BALAKRUSHNA BEHERA AND ANR. v. SATYPRAKASH DASH

Citation: [2007] 11 S.C.R. 605

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: A.K. MATHUR, MARKANDEY KATJU

Case summary

BALAKRUSHNA BEHERA AND ANR. v. SATYPRAKASH DASH.pdf

Judgment text

BALAKRUSHNA BEHERA AND ANR. v. SATYA PRAKASH DASH OCTOBER 22, 2007 [A. K. MATHUR AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.

] t 1 Contempt of Court: Selection ofLecturer in University-On a writ petitionfiled by a candidate, High Court directing the University to complete the selection process-Accordingly result declared, but selected candidate not given appointment-Contempt petition-Notice issued by High Court to Registrar and Vice-Chancellor of University-Plea that appointment was to be approved by Government-Meanwhile State Government abolishedthepost-High Court in contempt Proceedings directing Registrar and Vice-Chancellor to be present personally in Court on given date-HELD : Court cannot direct the State Government in a writ ofmandamus to appoint a person against apost which has been abolished-In view ofsecondproviso to Statute 4(1) ofStatutes ofUniversity, since no appointment could be made without prior approval of State Government and the post having been abolished, even after selection, candidate cannot claim a right to the post, nor is there any contempt ofCourt-Thus, no contempt is made out against the noticees-Orders ofHigh Court set aside-Notice of .....

, , contempt discharged-Constitution ofIndia-Article 226. ·~ Shankarsan Dash v. Union ofIndia, [1991) 3 SCC 47, relied on. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4179 of 2006. From the Judgment and final Order dated 24. 1. 2006 of the High ~~ Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Misc. Case No. 151 of2005. ' Janaranjan Das and Swetaketu Mishra for the Appellant. B. K. Pattnaik, Rutwik Panda and Jana Kalyan Das for the Respondent. The Order ofthe Court was delivered by ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. ~. Leave granted. ' This appeal is directed against the judgment and orders dated 24. 1. 2006 ofthe High Court of Orissa whereby contempt proceedings were initiated against the appellants herein and they were directed to be present in Court for further proceeding in the matter ofContempt. The brieffacts r.

ecessary for the disposal ofthe present appeal are that the respondent herein filed a writ petition against the Utkal University of Culture and sought a mandamus that the University be directed to complete the entire selection process for the post ofLecturer in South & SouthEast Asian Studies. The Division Bench ofthe High Court vide order "' --consequences to follow by opposite parties 1& 2". After passing ofthe said order, the same allegedly having not been complied with by the University authorities within the time stipulated, a contempt petition was filed by the respondent herein (writ petitioner before the High Court). In reply to the contempt petition, the appellants herein (the Registrar and Vice-Chancellor ofthe University) stated that in view ,1--"1.

ofStatute 4(3) ofthe Utkal University ofCulture First Statute, 2001 since the Board of Management differed from the recommendation of the Selection Committee, the matter had to be referred to the Chancellor of BALAKRUSHNA BEHERA v. SATYAPRAKASH DASH 607 the University. In the meantime, the High court issued notice the contempt of Court for alleged disobedience ofits judgment dated I0. 3. 2005, but in view ofthe results having been published, the contr. mpt proceedings were dropped. It is alleged that despite the selection of the respondent herein, no appointment letter was issued to the respondent. Hence, he filed yet another contempt petition on which the impugned orders dated 24. 1. 2006 and 27. 1. 2006 were passed. By the said orders the Vice I' Chancellor and Registrar ofthe University were directed to be personally 1 present in Court.

The plea taken by the appellants herein the reply to show cause was ,C that as per the Second proviso to Statute 4(1) ofthe Utkal University of Culture First Statute, 200I, all appointment have to be approved by the State Government. The second proviso to Statute 4(1) of the Utkala University of Culture First Statute, 200l reads as under: "Provided further that the appointment ofall the teaching faculties including Professors, Deans, Experts and Consultants are subject to availability of funds and on prior approval ofadministrative department and Finance Department of State Government. " The State Government took the stand that in view ofthe restructuring/ reorganising ofthe whole set up the posts ofLecturer in South & South East Asian Studies have been abolished and therefore the respondent herein could not be appointed to the said post.

The appellants herein of Course wrote to the State Government for grant of approval for their appointment and funds for the said posts but the State Government declined to grant approval and abolished the posts and consequently no F, --. J )oappointments could be made to the said post. Thereafter, the Division Bench by the impugned order dated 24. 1. 2006 directed the Registrar and Vice Chancellor ofthe University (appellants herein) to be present in Court on 27. 1. 2006. Aggrieved against the impugned orders dated 24. 1. 2006 and 27. 1. 2006 passed by the Division Bench ofthe High Court, the present \.. ~ - appeal by special leave has been filed. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The first and foremost question is whether the Court can direct the State Government by a writ of mandamus to appoint a person against a post which has been abolished by the State Government. Our answer to this question is in the negative.

The respondent even after selection has no indefeasible rightto be appointed on the post because a selection does not confer a right ofgetting appointment which can be enforced by filing writ petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitution. In this view we are supported by a Constitution Bench decision ofthis Court in the case of ~ Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, [1991] 3 SCC 47. Since the " respondent has only an inchoate right to the post, there is no question of contempt against the appellants herein. The initial direction ofthe High Court was to complete the selection process and publish the results. That was done by the appellants herein. There was no order ofthe High Court directing that the respondent be appointed. Hence we fail to see how there is any contempt ofCourt. Subsequently some developments took place and the State Government abolished the posts in question and re-organized the set up ofthe University.

In the facts and circumstances ofthe case, in our view 'Y· the High Court could not have directed the initiation of contempt proceedings against the appellants when the respondent has no perfect or complete right to seek a mandamus for appointment to the post. The appellants have complied with the order ofthe Division Bench ofthe High Court and completed the process of selection and Published the reults within the time granted by the High Court. In view ofsecond proviso to Statute 4(1) ofthe Statutes ofthe University, since no appointment could be made without the prior approval ofthe State Government, and. the State Government having abolished the posts in question, the respondent _. ~ cannot claim a right to the post, nor is there any contemt of Court. In view of the aforegoing reasons, we are of the view that no contempt is made out against the appellants herein and the orders dated 24. 1. 2006 and 27. 1.

2006 are accordingly set aside and the notice of contempt against the appellants is discharged. The appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. RP. Appeal allowed.