;::
..r: (/")
...... ctl Q)
~ ~ (.9 (f) () (f) f- Ou 0:::
1 120 52 22 Nil 46
YEAR 1997
c
List of 154 candidates (pg. 206-212) all categories
i) ~reak-up of 154 candidates
S.No. Requisition ,_
"O
ctl
D received from ...... (/") 3:
.¥.
"O "O u
the Govern- 0 .......Q)
Q) Q)
ctl (/")

ment 0 ctl
z :S! -ro,_ :J
"O Q)
(/") :J
"O (/")
co,_ Q) (/") ,_
.¥.
Q) Q) ...... (/")
ctl
- "O Q) Q) Q)
.E c c ..r: (/") ..r: .0 ..r: (/") E
Q) u ctl u ·;:: ...... ctl Q)
~~ (.9 (f) () (f) f- 0 u 0:::
E 1 154 121 07 Nil 26
2 Merit List re- 158 125 07 Nil 26
vised on
14.07.2006
YEAR 1999
F
List of 98 candidates all categories
i) Break-up of 98 candidates
"O
,_
S.No. Requisition ctl

G received from ...... (/") 3:
.¥.
the Govern- 0 .......Q) "O
Q.)
"O
Q.)
u (/")
ctl
0 ctl -ctl :J (/") :J co,_ Q) (/") ,_
.¥.
ment z :S! ,_ "O Q) "O (/") ctl
Q) Q) ...... Q) Q) (/")
- "O Q)
.E c c ..r: (/") ..r: .0 . ..r: (/") E
Q) u ctl u ·;:: ...... ctl Q)
~ ~ (.9 (f) () (f) f- 0 u 0:::
H 1 98 53 14 Nil 31
ANIL KUMAR SHAHI & ORS. v. PROF. RAM 233
;~ ~ SEVAK YADAV & ORS. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]

Note: In compliance of Hon'ble Supreme Court order dated A
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 B
in Government Inter Colleges (Boys & Girls)
"O
.....
S.No. Requisition
received from
the Govern- 0
ment
0
z
- -.....CtS
"O
Q)
::I
"O Q)
(/')
"O
Q)
::I
"O (/')
CtS
3:
.:.c::
(..)
CtS
ca..... ""(/')(I)
(/')
.:.c::
..... c
enen
CtS
m
...... 0
Q)
c:
Q)
Q) ......
.l:: (/')
(..) CtS
Q) Q)
.l:: .c
<..> ·c
Q)
:5 CtS
(/') E
Q)
~a.. <.9 en o en ~ Ou c:::
1 216 108 46 04 58
*1
2 Selected 104 101 03 Nil Nil D
(one)
) + 1* General General va-
cancy reserved as
per orders of Hon'ble
High Court of
Subhash Babu Vs. E
U.P.P.S.C. & Ors.
3. Carry for- 111 06 43 04 58
ward vacan-
,
cies
Details of vacancies filled-up by 1997 Examination F
Government sends requisition for 548 posts of Principals
in Government Inter Colleges (Boys & Girls) and for the
posf of Sr. Lecturer in District Education & Training
Institutes. Thereafter, Government vide letter no. 1978/15-
1-97-8(2)/95 T.C., dated 05th September, 1997. Informed G
U.P.P.S.C. that 548 posts includes 216 posts for which
requisition has already been sent to the U.P.P.S.C. in 1996
as a result of which only 332 vacancies are available for
1997 Examination and 111 carry forward vacancies of
1996 Examination are available. Details break-up of these H
posts were sent by Government Letter No. 2561/15-1-96-
234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.

