2021 (10) TMI 1386 - SC - Indian Laws

Initiation of contempt proceedings against the alleged contemnors-Respondents - wilful disobeying the order passed by this Court - fixation of inter se seniority list published on 29th April 2004 - HELD THAT - There can be no quarrel with the proposition that 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. The court is only concerned with the wilful or deliberate non-compliance of the directions issued in the original judgment and order. This Court in unequivocal terms has held that 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 141 of 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. It has been held that 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 - It is thus clear that though it cannot be said that the second 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. The Respondents are directed 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. SLP disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Willful disobedience of the Supreme Court's order dated 22nd January 2016.
2. Validity of the seniority list published by TNPSC.
3. Legality of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016.
4. Interpretation and application of the judgments in P.S. Ghalaut v. State of Haryana and Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana.
5. Contempt jurisdiction and the doctrine of merger.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Willful Disobedience of the Supreme Court's Order Dated 22nd January 2016:
The contempt petitions were filed alleging that the Respondents willfully disobeyed the Supreme Court's order dated 22nd January 2016. The Petitioners argued that the Respondents failed to implement the Court's directive to prepare the seniority list based on the merit list of selection rather than the roster point. Despite the Court's clear instructions, the Respondents published a revised seniority list on 13th March 2021, which allegedly violated the principles laid down in the case of Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana.

2. Validity of the Seniority List Published by TNPSC:
The Petitioners initially challenged the inter se seniority list published on 29th April 2004, which was based on the roster point system. The Madras High Court's Division Bench, in its judgment dated 31st March 2015, directed that seniority should be fixed based on the rank assigned by TNPSC, not the roster point. This was affirmed by the Supreme Court on 22nd January 2016. However, the revised seniority list published by TNPSC on 13th March 2021 was alleged to be in breach of these directions, as it did not adhere to the merit list of selection.

3. Legality of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016:
To counter the High Court's first judgment, the State of Tamil Nadu enacted the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016, which stipulated that seniority would be determined based on the rule of reservation and the order of rotation. This Act was challenged, and the Madras High Court, in its second judgment dated 15th November 2019, declared Sections 1(2), 40, and 70 of the Act as ultra vires and unconstitutional, directing the revision of the seniority list within 12 weeks. The Supreme Court dismissed the SLPs against this judgment, reinforcing the principle that seniority should be based on merit.

4. Interpretation and Application of the Judgments in P.S. Ghalaut v. State of Haryana and Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana:
The Supreme Court's order dated 22nd January 2016 emphasized that the seniority list should be based on the merit list of selection, as established in Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana, and not on the roster point system, which was the basis of the earlier judgment in P.S. Ghalaut v. State of Haryana. The Court reiterated that the fundamental principle for determining seniority should be the inter se merit in the selection list.

5. Contempt Jurisdiction and the Doctrine of Merger:
The Respondents argued that the contempt petitions were without merit, contending that the High Court's judgment was individualistic and that the seniority list was revised accordingly. They also argued that the doctrine of merger did not apply to the Supreme Court's order dismissing the SLPs. The Supreme Court clarified that while the doctrine of merger did not apply, the declaration of law in its order was binding on all courts and tribunals. The Court emphasized that in contempt jurisdiction, it would not travel beyond the original judgment and order, focusing solely on willful or deliberate non-compliance.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found the Respondents guilty of contempt for not adhering to its order dated 22nd January 2016, which mandated the preparation of the seniority list based on the merit list of selection. The Court directed the Respondents to revise and publish the seniority list within 12 weeks, strictly based on the merit determined by TNPSC. The matter regarding the quantum of punishment for the contemnors was scheduled for a later date, with the contemnors required to be present in Court. The SLPs related to the issue were disposed of in light of the contempt order.