Contempt of Court – Service Law – Doctrine of Merger – Seniority List – Dispute w.r.t fixation of inter se seniority – Principle of law to be applied – Wilful/deliberate non-compliance of directions – Division Bench of the High Court directed the official respondents to consider the rank assigned to the selectees by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) as the basis for fixation of seniority – SLPs thereagainst – Dismissed by Supreme Court by a speaking order dtd. 22.01.16 – Contempt petitioners allege non-compliance of the said order, contending merger of the High Court judgment into it – Held: If the order of dismissal of SLPs is supported by reasons, then also the doctrine of merger is not attracted – However, the reasons stated by the Supreme Court would attract Article 141 and the law declared would be binding on all the courts/tribunals and the parties thereto – Thus, in the present case, though the judgment of the High Court did not merge into the order dtd. 22.01.16, still the declaration of law made in the said order was binding on the parties – While dismissing the SLPs, the Supreme Court held that after the judgment in Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana and Others reported as [2003] 2 SCR 757, the fundamental principle governing the determination of seniority was that, it should be based on merit list of selection and that the list made on the basis of roster point would not be permissible in law – Respondents were bound to follow the law laid down and determine the inter se seniority on the basis of selection by TNPSC and not on the basis of roster point – Seniority list purportedly published in accordance with the said order is in breach of the directions of Supreme Court – Respondents to revise and publish the seniority list– Contemnors to be heard on the quantum of punishment – Constitution of India – Article 141.
Contempt of Court – Contempt jurisdiction – Limit of – Discussed.
Issuing directions in the contempt petitions and disposing of the SLPs, the Court
HELD: 1. In a contempt jurisdiction, the court will not travel beyond the original judgment and direction; neither would it be permissible for the court to issue any supplementary or incidental directions, which are not to be found in the original judgment and order. [Para 14][209-C-D]
2. The High Court clearly observed that the case before the High Court was not individualistic in nature, depending upon individual dates, facts and sequence of events. It further observed that it arose out of the most fundamental question as to the principle of law to be applied in the matter of fixation of seniority. [Para 17][210-B]
3.1 If the order of dismissal of SLPs is supported by reasons, then also the doctrine of merger would not be attracted. Still the reasons stated by the court would attract applicability of Article 141of the Constitution of India, if there is a law declared by this Court which obviously would be binding on all the courts and the tribunals in India and certainly, the parties thereto. No court, tribunal or party would have the liberty of taking or canvassing any view contrary to the one expressed by this Court. Such an order would mean that it has declared the law and in that light, the case was considered not fit for grant of leave. [Para 22][212-F-H]
Kunhayammed and Others v. State of Kerala and
Another (2000) 6 SCC 359 : [2000] 1 Suppl. SCR 538 – relied on.
3.2 This Court, while dismissing the SLPs against the judgment clearly held that after the emergence of the judgment in Bimlesh Tanwar, the fundamental principle governing the determination of seniority was that, it should be based on merit list of selection and that the list made on the basis of roster point, would not be permissible in law. Thus, while dismissing the SLPs, this Court has reiterated the legal position as laid down in the case of Bimlesh Tanwar to the effect that while determining seniority, what is relevant is the inter se merit in the selection list and not the roster point. It is pertinent to note that though, the then learned Attorney General had raised an issue with regard to a contrary view taken by the Madurai Bench of the same High Court, this Court clearly held that since the issue was now covered by the decision of this Court in Bimlesh Tanwar, the pendency of the SLPs challenging the judgment of Madurai Bench, would be of no consequence inasmuch as the said SLPs would be governed by the judgment of this Court in Bimlesh Tanwar. It is thus clear that though it cannot be said that the judgment of the Madras High Court has merged into the order of this Court dated 22nd January 2016, still the declaration of law as made in the said order, would be binding on all the courts and tribunals in the country and in any case, between the parties. In that view of the matter, the respondents were bound to follow the law laid down by this Court and determine the inter se seniority on the basis of selection by TNPSC and not on the basis of roster point. The lis between the parties is concerned, it has achieved finality by the order of this Court dated 22nd January 2016. The seniority list purportedly published in accordance with the order of this Court, is totally in breach of the directions of this Court. The respondents to revise and publish the seniority list of the selectees, who were selected in the selection process conducted in pursuance of the notification issued by TNPSC dated 10th September 1999, strictly on the basis of the merit determined by it in the selection process and not on the basis of the roster point. The same shall be done within a period of 12 weeks from the date of this order. The persons named in order dated 11th February 2021 are guilty of having committed contempt of order of this Court, would be heard on the quantum of punishment. [Paras 23-29][213-A-E, G; 214-F-H]
Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana and Others (2003)
5 SCC 604: [2003] 2 SCR 757; P.S. Ghalaut v. State of Haryana and Others (1995) 5 SCC 625: [1995] 2 Suppl. SCR 506; Jhareswar Prasad Paul and Another v. Tarak Nath Ganguly and Others (2002) 5 SCC 352 : [2002]
3 SCR 913; Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Limited and Others v. Chunilal Nanda and Others (2006) 5 SCC 399: [2006] 2 Suppl. SCR 986; V.M. Manohar Prasad v. N. Ratnam Raju and Another (2004) 13 SCC 610; Sudhir Vasudeva, Chairman and Managing Director, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited and Others v. M.George Ravishekaran and Others (2014) 3 SCC
373 : [2014] 4 SCR 27 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.