Telangana High Court
M.Swathi vs Smt. Dr. Priyanka Ala, Ias on 29 June, 2026
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF
TELANGANA
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
CONTEMPT CASE No. 2883 OF 2025
29.06.2026
Between:
M. Swathi
..... Petitioner
And
Smt. Dr. Priyanka Ala, IAS,
Secretary,
Telangana State Public Service Commission (TGPSC)
..... Respondent
O R D E R:
The image of justice in the popular imagination is
that of a woman who is blind-folded with a weighing scale in her
hand. The blindfold represents the idea of impartiality i.e. the
belief that the judge has to be completely neutral and decide the
matter before her without being influenced by any consideration
other than the merits of the case.
By Saurabh Kirpal (Chapter 11 – The Telecom
Counter-Revolution from FIFTEEN JUDGMENTS CASES THAT
SHAPED INDIA’S FINANCIAL LANDSCAPE)
Respondent authorities appear to be on the
erroneous assumption that symbolism of the blindfold denotes
inability of the justice delivery system to perceive or take
2
cognizance of manifest illegality. The contemporary conception
of Justice, as reflected in the recently unveiled Nyay Devatha by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, depicts Lady Justice with open
eyes, signifying that the law is neither oblivious nor indifferent,
but remains vigilant and sees every citizen equally while
administering justice without fear or favour. Further significant
is the replacement of the traditional sword with the Constitution
of India, symbolizing that the constitutional values, the rule of
law, and the protection of fundamental rights constitute the
true foundation of the justice delivery system, and not the
punitive legacy of colonial jurisprudence.
*****
The present Contempt Case is filed by Petitioner
aggrieved by the willful and deliberate non-compliance of the
directions contained in the final order dated 21.03.2025 passed
by this Court in Writ Petition No. 9626 of 2019.
2. Petitioner had applied for the post of Trained
Graduate Teacher in Science pursuant to Notification No. 14 of
2017, dated 14.04.2017, issued by the Telangana State Public
Service Commission (TGPSC); participated in the selection
process conducted by the TGPSC, appeared for the written
examination, and subsequently attended the 1:2 certificate
3
verification process conducted by the TGPSC. In the merit list
drawn for the said notification, she stood next in line to be
selected, with 49.600 marks, behind a candidate bearing Hall
Ticket No. 1714901936, who fell under the BC-A(W) category in
Zone VI and had not attended the certificate verification
process, as she was reportedly in Australia at the time. Having
exhausted all alternative remedies, the Petitioner approached
this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 9626 of 2019 and upon
the said petition being allowed vide order dated 21.03.2025,
Petitioner found herself once again before this Court on account
of the Respondent’s flagrant disregard for the said direction.
2.1. It is stated, TGPSC issued Notification No. 14 of
2017 dated 14.04.2017 for filling up a total of 284 vacancies for
the post of Trained Graduate Teacher in Science in various
Residential Educational Institution Societies, namely, the
Telangana Residential Educational Institutions Society, the
Telangana Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions
Society, the Telangana Tribal Welfare Residential Educational
Institutions Society, the Mahatma Jyothiba Phule Telangana
Backward Classes Welfare Residential Educational Institutions
Society, and the Telangana Minorities Residential Educational
Institutions Societies.
4
2.2. It is further stated, petitioner participated in the
selection process pursuant to the said notification, appeared for
the written examination, and attended the 1:2 certificate
verification conducted by the TGPSC in respect of the said
posts. Subsequent to the provisional selection list published on
07.06.2018, TGPSC, in compliance with orders of this Court
dated 22.11.2018 in Writ Appeals, invited relinquishments from
candidates between 30.11.2018 and 02.12.2018. In response to
the said invitation, 52 candidates relinquished their posts.
Accordingly, 52 next meritorious candidates were selected in
their place, and a final selection list was published on
12.02.2019. However, even after the publication of the said final
selection list, 18 vacancies remained unfilled out of the total
284 notified vacancies, with 264 vacancies having been filled
and 2 withheld on account of pending court cases.
2.3. The grievance of Petitioner is that at the time of
certificate verification, a candidate bearing Hall Ticket Number
1714901936, falling under the BC-A(W) category in Zone VI, did
not attend the certificate verification process as she was
reportedly in Australia at the relevant time. Petitioner, being the
next meritorious candidate with 49.600 marks, ought therefore
to have been called in her place for inclusion in the selection
5
list. The Petitioner made a representation to the Commission on
18.04.2019 to this effect, pointing out that three BC-A(W)
candidates from Zone VI had given relinquishments and that
the Commission had selected three candidates against them;
however, the candidate bearing Hall Ticket No. 1714901936 did
not attend certificate verification, and therefore Petitioner, being
the next meritorious candidate, ought to have been selected.
2.4. Petitioner filed the present Writ Petition aggrieved
by the action of the TGPSC in not considering her being the next
meritorious candidate for selection to the post of TGT-Science
against the relinquished post of BC-A(W) vacancy in Zone VI,
contrary to the judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 20232 of
2018 dated 06.09.2018. She challenged the said action as
arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, and violative of Articles
14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The said Writ Petition
was allowed in its entirety, directing Respondents to select and
appoint Petitioner as per her merit list by removing all the
candidates who have relinquished their candidature to the post
of Trained Graduate Teacher in Science under the 2nd
Respondent institution under Notification No. 14 of 2017, dated
14.04.2017.
