Telangana High Court
Kondapally Srinu vs Smt. Dr. Priyanka Ala, Ias on 29 June, 2026
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF
TELANGANA
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
CONTEMPT CASE No. 2118 OF 2025
29.06.2026
Between:
Kondrapally Srinu
..... Petitioner
And
Dr. Priyanka Ala, IAS,
Secretary,
Telangana Public Service Commission
..... 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
2
inability of the justice delivery system to perceive or take
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 aggrieved by the
action of Respondent namely, the Secretary, Telangana State
Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘TGPSC’),
in willfully and deliberately disobeying and violating the final
order dated 21.03.2025 passed by this Court in Writ Petition
No. 19278 of 2019.
2. Petitioner belonging to Scheduled Caste (SC)
community had applied for appointment to the post of School
Assistant (Physical Science) (Telugu Medium) under the 1st
Respondent, pursuant to Notification No. 52 of 2017, dated
3
21.10.2017, issued by the Telangana State Public Service
Commission. He participated in the recruitment process,
qualified in the written examination, secured 58.934 marks,
attended the certificate verification proceedings, and was thus
well within the zone of consideration for appointment. Having
been aggrieved by the action of the 2nd Respondent in
undertaking appointments to the said post without following the
mandatory procedure prescribed under Rule 6-A of the TSPSC
Rules of Procedure, and further aggrieved by the fact that many
selected candidates had not taken up the posts due to their
selection elsewhere, leaving several vacancies unfilled and
thereby prejudicing Petitioner’s right to appointment lower down
in the merit, Petitioner had approached this Court by filing Writ
Petition which came to be allowed by the final order dated
21.03.2025, directing the 2nd respondent to select/appoint
petitioner as per his merit against the unfilled/unclaimed
vacancies, if any, by removing the names of the candidates who
could have relinquished their candidature to the post of School
Assistant (Physical Science) (Telugu Medium) under Notification
No. 52 of 2017, dated 21.10.2017.’ The said order became final
as no Writ Appeal was preferred by the
Respondents/Contemnors against the same. Respondents were
therefore, under a clear, positive, and categorical obligation to
4
comply with the same forthwith and without any delay or
evasion.
2.1. It is stated, Respondents have, however, shown no
respect whatsoever to the orders of this Court; no writ appeal
was filed by the Respondents challenging the said order, nor did
they take any steps to comply with the same in letter and spirit.
Despite the said order having attained finality, Respondent
provided no discretion to Petitioner as to whether to appoint him
or not; instead, they issued a rejection order, thereby orally
informing Petitioner through the directions of this Court that
there are no vacancies, which amounts to a clear violation of the
orders of this Court.
2.2. Respondent TGPSC has been deliberately and
willfully disobeying and undermining the authority of this
Court. The direction issued by this Court was a clear and
positive direction to Respondent to select and issue appointment
orders in favour of the Petitioner as per merit against the
unfilled or unclaimed vacancies, by removing the names of the
candidates who could have relinquished their candidature. In
that event, Respondents were liable to comply with the said
direction without any option or discretion. No discretion was
vested on the Respondents by the order dated 21.03.2025 as to
whether to appoint Petitioner or not. The said action of the
5
Respondents shows volumes about how little regard and respect
they have for the authority of this Court.
2.3. Petitioner further states that the reasoning given by
the Respondent in rejecting his candidature is entirely
unsustainable and contrary to law, as settled by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India in Telangana State Level Police
Recruitment Board v. Narimetla Vamshi reported in (2017)
14 SCC 797. In the said case, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed
and held that an interpretation of the applicable rules in a
manner that leaves a large number of vacancies unfilled would
go against the very ethos of providing public employment to
persons eligible and meritorious, and that such an
interpretation would not be appropriate. The same principle was
affirmed by this Court in the final order dated 21.03.2025.
2.4. Petitioner further states that the backlog and non-
joining vacancies of TRT-2017 were all backlog vacancies
existing as on the date of the order under contempt and the
same were filled by eligible candidates in DSC-2024. It is stated
that the said vacancies being filled in DSC-2024 is itself
contrary to the spirit of the order dated 21.03.2025, and
amounts to a circumvention of this Court’s order. Therefore,
Respondent is in contempt of the order and is liable for
6
punishment under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts
Act, 1971.