A 8(2)/95, dated 19th August 1996.
Total no. of posts 332 are bifurcated as below:-
Principals -146 (19 for Plain Cadre+ 127 for Hill Cadre)
Sr. Lecturers-186 (162 for Plain Cadre+ 24 for Hill Cadre)
B Carry forward vacancies of 1996 Exam. For (Principals)
Hill Cadre - 111 Posts
Total No. of Vacancies (146+186+111)=443 for which
selection was made.
A. Details of 19 posts for Principals (Plain Cadre)
c
"O
.....
S.No. Requisition
ro
received from ..,_ 3:
~
"O "O
the Govern- 0 Q) Q)
()
ro U)

ment
0
z U) ro
..... ::I U) ::I
"O
co U)
Q)
~
.....
Q)
"O Q)
Q)
U)
Q)
..... U) ro
Q)
D ro Ci) c Q) -U)
..r: ..a ..r: E
u ro ..r:
U)
Q) u ·c Q)
0- ro
- 0
~Cl.. (9 Cf) () Cf) I- () a::::
1 19 09 04 Nil 06
2 Selected 19 09 04 Nil 06
B. Details of 127 Posts for Principals (Hill Cadre)
E
S.No. Requisition ~
ro J..
received from ..,_ 3:
~ ~
"O. "O
the Govern- 0 Q)
~
()
ro U)
'
0 -ro :5 U) •::I co U) ~
.....
ment z (/) ..... "O Q) "O (/) Q)
..... ro
Q) Q) Q) U)
Q)
F ro Ci) c Q) -U)
..r: .c ..a ..r: U) E
u ro
~~
Q) u ·c - ro Q)
(9 Cf) () Cf) I- Ou a::::
1 127 63 27 02 35
2 Carry forward 111 06 43 04 58
vacancies of
G 1996 exam.
3 Total 238 69 70 06 93
4 Selected 124 69 26 01 28
5 Carry for- 114 Nil 44 05 65
warded va-
H cancies
ANIL KUMAR SHAHI & ORS. v. PROF. RAM 235

... ~
SEVAK YADAV & ORS. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]

C. Details of 162 Posts for Sr. Lecturers (Plain Cadre) A
S.No. Requisition ,_
"O
ro
received from
the Govern- 0
ment
0
- -
z en ,_Q)ro
"O
Q)
::; en ::J
"O Q) "O en
"O
Q)
~
3:
(..)
ro
ca
,_
en
en ~
Q)
,_
Q) ...... Q) Q) Q) en
ro B
(ij ii) c .s:: en .s:: .0 .s:: en E
...... 0 Q) u ro (..) .;:: - ro Q)
~a... (9 Cl) 0 Cl) I- 0 (..) n:::
1 162 81 34 03 44

2 Selected 124 81 18 Nil 25
Carry Forward 38
c
3 Nil 16 03 19
vacancies
D. Details of 24 Posts for Sr. Lecturers (Hill Cadre)
S.No. Requisition ,_
"O
ro

)
received from
the Govern- 0
ment
0
-
z en ro
.....
"O
Q)
::; en
-0
Q)
::J
-o en
3:
~
(..)
ro
ca enQ)
en
~
,_
D

Q)
-0 Q)
Q) ...... Q) Q)
..... en ro
Q)
ro ii) c .s:: en .s:: .0 .s:: en E
...... 0 Q) u ro (..) .;:: Q)
~a... CJ Cl) 0 Cl) I-
-0 (..)ro n:::
E
1 24 12 05 Nil 07
2 Selected 12 12 Nil Nil Nil

3 Carry Forward 12 Nil Nil 07
05
vacancies
F
Details of Vacancies filled-up by 1999 Examination
· (Special Recruitment)
A. Details of 164 Posts for Principals (Plain Cadre)

G

H
236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.

A
S.No. I

-
Q)
..c
-0
......