6
2.5. It is stated, the said order dated 21.03.2025 became
final as no Writ Appeal was preferred by the Respondents
thereagainst, hence, it was binding upon the Respondents,
leaving them with absolutely no discretion in the matter of
appointment of the Petitioner. Notwithstanding the said final
and binding order, the Respondents, with shocking audacity
and complete disrespect to the authority of this Court, issued a
rejection order dated 22.05.2025 vide Memo No.
514/TGT.REIS/2016, by which they stated that they would not
select Petitioner. Issuance of the said rejection order is a clear
and patent violation of the order dated 21.03.2025, since no
discretion was vested in the Respondents as to whether to
appoint the Petitioner or not, and the direction of this Court was
categorical and unconditional.
2.6. Respondent filed a counter affidavit contending that
out of 284 vacancies notified for TGT-Science, 264 vacancies
were filled and 18 vacancies were left unfilled due to non-
availability of candidates belonging to various reservation
categories, and that the said unfilled vacancies were included in
a subsequent notification conducted by TREI-RB. Rule 6-A of
the Rules of Procedure of the Telangana State Public Service
Commission mandates that the Commission shall remove the
7
names of the relinquished candidates from the selection list and
select any other eligible candidate or the next meritorious
candidate. In the instant case, even though the Petitioner is the
candidate in the next merit position, and even though this
Court gave a clear direction to appoint her, Respondent failed to
implement the order dated 21.03.2025.
2.7. The reasoning given by Respondent in its counter
affidavit for rejecting the case of the Petitioner, namely, that all
backlog and non-joining vacancies of TGT-Science were notified
in a subsequent notification conducted by the TREI-RB, is
unsustainable and contrary to the law laid down by the
Honourable Apex Court in the case of Telangana State Level
Police Recruitment Board v. Narimetla Vamshi 1, which was
already considered and answered by this Court in the order
dated 21.03.2025.
2.8. Petitioner also sought information from the
concerned educational department through the Right to
Information Act, 2005 regarding the vacancies, and the
information provided confirmed that there are several unfilled
and non-joining vacancies in the TGT-Science category across
various zones and institutions, copies of which RTI information
1
(2017) 14 SCC 797
8
were enclosed for the perusal of this Court. Respondent has
completely failed to address the legal and factual aspects of the
judgment dated 21.03.2025 and the writ affidavit, and has
therefore not made out any case for dismissal of the present
Contempt Case.
2.9. The rejection order dated 22.05.2025 was issued
mechanically, without any application of mind, totally ignoring
the law laid down by the Apex Court on the subject issue, and
in direct non-compliance with the directions given by this Court.
Therefore, the authorities are liable to be punished under
Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for their
willful disobedience of the directions of this Court contained in
the order dated 21.03.2025.
3. Respondent filed counter stating that in compliance
with the order under contempt, the Commission wrote letter
dated 12.05.2025 asking for clarification about the surrendered
and unfilled vacancies as the Notifications issued after
Notification No. 14/2017 were looked after by the TREI-RB
Board. In reply letter dated 22.05.2025, it was clarified that all
the surrendered (unfilled) vacancies and the non-joining
vacancies of Notification No.14/2017 were included in the
subsequent Notification conducted by TREI-RB. Further
9
informing that, the vacancies of all cadres for DR with the
approval of the finance department were indented to TREI-RB.
In the same lines, the surrendered (unfilled) and the non-joining
vacancies of Notification No. 14/2017 were also included for
recruitment through TREI-RB. The TREI-RB had issued notified
posts and filled the TGT Science posts vide Notification dated
05.04.2023.
3.1. It is stated, Government dispensed with filling up
non-joining vacancies from a waiting list through G.O. Ms. No.
81, G.A. (Ser-A) Dept., dated 22.02.1997 and G.O. Ms. No. 544,
G.A. (Ser-A) Dept., dated 04.12.1998. Therefore the question of
removing the names of candidates who could have relinquished
to the post of TGT Science does not arise as the selections were
finalized duly following Rule-6A of TGPSC Rules of Procedure,
seeking relinquishments for TGT Science from 30.11.2018 to
02.12.2018 and following the same certain candidates have
relinquished their post for TGT Science and accordingly next
meritorious candidates were selected in place of relinquished
candidates. Further the selection list was prepared in order of
merit for the candidates who reported for certificate verification
and the final selection list was declared on 12.02.2019.
10
3.2. It is pertinent to state that in the final selection list
declared on 12.02.2019, the candidate, who is referred to by
petitioner got selection against the relinquished vacancy. The
said candidates also attended the certificate verification process
which means she/he was willing to join the post if selected.
Accordingly, selections were finalized and unit list was
forwarded to the concerned societies on 12.03.2019. After
sending Unit List to the appointing authorities, if any vacancy is
left from the Unit List for any reason, G.O. Ms. No. 81 will come
in to force, and those vacancies will be treated as non-joining
vacancies and will be filled up in the subsequent recruitment as
per G.O. Ms. No. 81, G.A. (Ser-A) Dept., dated 22.02.1997 and
G.O. Ms. No. 544, G.A. (Ser-A) Dept., dated 04.12.1998. It is up
to the candidate whether to join the post or not at their
convenience even if they did not relinquish to any post and
Commission will not compel them to submit relinquishment.
G.O. Ms. No. 81, G.O. Ms. No 544 and Rule 6 of Rules of
Procedure come into force once final selection is completed and
unit list are sent to unit Officer to issue appointment orders as
filling up of resultant vacancies caused due to non-joining of
selected candidates is outlaw and it is not acceptable according
to Rule 6(A) also.
