GURUDEEP SINGH versus REGONDA SRINIVAS & ORS. on 4 July 2023

[2023] 10 S.C.R. 457 : 2023 INSC 617

GURUDEEP SINGH

v.

REGONDA SRINIVAS & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 128/2023)

JULY 04, 2023

[B.V. NAGARATHNA ANDPRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.]

Contempt of Court – Lands were acquired by NTPC andcompensation was awarded – Land oustees were proposed to berecruited by the NTPC as Junior Mazdoor – Pursuant thereto,Notification No.1 of 2017 issued – High Court directed NTPC toconclude the entire process of recruitment within two months fromthe date of the judgment i.e. 17.12.2021 – However, a freshNotification No.1 of 2022 was issued and Notification No.1 of 2017was cancelled – Contempt case filed – High Court held that theappellants-chairman & managing director and General Managerof NTPC violated the orders of the Court by issuing a freshnotification (Notification No.1 of 2022) – High Court allowed thecontempt case and directed appellants to suffer simple imprisonmentand fine – On appeal, held: On perusal of the judgment of HighCourt dated 17.12.2021, it does not emerge that it barred theappellants from issuing a fresh notification so as to complete theprocess of recruitment – Judgment specified timeline i.e. two monthsfor completion of recruitment, while manner in which the recruitmentwas to be completed was the prerogative of the appellants – Therewas no deliberate and willful disobedience of the orders of the HighCourt – Appellants had also tendered unconditional apology onthe premise of the alleged violation of the order – Therefore, thepunishment imposed by the High Court not correct – Unconditionalapology of the appellants accepted – Consequently, sentenceimposed on them set aside.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.128 of2023.

From the Judgment and Order dated 30.12.2022 of the High Courtfor the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in the Contempt Case No.776of 2022.

457

A

B

CDEF

G

H

AWith

Civil Appeal No.92 of 2023.

Tushar Mehta, SG, Gopal Jain, Sr. Adv., Adarsh Tripathi, VikramSingh Baid, Ajitesh Garg, Advs. for the Appellant.

BArun K. Sinha, Sumit Sinha, Ms. Anjali Rajput, Advs. for theRespondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by NAGARATHNA J.

The present Appeals arise out of the judgment dated 30.12.2022Cin Contempt Case No. 776/2022 passed by the High Court of the Stateof Telangana whereby the Appellants, who are the Chairman & ManagingDirector and the General Manager (Human Resources) of the Company–NTPC Ltd. have been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment fora period of two months and a fine of Rs. 2,000, by allowing the ContemptDCase filed by the respondents herein.

2. The present appeals have been filed primarily on the groundthat there has been no wilful and deliberate disobedience or non-compliance by the Appellants of the common judgment dated 17.12.2021passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in WA No. 277/2020.

E

3. The present case pertains to the claim of Respondents andother similarly placed land oustees as Junior Mazdoors on the basis of atripartite agreement in the year 1988 between NTPC Ltd. with the landoustees.

4. Briefly stated, the facts leading upto these appeals are that theFRespondents herein and similarly situated persons were the absoluteowners and possessors of the lands of various extents situated at differentvillages in Ramagundam Mandal, Karimnagar District. The said landswere acquired by NTPC prior to 1980 and an award was passed,awarding compensation for the acquisition of the said lands. The landGoustees were proposed to be recruited by the NTPC as Junior Mazdoor.On 15.05.2015, the NTPC issued an employment notification bearingnumber 2 of 2015 for sponsoring the names of the eligible land ousteesto fill 25 posts of Junior Mazdoors in NTPC.

5. W.P. No. 26043/2016 was filed by an aggrieved land ousteeHassailing the aforesaid notification issued by NTPC in the year 2015 and

the recruitment process undertaken by NTPC Ltd. pursuant to the saidnotification and the same was set aside by the Ld. Single Judge of theHigh Court as the mode of recruitment provided for was only throughinterview.