- ro
Q)
...... ~
CE-
0 c 0 -0 -0
~
(.)
·- 0 Q) Q) Q) co
~..:::: E 0 -ro ::I (J) ::I co (J)Q) Remarks
.!!? -o E z (J) ......
Q)
-0 Q) -0 (J) ......
C" > > ro en
Q) Q) (J)
::I Q) Q) Q)
c Q) -(J)
..c ..c ..a ..c (J)
B Q) · - 0 - 0 Q) u ro u ·c - ro
n:: ~ (.'.) ~ CL (.'.) U) l ) U) I- 0 (.)
1 164 0 65 08 91 Vide High Court
order in Writ Pe-
tition No.
26986/ 1998 -
c selection for 51
posts stayed.
Hence, selec-
tion for 113 was
made.
D
B. Selection for 113 posts:-
Principals - 63 (Hill Cadre)
Sr. Lecturers-50 (38 for Plain Cadre+ 12 for Hill Cadre)
E i) Break up for post of Principals - 63 Hill Cadre
-0
......
S.No. Requisition ro
received from ~
~
- (J) -0 -0
the Govern- 0 ........
Q)
Q) Q)
(.)
ro (J)
o ro -ro ::I ::I co Q)
(J) ~
......
F ment z~ ...... -0 Q)
(J)
-0 (J) ...... m
Q) Q) ....... Q) Q) (J)
- -0 Q)
~ c c ..c (J) ..c ..a ..c (J) E ....
Q) u ro u ·c ........ m Q) ~-

~ ~ (.'.) U) l ) U) I- 0 (3 n::
1 63 0 24 03 36

2 Selected 44 0 20 01 23
G
3 Carry Forward 19 0 04 02 13

H
ANIL KUMAR SHAHI & ORS. v. PROF. RAM 237
SEVAK YADAV & ORS. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]

i) Break up for post of Sr. Lecturers - 38 PlainCadre A
"'O
S.No. Requisition '-
ro
received from ..... (/) 3:
-
..lo::
"'O "'O
the Govern- 0 . Q) Q) Q)
0
ro (/)
o ro ro ::; (/) ::::J CD (/) ..lo::
ment z :S! '- "'O Q) "'O (/) '-
Q) '-
ro B
Q) Q) Q) (/)
- "'O Q)
2 c c Q) -
..c (/) ..c .c ..c (/) E
Q) u ro (..) ·;:: Q)
~~ c:> (J) 0 (J) I- 0- ro
(..) Cl'.'.

1 38 0 16 03 19

2 Selected 31 0 12 Nil 19
c
3 Carry Forward 07 0 04 03 Nil

i) Break up for post of Principals - 12 Hill Cadre

S.No. Requisition "E
ro
received from ..... (/) 3: D
the Govern- 0 . Q)
ment
o ro
z :S!
- ro
'-
Q)
"'O
Q)
::::J
(/)
"'O Q)
"'O
Q)
::::J
"'O (/)
..lo::

CD
(..)
ro
'-
(/)
Q)
(/)
(/)
..lo::
'-
ro
- "'O Q) Q) Q)
2 c c Q) -(/)
..c ..c .c ..c (/) E
Q) u ro (..) ·;::
- ro Q)
~ ~ c:> (J) 0 (J) I- 0 0 0:::
1 12 0 05 Nil 07
E

2 Selected Nil 0 Nil Nil Nil

3 Carry Forward 12 0 05 Nil 07

Details of vacancies filled-up by 1999 Examination F
(General Recruitment)
Special Selection for 64 posts which are bifurcated as below:-

A. Details of 64 posts for Principals (15 for Plain Cadre
+ 49 for Hill Cadre) G

H
238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.

A i) Break up for post of Principals - 15 for Plain Cadre

S.No. Requisition ....ro
"O

received from
the Govern- 0
ment
0
- ro
"O
~
en
"O
(!)
"5
~
.:¥:.
u
ro
cn en
en
.:¥:.
.....
B z en .....
(!)
;:j
"O (!) "O en ..... (!) ro
© en
ro en c:
(!)
(!) -en
.c
u ro
(!) (!)
.c .0
u ·;:: _. en
.c ro E
(!)
-
i2 a..0 (9 (f) () (f) I- 0 (.) 0:::
1 15 08 03 Nil 04
2 Selected 15 08 03 Nil 04
c
ii) Break up for post of Principals - 49 for Hill Cadre
S.No. Requisition "O.....