11
3.3. When the facts are as above, petitioners filed the
present Contempt Case as if no action has been initiated by this
respondent. The reason for not considering petitioner is not
liable to be disregarded. Petitioner was informed the facts vide
Memo dated 22.05.2025.
4. Petitioner filed a Reply to the Counter Affidavit filed
by the Respondent, contending that the order dated 21.03.2025
attained finality as no Writ Appeal was preferred against the
said order. Yet, the Respondents shockingly issued the rejection
order dated 22.05.2025, by which they stated that they would
not select the Petitioner, which action constitutes a clear
violation of the said final order. Reasoning given by the
Respondent for rejecting the case of the Petitioner, to the effect
that all backlog and non-joining vacancies of TGT-Science were
notified in a subsequent notification conducted by the TREI-RB,
is all backlog reasoning and is unsustainable and contrary to
the law laid down by the Apex Court in Telangana State Level
Police Recruitment Board v. Narimetla Vamshi which was
already considered and answered by this Court in the judgment
dated 21.03.2025.
4.1. Rule 6-A of the Rules of Procedure of the
Respondent/TGPSC mandates that the Commission shall
12
remove the names of the relinquished candidates from the
selection list and select any other eligible candidate or the next
meritorious candidate. In the instant case, the Petitioner is the
candidate in the very next merit position, and this Court gave a
clear direction to appoint her. The Respondent’s failure to
implement the order dated 21.03.2025 is therefore all the more
egregious. The total number of vacancies for the post of Trained
Graduate Teacher in Science notified under Notification No. 14
of 2017 dated 14.04.2017 are 284. Respondent/TGPSC had
called for 1:2 verification against the said posts and the
Petitioner also attended the 1:2 certificate verification. Two web
notes were issued requesting candidates who wished to
relinquish their candidature to submit the same online between
29.03.2018 to 08.04.2018. Several candidates gave
relinquishments to the post of TGT in Science as they had taken
up jobs under other subjects or elsewhere, but they were shown
in the selection notification, which led this Court to direct the
Respondents to select and appoint the Petitioner as per her
merit list by removing all such candidates who had relinquished
their candidature.
4.2. The averments made by the Respondent in their
counter affidavit and rejecting the case of the Petitioner are
13
totally contrary to the notification and the same are
unsustainable and contrary to the law as laid down by this
Court in W.P. No. 9626 of 2019 dated 21.03.2025. The
contentions raised by the Respondent are therefore not true and
correct and are hereby denied strictly. Respondent completely
failed to address the legal and factual aspects of the judgment
dated 21.03.2025 and the writ affidavit, and has therefore not
made out any case for dismissal of the present Contempt Case.
No case has been established by the Respondent that would
justify the issuance of a rejection order in the teeth of a clear
and final direction of this Court.
4.3. Petitioner states that the Honourable Apex Court in
Baranagore Jute Factory PLC Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) v.
Baranagore Jute Factory PLC 2, observed that, as held in DDA
v. Skipper Construction Co.(P) Ltd., the court has a duty to
issue appropriate directions for remedying or rectifying the
things done in violation of court orders, and that in that regard
the court may even take restitutive measures at any stage of the
proceedings. The Petitioner places heavy reliance on the said
observation and prays that this Court take restitutive action
2
2017 Vol. 5 SCC 506
14
against the Respondents who have persisted in their non-
compliance.
5. Heard Sri Allika Suresh, learned counsel for
petitioner and Sri P.S. Rajasekhar, learned Standing Counsel on
behalf of respondent.
6. Before proceeding to consider the rival contentions
in detail, it would be apposite to trace the brief history of the
proceedings that have culminated in the present contempt case.
The Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 9626 of 2019 before this
Court aggrieved by the action of the TGPSC in not considering
her as the next meritorious candidate for selection to the post of
Trained Graduate Teacher in Science against the relinquished
post of BC-A(W) vacancy in Zone VI. The grievance arose under
Notification No. 14 of 2017, dated 14.04.2017, which had
notified 284 vacancies for TGT-Science. The Petitioner
contended that a candidate bearing Hall Ticket No. 1714901936
under BC-A(W) category had not attended the certificate
verification, as she was in Australia at the time, and therefore
she, being the next meritorious candidate with 49.600 marks,
ought to have been selected.
7. Earlier, a Learned Single Judge who heard this
batch of cases disposed of the same by a common order dated
15
24.06.2021 directing the TGPSC and the State Government to
fill all unfilled vacancies strictly by following Rule 6(A) of the
Telangana State Public Service Commission Rules. Aggrieved by
the said common order, the TGPSC preferred Writ Appeal No.
533 of 2021 and Batch. By judgment dated 26.10.2021, the
Writ Appeals were disposed of, setting aside the orders passed
by the Learned Single Judge. The Division Bench remanded the
matter to deal with each and every individual Writ Petition in
order to give a finding of fact as to whether Rule 6(A) of the
Rules had been complied with or not. It is on remand that
arguments were advanced in respect of individual cases,
including the present Writ Petition.
8. Upon remand, this Court heard the matter at length
and, by the order dated 21.03.2025, allowed the Writ Petition.