A

6. Another round of litigation ensued as NTPC issued a notification(No. 01 of 2017) dated 09.03.2017 to recruit junior mazdoors, whichwas also challenged before the High Court. The Division Bench of theHigh Court for the State of Telangana, in W.A.No.277 of 2020 directedNTPC to conclude the entire process of recruitment in pursuance ofNotification No.01 of 2017 within two months from the date of the saidjudgment dated 17.12.2021.

B

C

7. Pursuant to the direction of the High Court dated 17.12.2021, afresh recruitment Notification bearing No.1 of 2022 was issued and therecruitment process was initiated and the Employment Notification No.01of 2017, dated 09.03.2017 was cancelled.

8. While matters stood thus, the Respondents herein filed aContempt Petition bearing No. 776 of 2022 praying to punish theAppellants herein for deliberately not obeying/implementing anddeliberately flouting the orders of the High Court dated 17.12.2021 andto hold the Appellants in contempt of Court. By the impugned judgmentdated 30.12.2022 in Contempt Case No. 776 of 2022, the High Courtconcluded that there were deliberate and wilful laches, omissions andcommissions on the part of the Appellants herein in spite of being fullyaware of the implication of the judgment dated 17.12.2021 passed inW.A.No.277 of 2020 and batch, and therefore, the High Court allowedthe contempt case and directed that the Appellants shall suffer simpleimprisonment for a period of two (02) months and to pay a fine ofRs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) each, within four (04) weeksfrom the date of the judgment.

DE

F

9. The key observations of the High Court of Telangana in theimpugned judgment are as follows:

a.That the Appellants ought to have completed the processGof recruitment following the Notification No.01 of 2017dated 09.03.2017 within a period of two months from thedate of judgment and issued consequential appointmentorders within such time.

H

Ab.That the Appellants were the key persons in issuing theNotification No.01 of 2022 and attempting to wish awaythe judgment dated 17.12.2021 passed by a Division Benchof the High Court in W.A.No.277 of 2020 and Batch.

c.That the Appellants and NTPC Ltd. had demonstrated theirBscant respect to the law and the Order of the High Courtby not making any efforts to comply with the orders of theCourt dated 17.12.2021.

d.That instead of completing the recruitment process asdirected by the High Court, the Appellants violated theCorders of the Court by issuing a fresh notification(Notification No.1 of 2022 dated 01.02.2022) and cancelledthe recruitment process initiated vide EmploymentNotification No.01 of 2017, dated 09.03.2017.

e.The High Court took note of the unconditional apologyDtendered by the Appellants but declined to accept the sameby holding that they deserved no leniency.

Aggrieved by the said observations of the High Court, the presentappeals have been filed by the Contemnors-Appellants.

10. We have heard learned Solicitor General for the appellantsEand Mr. Arun K.Sinha learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 7.

11. During the course of submissions, learned Solicitor Generaldrew our attention to paragraphs 10 to 12 of the impugned judgmentwhich read as under:- “10. In view of the circumstances of the case, though anFunconditional apology is tendered by the respondent Nos.1 and 2,the manner in which they deliberately and willfully disobeyed theorders of this Court, they deserve no leniency and this Court isdeclined to accept such unconditional apology.

11. For the reasons mentioned above, we hold that respondentGNos.1 and 2 have deliberately and willfully disobeyed the ordersof this Court passed by a Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court inW.A. No.277 of 2020 and batch, on 17.12.2021 and they are liableto be punished for the same.

12. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is allowed. The respondentHNos.1 and 2 are sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two (02) months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (RupeesTwo Thousand Only) each, within four (04) weeks from today.The petitioners are directed to deposit subsistence allowance @Rs.500/- per day within four (04) weeks. The sentence ofimprisonment imposed on the respondent Nos.1 and 2 is suspendedfor a period of six (06) weeks from today.”

He submitted that the High Court ought to have accepted theunconditional apology tendered by the appellants herein as there wasclearly no deliberate and willful disobedience of the order passed by theHigh Court on 17.12.2021.