D
received from
the Govern-
ment
0 -
z en ro.....Q)
0
"O
~
;:j en
"O
~
;:j
"O (!) "O en
ro
~
.:¥:.
u
ro
(() en
en
.:¥:.
..... en ro
(!)
.....
ro en c: .cu enro .cu .0
- o Q)
(!) -
(!) (!) (!)
_. en
·;:: .c ro (!)
E
i2 a.. (9 (f) u (f) I- 0 u 0:::
1 49 25 11 01 12

E 2 Selected 39 24 05 Nil 10

5. Carry forward 10 01 06 01 02
vacancies

Hon'ble High Court vacated the stay order passed in Writ
F Petition No. 26986/1998 on 16.03.2001 as a result of 51
posts which were of Hill Cadre after creation of Uttaranchal
State U.P.P.S.C. unable to fill up the aforesaid vacancies.
U.P. Government vide its letter No. 2513/15-1-2003-
27(40)/02 dated 19th September, 2003 informed that there
G are 97 vacancies available till 30th June, 2003. Details cf
abovementioned posts as follows:-
Principals Government Inter College (Boys & Girls) ]
Total Post - 50
H
ANIL KUMAR SHAHI & ORS. v. PROF. RAM - 239
SEVAK YADAV & ORS. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]

Sr. Lecturer in Education & Training Institutes: A

Total Post - 47 Total 97 vacancies
Principals Government Inter College (Boys & Girls):
Total Post - 50 B
i) Break-up of 50 post for Principals Government Inter
College (Boys & Girls)
"O
,_
S.No. Requisition ca
received from
the Govern- 0
ment
ci
-
z en
-
~
"O
Q)
::s en
"O
Q)
::s
-o en
3:
~
t>
ca
c:o,_ enQ)
en
,_
~
c
Q)
"O Q)
Q) Q) Q) en ca
ca Ci.i c Q) -(/)
..c ..c .0 ..c en E
- 0 Q) u ca t> ·;:: Q)
~ Cl. (.9 (f) (.) (f) f- 0 - (.)
ca a::
1 50 26 13 02 09 D

2 Selected 48 26 13 Nil 09
Carry Forward 02 *No ST
3 Nil Nil 02* Nil
vacancies '- can di-
date was E
available

Sr. Lecturer in Education & Training Institutes
Total Post - 47
i) Break-up of 47 posts for Sr. Lecturer in Education & F
Training Institutes

S.No. Requisition ,_
"O

-
ctS
received from ~
3:
the Govern- 0 "O "O t> G
~ Q)
ca
ment
0
z en
(ij
,_ ::s en
"O Q)
::s c:o,_ Q)en "'ct!
,_
~

Q) "O
Q) "'
Q) Q) en
ct! (i.i c Q) -
..c en ..c .0 ..c en E
- 0 Q) t> ca t> ·;:: _. ca Q)
~ 0... (9 Cf) 0 Cf) f- 0 () a:
1 47 35 08 03 01
H
240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.

A
2 Selected 02 02 Nil Nil Nil
3 Carry Forward 45 33 08 03* 01 *No
vacancies
ST
candidate was
B anailable
24. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners contended
that as per the vacancies indicated in the above-stated Chart,
General Category appointments for 1996 batch were over-
stated and Reserved Category appointments were under-
c stated, thus, the seats available to the General Category were
r-
not completely reflected in the said Chart. According to the I.-
•
petitioners, transfer of Reserved Category candidates getting ;--
~·

age relaxation, lower cut-off marks in Preliminary Examination I

and also in Main Examination coupled with fees relaxation
D cannot validly be transferred to General Category. The
petitioners also contended that neither UPPSC nor the Deputy ~
Director of Education in their affidavits have whispered a word
about any mistake having occurred while giving 548 vacancies
in advertisement issued on 01.01.1997 and the stand now taken
E in the chart that 548 vacancies for 1997 batch was wrongly
,.._
published in the advertisement can now be accepted.
,.
25. Having gone through the details of vacancies for the
)-
years 1996, 1997 and 1999 for the post of Principals and Senior I
Lecturers in District Education & Training Institutes, as shown
F
in the above-extracted Chart, we find that the UPPSC has 1-.""
satisfactorily explained that the advertisement of 548 posts was
made as per the requisition of the State Government which
numbers were later on found to be wrong, because 216
.
'
'
vacancies which were advertised in 1996 batch, were wrongly
G included in 548. vacancies. The vacant posts for 1997 batch
~
were only 332 and not 548 and 111 vacancies carried forward F
from 1996 batch, the total vacancies in 1997 were 443. The ;...