The operative portion of the order dated 21.03.2025 reads as
follows:
“13. The Writ Petition is accordingly, allowed. Respondents are
directed to select and appoint petitioner as per her merit list by
removing all the candidates who have relinquished their candidature to
the post of Trained Graduate Teacher in Science under the 2nd
respondent institution under Notification No. 14 of 2017, dated
14.04.2017. No costs.
The said order was passed after due consideration of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Telangana State Level
16Police Recruitment Board v. Narimetla Vamshi, and after
rejecting the contention of the TGPSC that the unfilled
vacancies could not be filled up by the next meritorious
candidates in the order of merit.
9. The order dated 21.03.2025 became final as no Writ
Appeal was preferred against the said order. It is the admitted
position, as borne out by the counter affidavit filed by the
Respondent in the present Contempt Case, that instead of
complying with the said final and binding order, the
Respondents issued a rejection order dated 22.05.2025 vide
Memo No. 514/TGT.REIS/2016, by which they stated that they
would not select the Petitioner. It is further stated in the
counter affidavit that the unfilled vacancies were included in a
subsequent notification conducted by TREI-RB.
10. This Court now considers the legal position
applicable to the facts of the present case. It is a well-settled
principle of law that a final order of a court must be obeyed and
complied with in its letter and spirit. The Honourable Supreme
Court, in Baranagore Jute Factory PLC Mazdoor Sangh
(BMS) v. Baranagore Jute Factory PLC, at paragraph 23, has
observed that, as held in the case of DDA v. Skipper
Construction Co. (P) Ltd., the court, in the event of a violation of
17
its orders, has a duty to issue appropriate directions for
remedying or rectifying the things done in violation of such
orders, and that the court may even take restitutive measures at
any stage of the proceedings. This principle squarely applies to
the present case.
11. The contention of the Respondent, advanced in the
counter affidavit, that the action of carrying forward the unfilled
vacancies to a subsequent notification conducted by TREI-RB
was in compliance with the applicable rules and procedure is
wholly untenable and must be rejected outright. The order
dated 21.03.2025 was a clear and categorical direction issued
after due application of judicial mind, after consideration of the
very rules and judicial precedents that the Respondent now
seeks to invoke before this Court in support of its non-
compliance. The TGPSC, in the original Writ Petition No. 9626 of
2019, had taken an identical stand before this Court through its
learned Standing Counsel, Sri P.S. Rajashekar, Senior Counsel,
appearing for Sri M. Ramgopal Rao, learned Standing Counsel
for TGPSC, who contended that the respondents had strictly
followed Rule 6(A) of the Rules and that some of the vacancies,
which were relinquished by the persons appointed in those
vacancies, have to be tagged on to the next recruitment
18
notification only, and that those unfilled vacancies cannot be
filled up by the next meritorious candidates in the order of
merit. This Court, after due consideration, rejected the said
contention and allowed the Writ Petition. It is therefore not open
to the Respondents to reagitate the very same contention before
this Court in defence of their non-compliance.
12. It must be noted that the judgment of the
Honourable Supreme Court in Telangana State Level Police
Recruitment Board v. Narimetla Vamshi was the very basis
on which this Court allowed the Writ Petition in the order dated
21.03.2025. The Supreme Court had, in the said case, held that
an interpretation which would leave a large number of vacancies
unfilled would go against the very ethos of providing public
employment to persons who are eligible and meritorious, and
would not be an appropriate interpretation of the relevant rules.
The Respondent’s contention before this Court, namely, that the
vacancies were carried forward to a subsequent notification, is
therefore directly contrary to the law as settled by the Supreme
Court and as applied by this Court in the final order dated
21.03.2025.
13. The contention of the Respondents that the
rejection order dated 22.05.2025 was issued as speaking orders
19
in compliance with the order of this Court dated 21.03.2025 is a
contention that shocks the conscience of this Court and
deserves to be rejected forthwith. A speaking order of rejection is
not compliance with a direction to select and appoint. The order
dated 21.03.2025 did not call upon the Respondents to examine
the matter de novo or to issue speaking orders. The direction
was plain: the Respondents were directed to select and appoint
the Petitioner as per her merit list by removing all the
candidates who had relinquished their candidature to the post
of TGT-Science under Notification No. 14 of 2017, dated
14.04.2017. There was no discretion vested in the Respondents
in this regard, and the issuance of a rejection order in the face
of such a direction is nothing short of open defiance of the
authority of this Court.
14. Respondent’s plea that it has complied with Rule 6-
A of the TGPSC Rules deserves to be examined. Rule 6-A of the
Telangana State Public Service Commission Rules specifically
provides that if any candidate whose name has been included in
a selection list in a direct recruitment prepared by the
Commission expresses his desire to relinquish his claim for
appointment in writing in the proforma prescribed by the
Commission, the Commission shall thereupon remove the name
20
of such candidate from the selection list and select any other
candidate according to rules. The proviso to Rule 6-A further
provides that the selection list for the purpose of selecting
candidates in place of relinquished candidates/candidates shall
be operated only till the next notification is issued or for a
period of one year, whichever is earlier. This Court, in the order
dated 21.03.2025, specifically directed the Respondents to
comply with their obligation under the applicable rules and to
appoint the Petitioner in the vacancy arising from the
relinquishment/non-attendance of the candidate bearing Hall
Ticket No. 1714901936. The Respondents cannot, therefore,
take shelter behind the very rules that this Court has already
interpreted and applied in the Petitioner’s favour.
