In a contempt jurisdiction, Court cannot travel beyond original judgment: SC

V. Senthur And Another Vs M. Vijayakumar (Supreme Court of India)

Conclusion: 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 were not to be found in the original judgment.

Held: The contempt petitioners had filed writ petitions before the Single Judge of the Madras High Court being aggrieved by the fixation of inter se seniority list published on 29^th April 2004. The petitioners along with the contesting respondents were selected in pursuance of the selection process held on the basis of the notification dated 10^th September 1999, issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (“TNPSC”). After a period of 4 years from the date of joining of the selectees, the seniority list came to be notified on 29^th April 2004. One person contended that though he was a more meritorious candidate belonging to the Backward Class category, he was allotted to the General Turn (open category) whereas the other persons belonging to the Backward Classes, who were less meritorious, were placed higher in the list and given seniority over and above him since they were placed against reserved vacancies. The Division Bench of High Court directed the official respondents to take the rank assigned by TNPSC to the selectees, as the basis for fixation of seniority. The same came to be challenged before this Court by TNPSC. The present contempt petitions were filed contending non­compliance of the order passed by this Court dated 22^nd January 2016.  In the instant case, it was held that there could 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 were not to be found in the original judgment and order. The court was only concerned with the wilful or deliberate non­compliance of the directions issued in the original judgment and order. At the outset, in the present proceedings, only concerned with the contempt of the order passed by this Court. It was thus clear that though it could not be said that the second judgment of the Madras High Court had merged into the order of this Court dated 22^nd 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 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.

FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.