petitioners also contended that 14 new District Institutes of
Education & Training have come into existence, thus, creating
H 84 more vacancies for the post of Senior Lecturers and the

y
ANIL KUMAR SHAHI & ORS. v. PROF. RAM 241
' ,_ ~ SEVAK YADAV & ORS. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]

petitioners' version is that there are, in all, 180 total vacancies A
for General Category (46 unfilled for 1996 batch, 41 from 1997
batch less (requisitioned) and 93 from 1997 batch (persons not
joined). The petitioners have also submitted a chart in which
they have given position of additional seats becoming available
due to various miscellaneous reasons as on date in addition to B
-'. the seats which still remained 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
c
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.
D
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
'I it has laid down the procedure for exercise of such powers.
Contempt of Court has been defined under Section 2(a) of the E
Act, to mean civil contempt or criminal contempt. 'Civil Con-
tempt' 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 breach of undertaking
given to a court.' It is by now well-settled under the Act and un- F
'· " der Article 129 of the Constitution of India that if it is alleged
before this Court that a person has willfully violated its order it
can invoke its jurisdiction under the Act to enquire whether the
allegation is true or not and if found to be true it can punish the
offenders for having committed 'civil contempt' and if need be,
G
can pass consequential orders for enforcement of execution of
the order, as the case may be, for violation of which, the pro-
.... ceeding for contempt was initiated. In other words, while exer-
cising its power under the Act, it is not open to the court to pass
an order, which will materially add to or alter the order for al-
leged disobedience of which contempt jurisdiction was invoked. H
\

242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 11 S.C.R.
__.. _,
'
-
A When the Court directs the authority to consider a matter in
accordance with law, it means that the matter should be con-
sidered to the best of understanding by the authority and, there-
fore, a mere error of judgment with regard to the legal position
cannot constitute contempt of court. There is no willful disobe-
B dience if best efforts are made to comply with the order. ,.._
27. Having considered the entire factual backdrop of the
matter and given our due consideration to the above extracted
various orders passed by this Court in this case and having con-
sid~red the detailed explanations given by the Chairman,
c UPPSC, Secretary, UPPSC, and Deputy Director [Education] in
their respective affidavits as noticed above which in our view are
quite satisfactory and further examination of the details of year-
wise vacancies position for the posts in question stated in the
above-extracted Chart submitted by the UPPSC, it cannot be
D said that a deliberate circumvention and dubious method was
adopted by the contesting respondents to avoid implementation
of the judg~ents/orders of this Court nor the facts and circum-
...
stances me~tioned above would establish that the contesting re-
spondents have willfully or deliberately disobeyed the judgments/
orders of this Court dated 07.03.2006 and 09.03.2007 as al-
E leged by the petitioners. In terms of the order dated 07 .03.2006,
the respondents have passed an appropriate order which was
communicated to the petitioners. The UPPSC have placed on
record all the relevant documents relating to these proceedings
as directed by this Court in its order dated 09.03.2007.
F
28. In the result; there is no merit in these contempt peti- ~ ,_.
tions and they are, accordingly, dismissed. We, however, make
it clear that the contesting respondents are not precluded from
considering the legitimate claims ofthe petitioners as well as
the applicants who have filed Interlocutory Applications before
G this Court if they are otherwise eligible in accordance with law.
As no substantive relief, as prayed for by the applicants in their
applications, can be granted to them in these contempt pro- ....
ceedings these applications shall stand disposed of. ~~

D.G. Contempt Petitions dismissed.
H