15. Petitioner had also sought information under the
Right to Information Act, 2005 from the concerned educational
department regarding the vacancies. The information provided
confirmed that there are several unfilled and non-joining
vacancies in the TGT-Science category. The TMREIS, Appellate
Authority, furnished a list of 19 candidates bearing TSPSC Hall
Ticket numbers who had not joined, including candidates such
as Sharanya Chirra, R Sumalatha, Padmaja Beulah D, M
Soumya Rani, Swathi Seelam, Korapu Sunitha, A Jaipal Reddy,
21
M Ramesh, P Bharadwaj, Nagarjuna Kurumide, Kaanduri
Vanisri, M Pavani, Vorsu Vijitha, G Priyanka, Wajeha Banu, P
Padmasree, Purumandla Srilatha, Preetika Mitra Samarthy, and
Adilakshmi Ramavath. This information, obtained through
official channels, further demolishes the Respondents’
contention that there were no vacancies available for the
Petitioner to be appointed against. The vacancies existed; the
Respondents chose to ignore the direction of this Court.
16. Coming to the question of whether the Respondents
have committed contempt of this Court, it is necessary to advert
to the relevant provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Section 2(b) of the said Act defines civil contempt to mean wilful
disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ, or
other process of a court, or wilful breach of any undertaking
given to a court. In the present case, the order dated 21.03.2025
is a clear, unambiguous, and final direction of this Court. The
Respondents, instead of complying with the said direction,
issued a rejection order dated 22.05.2025. The conduct of the
Respondents in issuing the said rejection order in the face of a
final judicial direction is prima facie a wilful and deliberate act
of disobedience. There is no explanation worthy of acceptance
for the said conduct. The contention that the rejection order was
22
issued as speaking orders in compliance with the court’s
direction is not only factually incorrect but is also an attempt to
dress up non-compliance as compliance, which this Court
cannot countenance.
17. It is well-settled by a catena of judicial
pronouncements that the power to punish for contempt is not
meant to vindicate the personal dignity of the judge, but is
meant to uphold the majesty of the law and the authority of the
court, and to ensure that the orders of the court are complied
with. In the present case, if the Respondents are permitted to
disobey a final order of this Court with impunity, it would not
only cause grave injustice to the Petitioner, who has been
litigating for years to vindicate her right to appointment, but
would also strike at the very foundation of the rule of law. The
Petitioner, who knocked on the doors of this Court for redressal
of a genuine grievance, has been denied the fruits of litigation
by the Respondents, who have chosen to flout the final direction
of this Court.
18. In view of the foregoing discussion and the reasons
elaborated hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the Respondents have committed wilful and deliberate
disobedience of the order dated 21.03.2025 passed by this
23
Court in W.P. No. 9626 of 2019. The contention of the
Respondents that the unfilled vacancies were carried forward to
a subsequent notification conducted by TREI-RB has already
been considered and rejected by this Court in the final order
dated 21.03.2025, and the same cannot be re-agitated before
this Court in contempt proceedings. The issuance of the
rejection order dated 22.05.2025 vide Memo No.
514/TGT.REIS/2016, in the teeth of a clear and categorical
judicial direction, is a grave act of contempt that deserves to be
dealt with appropriately. The Petitioner having been found to be
the next meritorious candidate in the selection list under
Notification No. 14 of 2017 dated 14.04.2017, and this Court
having already directed her appointment in the order dated
21.03.2025, no further impediment can be placed in the way of
her appointment by the Respondents.
19. This Court is also placing reliance upon the law
laid down in Celir LLP v. Mr. Sumathi Prasad Bafna 3,
wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that once a court passes
an order, the said order is required to be complied with in letter
and spirit, and that a party cannot be permitted to sit in
judgment over the order of the court and decide for itself
3
2024 INSC 978
24
whether to comply with it or not. The Hon’ble Apex Court
further held that when a court passes a clear and unequivocal
direction, the authority or party bound by such direction is
under an absolute obligation to comply with the same, and that
any attempt to wriggle out of the said obligation by raising
technical pleas or by advancing justifications that were either
already considered or ought to have been raised before the court
that passed the order, would amount to willful disobedience
constituting contempt. The Hon’ble Apex Court also made it
clear that where a party has chosen not to challenge the order
by preferring an appeal and has allowed the same to attain
finality, such a party cannot be heard to raise objections to
compliance at the stage of contempt proceedings, as the
correctness of the order is no longer open for examination at
that stage. The operative portion of the judgment is extracted
hereunder:
” 182.In order to decide whether the appellants are guilty of
civil contempt, it would be apposite to refer to Section 2(b) of the Act,
1971, which reads as under:
“2. Definitions.-
In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-
xxx xxx xxx
(b) “civil contempt” means wilful disobedience to any judgment,
decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach
of an undertaking given to a court;”
25
183. The Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, at page 1599,
defines “willful” as hereunder: –
“Proceeding from a conscious motion of the will; voluntary; knowingly;
deliberate. Intending the result which actually comes to pass; designed; intentional;
purposeful; not accidental or involuntary. Premeditated; malicious; done with evil intent, or
with a bad motive or purpose, or with indifference to the natural consequences; unlawful;
without legal justification. An act or omission is “willfully” done, if done voluntarily and
intentionally and with the specific intent to do something the law forbids, or with the specific
intent to fail to do something the law requires to be done; that is to say, with bad purpose
either to disobey or to disregard the law. It is a word of many meanings, with its
construction often influenced by its context. In civil actions, the word (willfully) often denotes
an act which is intentional, or knowing, or voluntary, as distinguished from accidental. But
when used in a criminal context it generally means an act done with a bad purpose; without
justifiable excuse; stubbornly, obstinately, perversely.”