In this regard, our attention was drawn to the order dated17.12.2021 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in WritAppeal Nos.270, 277 and 268 of 2020, the relevant portion of the saidorder reads as under:

“The NTPC is going ahead with the process of selectionfor the post of Group “D” employees based upon the policydecision to grant employment to the land oustees and since 2017the recruitment is held up on account of litigation. The NTPC hasadopted a transparent procedure by holding a written examinationand has amended the rules also and this Court does not find anyfault with the decision taken by the NTPC in setting aside theNotification dated 15.05.2015 and by issuing a fresh Notificationon 12.03.2017. Even if it is assumed that the NTPC has earlierheld the process of interview, the process of recruitment was notfinalised and no appointments were made by the NTPC pursuantto the advertisement dated 15.05.2015 and it is a well settledproposition of law that inclusion in the selection list does not confera right upon an individual for appointment.

The reasons for cancelling the earlier advertisement dated15.05.2015 are cogent and valid reasons and as the NTPC is nowadopting a transparent process, the impugned order passed by thelearned Single Judge is set aside. The NTPC is directed to concludethe entire process of subject recruitment within a period of twomonths from today issue consequential appointment orders.

With the aforesaid, the writ appeals stand allowed. Themiscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Thereshall be no order as to costs.”

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

ALearned Solicitor General submitted that having regard to thedirections issued by the High Court to conclude the entire process ofrecruitment within a period of two months from that day and to makethe consequential appointment orders, the process of appointment wastaken forward, the select list has also been made. However, theappointment orders have only been provisionally issued in view of theBContempt Petition initiated by the respondents herein.He submitted that this is a case where this Court may interfere inthe matter and pass an appropriate order.

12. Learned counsel Mr. Arun K. Sinha submitted that the reasonsCas to why the respondents were constrained to file the Contempt Petitionwas on account of the fact that the respondents were the land ousteeswho are entitled to be considered for appointment and in fact their nameswere earlier found in the select list of 2015. However, no appointmentswere made and therefore they were constrained to file the ContemptPetition. He, however, submitted that the reasons for not accepting theDunconditional apology tendered by the appellants herein by the High Courtmay be considered and appropriate orders may be made in the ContemptPetition. He further submitted that the appellants may be directed toconsider the case of the respondents herein for appointment in theappellants’ company.E13. On perusal of the judgment dated 17.12.2021, it does notemerge that it barred the appellants from issuing a fresh notification soas to complete the process of recruitment. The said judgment only directedthat the process of recruitment be completed within a period of twomonths and appointment orders be issued to the successful candidates.FWhether the recruitment was to be concluded in pursuance of thenotification of 2017, or by way of issuing a fresh notification, was notspecified in the said judgment and therefore, in our view, this aspect ofthe matter was left to the discretion of the appellants. In the absence ofa specific direction to the effect that the recruitment be concluded inpursuance of the notification of 2017 alone, we are unable to hold thatGissuance of a fresh recruitment notification would constitute contemptof court. The timeline for completion of recruitment was stipulated bythe court, while the manner in which the recruitment was to be completed,was the prerogative of the appellants.

We also take note of the contention of the Learned SolicitorHGeneral that only provisional appointment orders could be issued in view GURUDEEP SINGH v. REGONDA SRINIVAS & ORS.[B. V. NAGARATHNA J.]

of the fact that the contempt petition initiated by the respondents, waspending.

14. Having heard the learned Solicitor General for the appellantsand the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents inlight of what we have extracted above and in the light of the order dated17.12.2021 passed by the High Court, we find that there has been no“deliberate and willful” disobedience of the orders of the High Court. Infact, the appellants herein had also tendered an unconditional apology onthe premise of an alleged violation of the order of the High Court dated17.12.2021. Even if the High Court came to a conclusion that there wasa deliberate and willful disobedience of the order of the court, it couldhave considered the said unconditional apology tendered by appellantsand concluded the matter. However, we find that the High Court has,instead of considering the unconditional apology tendered by theappellants herein, sentenced them to suffer simple imprisonment andpay fine. We do not think that the said punishment imposed was correcthaving regard to the facts of the case and the order passed by the DivisionBench of the High Court on 17.12.2021.

15. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we find itappropriate to accept the unconditional apology of the appellants hereinand consequently set aside the sentence imposed on them. The CivilAppeals are allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Ankit Gyan

Appeals allowed.

(Assisted by : Aarsh Choudhary, LCRA)

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H