184. In Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha and
Ors. reported in (2003) 11 SCC 1, the expression ‘wilful disobedience’ in
the context of Section 2(b) of the Act, 1971 was read to mean an act or
omission done voluntarily and intentionally with the specific intent to do
something, which the law forbids or with the specific intention to fail to
do something which the law requires to be done. Wilfulness signifies
deliberate action done with evil intent and bad motive and purpose. It
should not be an act, which requires and is dependent upon, either
wholly or partly, any act or omission by a third party for compliance.
185. Hence, the expression or word “wilful” means act or
omission which is done voluntarily or intentionally and with the specific
intent to do something which the law forbids or with the specific intent
to fail to do something the law requires to be done, that is to say with
bad purpose either to disobey or to disregard the law. It signifies a
deliberate action done with evil intent or with a bad motive or purpose.
186. Article 129 of the Constitution declares this Court as a “a
court of record” and states that it shall have all the powers of such a
court including the power to punish for contempt of itself. The
provisions of the Act, 1971 and the Rules framed thereunder form a part
of a special statutory jurisdiction that is vested in courts to punish an
offending party for its contemptuous conduct. It needs no emphasis that
the power of contempt ought to be exercised sparingly with great care
and caution. The contemptuous act complained of must be such that
26
would result in obstruction of justice, adversely affect the majesty of law
and impact the dignity of the courts of law.
187. It must also be understood that contempt proceedings are
sui generis inasmuch as the Law of Evidence and the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 are not to be strictly applied. At the same time, the
procedure adopted during the contempt proceedings must be fair and
just that is to say the principles governing the Rule of law must be
extended to the party against whom contempt proceedings have been
initiated. The party must have every opportunity to place its position
before the Court. Such a party must not be left unheard under any
circumstances.
188. In Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj & Ors. reported in (2014)
16 SCC 204 it was held that the contempt jurisdiction conferred on to
the law courts power to punish an offender not only for his wilful
disobedience but also for contumacious conduct or obstruction to the
majesty of law. It further observed that such power has been conferred
for the simple reason that the respect and authority commanded by the
courts of law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen that his
rights shall be protected and the entire democratic fabric of the society
will crumble down if the respect of the judiciary is undermined. The
relevant observations read as under: –
“11. The contempt jurisdiction conferred on to the law courts power to punish
an offender for his wilful disobedience/contumacious conduct or obstruction to the majesty
of law, for the reason that respect and authority commanded by the courts of law are the
greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen that his rights shall be protected and the entire
democratic fabric of the society will crumble down if the respect of the judiciary is
undermined. Undoubtedly, the contempt jurisdiction is a powerful weapon in the hands of
the courts of law but that by itself operates as a string of caution and unless, thus,
otherwise satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, it would neither be fair nor reasonable for the
law courts to exercise jurisdiction under the Act. The proceedings are quasi-criminal in
nature, and therefore, standard of proof required in these proceedings is beyond all
reasonable doubt. It would rather be hazardous to impose sentence for contempt on the
authorities in exercise of the contempt jurisdiction on mere probabilities. […]”
(Emphasis supplied)
189. In Murray & Co. v. Ashok Kr. Newatia & Anr. reported in
(2000) 2 SCC 367 this Court held that the purpose of contempt
jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the courts of law
27
since the image of such a majesty in the minds of the people cannot be
led to be distorted, as any indulgence which can even remotely be
termed to affect the majesty of law would result in the society losing its
confidence and faith in the judiciary and the law courts forfeiting the
trust and confidence of the people in general. The relevant observations
read as under: –
“9 […] The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity
of the courts of law since the image of such a majesty in the minds of the people cannot be
led to be distorted. The respect and authority commanded by courts of law are the greatest
guarantee to an ordinary citizen and the entire democratic fabric of the society will crumble
down if the respect for the judiciary is undermined. It is true that the judiciary will be judged
by the people for what the judiciary does, but in the event of any indulgence which can even
remotely be termed to affect the majesty of law, the society is bound to lose confidence and
faith in the judiciary and the law courts thus, would forfeit the trust and confidence of the
people in general.”
(Emphasis supplied)
190. In Pushpaben & Anr. v. Narandas Badiani & Anr.
reported in (1979) 2 SCC 394, it was held that contempt of court is a
special jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly and with caution whenever
an act adversely affects the administration of justice or which tends to
impede its course or tends to shake public confidence in the judicial
institutions. It further held that this jurisdiction is to be exercised not
for the protection of the dignity of an individual judge but to protect the
administration of justice from being maligned and ensure that the
authority of the courts is neither imperilled nor is the administration of
justice by it interfered with in any manner. The relevant observations
read as under: –
” 42. The contempt of court is a special jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly
and with caution whenever an act adversely affects the administration of justice or which
tends to impede its course or tends to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions.
This jurisdiction may also be exercised when the act complained of adversely affects the
majesty of law or dignity of the courts. The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the
majesty and dignity of the courts of law. It is an unusual type of jurisdiction combining “the
jury, the judge and the hangman” and it is so because the court is not adjudicating upon any
claim between litigating parties. This jurisdiction is not exercised to protect the dignity of an
individual judge but to protect the administration of justice from being maligned. In the
general interest of the community it is imperative that the authority of courts should not be
imperilled and there should be no unjustifiable interference in the administration of justice. It
is a matter between the court and the contemner and third parties cannot intervene. It is
28exercised in a summary manner in aid of the administration of justice, the majesty of law
and the dignity of the courts. No such act can be permitted which may have the tendency to
shake the public confidence in the fairness and impartiality of the administration of justice.
(Emphasis supplied)
191. In Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Proprietors of Indian
Express Newspapers, Bombay Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. reported in (1988) 4
SCC 592 it was observed that the process of due course of
administration of justice must remain unimpaired. Public interest
demands that there should be no interference with judicial process and
the effect of the judicial decision should not be pre-empted or
circumvented. The relevant observations read as under: –
” 35. The question of contempt must be judged in a particular situation. The
process of due course of administration of justice must remain unimpaired. Public interest
demands that there should be no interference with judicial process and the effect of the
judicial decision should not be pre-empted or circumvented by public agitation or
publications. It has to be remembered that even at turbulent times through which the
developing countries are passing, contempt of court means interference with the due
administration of justice.”
(Emphasis supplied)
192. In Rita Markandey v. Surjit Singh Arora reported in
(1996) 6 SCC 14, it was observed that even if parties have not filed an
undertaking before the court but if the court was induced to sanction a
particular course of action or inaction on the representation made by a
party and the court ultimately finds that the party never intended to act
on the said representation or such representation was false, the party
would be guilty of committing contempt. The relevant observations read
as under: –
” 12. Law is well settled that if any party gives an undertaking to the court to
vacate the premises from which he is liable to be evicted under the orders of the court and
there is a clear and deliberate breach thereof it amounts to civil contempt but since, in the
present case, the respondent did not file any undertaking as envisaged in the order of this
Court the question of his being punished for breach thereof does not arise. However, in our
considered view even in a case where no such undertaking is given, a party to a litigation
may be held liable for such contempt if the court is induced to sanction a particular course of
action or inaction on the basis of the representation of such a party and the court ultimately
finds that the party never intended to act on such representation or such representation was
false. In other words, if on the representation of the respondent herein the Court was
persuaded to pass the order dated 5-10-1995 extending the time for vacation of the suit
premises, he may be held guilty of contempt of court, notwithstanding non-furnishing of the
29undertaking, if it is found that the representation was false and the respondent never
intended to act upon it. […]”
(Emphasis supplied)
193. The Borrower and the Subsequent Transferee / the alleged
contemnors herein placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Patel
Rajnikant (supra) have contended that in the absence of any
disobedience or wilful breach of a prohibitory order no contempt could
be said to have been committed. It has been further canvased that this
Court in the Main Appeals never issued any specific direction either to
the Borrower or the Subsequent Transferee, & therefore no contempt
could be said to have been committed.
194. In Patel Rajnikant (supra), this Court upon examining
Section 2(b) of the Act, 1971 held that to hold a person guilty of having
committed contempt, there must be a judgment, order, direction etc. by
a court, there must be disobedience of such judgment, order, direction
etc and that such disobedience must be willful.
” 58. The provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 have also
been invoked. Section 2 of the Act is a definition clause. Clause (a) enacts that contempt of
court means “civil contempt or criminal contempt”. Clause (b) defines “civil contempt”
thus:
” 2. (b) ‘civil contempt’ means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree,
direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to
a court;”
Reading of the above clause makes it clear that the following conditions
must be satisfied before a person can be held to have committed a civil contempt:
(i) there must be a judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process
of a court (or an undertaking given to a court);
(ii) there must be disobedience to such judgment, decree, direction, order,
writ or other process of a court (or breach of undertaking given to a court); and
(iii) such disobedience of judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other
process of a court (or breach of undertaking) must be wilful.”
195. However, the subsequent observations made by this Court
in Patel Rajnikant (supra) are significant. It observed that the court
should not hesitate in wielding the potent weapon of contempt, it is for
the proper administration of justice and to ensure due compliance with
the orders passed by it in order to uphold and maintain the dignity of
courts and majesty of law. The relevant observations read as under: –
” 70. From the above decisions, it is clear that punishing a person for contempt
of court is indeed a drastic step and normally such action should not be taken. At the same
30time, however, it is not only the power but the duty of the court to uphold and maintain the
dignity of courts and majesty of law which may call for such extreme step. If for proper
administration of justice and to ensure due compliance with the orders passed by a court, it
is required to take strict view under the Act, it should not hesitate in wielding the potent
weapon of contempt.
(Emphasis supplied)
196. What can be discerned from the above exposition of law is
that any act of disobedience, defiance, or any attempt to malign the
authority of the court would amount to contempt because they
undermine the respect and trust that the public reposes in judicial
institutions. The judicial process relies on the confidence of society, and
any act that disrupts or disrespects this process threatens to erode the
foundation of justice and order.
197. Contempt jurisdiction exists to preserve the majesty and
sanctity of the law. Courts are the guardians of justice, and their
decisions must command respect and compliance to ensure the proper
functioning of society. When individuals or entities challenge the
authority of courts through wilful disobedience or obstructive behaviour,
they undermine the rule of law and create the risk of anarchy. Contempt
serves as a mechanism to protect the integrity of the courts, ensuring
that they remain a symbol of fairness, impartiality, and accountability.
198. When judicial orders are openly flouted or court proceedings
are disrespected, it sends a signal that the rule of law is ineffective,
leading to a loss of trust in the system. Judicial decisions must remain
unimpaired, free from external pressures, manipulation, or
circumvention. Acts that attempt to mislead the court, obstruct its
functioning or frustrate its decisions distort the process of justice and
would amount to contempt.
199. The contempt jurisdiction of this court cannot be construed
by any formulaic or rigid approach. Merely because there is no
prohibitory order or no specific direction issued the same would not
mean that the parties cannot be held guilty of contempt. The Contempt
jurisdiction of the court extends beyond the mere direct disobedience of
explicit orders or prohibitory directions issued by the court. Even in the
absence of such specific mandates, the deliberate conduct of parties
aimed at frustrating court proceedings or circumventing its eventual
31
decision may amount to contempt. This is because such actions strike
at the heart of the judicial process, undermining its authority and
obstructing its ability to deliver justice effectively. The authority of
courts must be respected not only in the letter of their orders but also in
the broader spirit of the proceedings before them.
200. Any contumacious conduct of the parties to bypass or
nullify the decision of the court or render it ineffective, or to frustrate
the proceedings of the court, or to ensure any undue advantage
therefrom would amount to contempt. Attempts to sidestep the court’s
jurisdiction or manipulate the course of litigation through dishonest or
obstructive conduct or malign or distort the decision of the courts would
inevitably tantamount to contempt sans any prohibitory order or
direction to such effect.
201. Thus, the mere conduct of parties aimed at frustrating the
court proceedings or circumventing its decisions, even without an
explicit prohibitory order, constitutes contempt. Such actions interfere
with the administration of justice, undermine the respect and authority
of the judiciary, and threaten the rule of law.
202. However, at the same time, the power of contempt ought to
be exercised sparingly and with caution and care. It operates with a
string of caution and unless otherwise satisfied beyond doubt, it would
neither be fair nor reasonable for the courts to resort to such powers.
The standard of proof required before a person is held guilty of
committing contempt of court must be beyond all reasonable doubt.
203. The courts while exercising its contempt jurisdiction must
remain circumspect, more particularly, where there exists a possibility
of the order being amenable to more than one interpretation. In
Jhareshwar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly reported in (2002) 5
SCC 352 it was held that if an order does not contain any specific
direction regarding a matter or if there is any ambiguity in the directions
issued therein then it would be appropriate to direct the parties to
approach the court which disposed of the matter for necessary
clarification of the order instead of the court exercising its contempt
jurisdiction thereby taking upon itself the power to decide the original
32
proceeding in a manner not dealt with by the court passing the
judgment or order. The relevant observations read as under:
“The contempt jurisdiction should be confined to the question whether there has been
any deliberate disobedience of the order of the court and if the conduct of the party who is
alleged to have committed such disobedience is contumacious. The court exercising contempt
jurisdiction is not entitled to enter into questions which have not been dealt with and decided
in the judgment or order… The court has to consider the direction issued in the judgment or
order and not to consider the question as to what the judgment or order should have
contained. At the cost of repetition, be it stated here that the court exercising contempt
jurisdiction is primarily concerned with the question of contumacious conduct of the party,
which is alleged to have committed deliberate default in complying with the directions in the
judgment or order. If the judgment or order does not contain any specific direction regarding
a matter or if there is any ambiguity in the directions issued therein then it will be better to
direct the parties to approach the court which disposed of the matter for clarification of the
order instead of the court exercising contempt jurisdiction taking upon itself the power to
decide the original proceeding in a manner not dealt with by the court passing the judgment
or order.”
(Emphasis supplied)”
20. The law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court,
mentioned supra in Celir LLP, is squarely applicable to the
present case. Respondent is held to have committed civil
contempt of this Court by willfully and deliberately disobeying
the order dated 21.03.2025 passed by this Court in Writ Petition
No. 9626 of 2019.
21. Interestingly, an argument was sought to be put
forth contending that the direction in the Writ Petition was to
the TGPSC, therefore, there cannot be any contempt against the
State. In this connection, it is to be noted that Writ Petition was
filed against the State of Telangana (represented through
Principal Secretary, Roads & Buildings Department), and
33Telangana State Public Service Commission, which is the
agency of the State. TGPSC being a recruiting agency of the
State Public Services, and acting for and on behalf of the State;
its role is to scrupulously follow the guidelines applicable for
conducting examinations, selection of candidates and
forwarding the select list to the State Government for issuance
of necessary appointment orders. A direction to TGPSC is
invariably a direction to the State. Merely because the direction
specified the TGPSC, that does not absolve the State of its
responsibility to act and implement the order. Therefore, both
the TGPSC as well as the State are duty-bound to take action to
implement the order under contempt.
22. Therefore, the grounds sought to be urged by
TGPSC that State has filled up / appointed the candidates
subsequently and that there are no vacancies, or the grounds
sought to be urged by the State that the direction is for TGPSC
are apparently a blame-game.
23. In that view of the matter, the Contempt Case is
allowed. Accordingly, the State of Telangana as well as TGPSC
(respondents in the Writ Petition) are directed to comply with
the order dated 21.03.2025 in Writ Petition No. 9626 of 2019,if
34necessary, by creating supernumerary posts, within eight weeks
from today.
23.1. It is made clear that, in the event of failure to
comply with the order, within the time stipulated, this Court
shall proceed to take further action against Respondent being
the Secretary of TGPSC at the relevant point of time, under
Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971,
including initiation of proceedings for her personal appearance
and imposition of punishment as provided thereunder.
24. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any,
shall stand closed.
——– —————————–
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
29th June 2026
ksld