3. Respondent filed the counter stating that under
Notification No. 52 of 2017 dated 21.10.2017, as per the indent
received from the School Education Department, the post of
School Assistant (Physical Science) Telugu Medium is a district
post. A total of 71 vacancies were notified in the erstwhile 10
districts of Telangana, including 14 vacancies in Nalgonda
District. As per the applicable rules, District and Local
reservation is applicable to the said posts. Petitioner was picked
up for certificate verification to the post of School Assistant
(Biological Science) in Telugu Medium in 1:3 ratio. However, he
did not come under the Zone of Selection in his respective
district and category due to his low merit. After verification of
certificates, selections were finalized. The respective merit
position of the Petitioner, district and category-wise, is as
follows: Petitioner belonging to SC category in Nalgonda District,
secured 58.934 marks, whereas the last selected candidate’s
marks in Petitioner’s category in Nalgonda District under SC(G)-
L was 60.112. Thus, Petitioner’s marks fall below the cut-off and
he does not come within the zone of selection for appointment.
3.1. Pursuant to the Notification No. 52/2017 dated
21.10.2017, based on the selection procedure prescribed in the
7
notification, vacancies were filled and the list of provisionally
selected candidates for the post of School Assistant (Physical
Science) Telugu Medium was published on 12.02.2019. Out of
the 71 vacancies notified in the erstwhile 10 districts, 70
vacancies were filled with eligible meritorious candidates, and
01 vacancy, namely, BC-C(W)L, was left unfilled in Nalgonda
District, due to the non-availability of an eligible candidate
under BC-C category. Petitioner secured 58.934 marks and the
cut-off mark for SC(G)-L in Nalgonda District is 60.112 marks.
3.2. With respect to the unfilled vacancies, i.e. 06
vacancies, it is stated that the vacancy left unfilled in the above
reserved category, due to the non-availability of an eligible
candidate in the entire ranking list, shall be carried forward to
the next recruitment as per the State and Subordinate Service
Rules. Petitioner does not belong to that specific category, i.e.,
BC-C(W)L, hence, his candidature cannot be considered against
the said unfilled vacancies. Regarding unfilled vacancies, it is
stated, as per reservation rules, the roster points specifically
meant for reserved communities cannot be filled by other
candidates. In the event of non-availability of a suitable person
at the roster-point, the existing rules mandate that the point be
carried forward to the succeeding recruitment year. TGPSC
8
strictly follows the rules of reservation laid down under Rule 22
of the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules.
3.3. TGPSC is a recruiting body and is not authorized to
relax rules at its own discretion. The unfilled vacancies were
surrendered to the indenting department. The School Education
Department, vide letter No. 88/RC-1/2025 dated 30.05.2025,
informed that the backlog and non-joining vacancies of TRT-
2017 were notified in DSC-2024 and the same were filled by
eligible candidates. The same was informed to Petitioner by the
Commission vide Memo No. 259/TRT/Rectt-1/4/2017, dated
06.06.2025. Regarding the unclaimed or non-joining vacancies,
it is stated that after appointment orders are issued, if any
candidate fails to join within the stipulated period of 60 days,
G.O. Ms. No. 81 GA (Ser-A) dated 22.02.1997 and G.O. Ms. No.
544, G.A. (Ser-A) Department, dated 04.12.1998 come into
operation and as per the applicable rules, the fallout vacancies,
if any, due to relinquishment or non-joining of the selected
candidates, are required to be filled as carried forward vacancies
to the next recruitment process and not by operating the
current selection list downward.
3.4. It is stated, the question of removing the names of
candidates who could have relinquished to the post of School
Assistants (Physical Science) Telugu Medium does not arise, as
9
the selections are finalized as per applicable rules, taking into
account merit, eligibility, local/non-local candidature and duly
following the rule of reservation. The candidates shortlisted for
certificate verification to the post of School Assistants (Physical
Science) Telugu Medium did not figure in any similar post under
any other notification so as to relinquish their candidature in
respect of such notifications.
3.5. It is also stated, the order dated 21.03.2025 in
W.P. No. 16560 of 2024 can be taken as a precedent, in as
much as this Court, while dismissing a similar relief sought by a
petitioner therein, observed that in that case, the appointment
orders were already issued to all the selected candidates on
10.06.2024 itself, and therefore G.O. Ms. No. 81, GAD, dated
22.02.1997, comes into operation, and that in the absence of
any relaxation to the said provision of law, the petitioner therein
was not entitled to any relief. It is therefore, stated, there is no
violation of the orders dated 21.03.2025 in implementation.
Respondent has the highest regard towards the orders of this
Court and has no intention whatsoever to disobey the same. If
this Court still feels that the orders dated 21.03.2025 have been
disobeyed, this Respondent tenders an unconditional apology.
10
4. Petitioner filed reply stating that the reasoning
given by the Respondent in rejecting the candidature of
Petitioner is entirely unsustainable and contrary to the law laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Telangana State Level
Police Recruitment Board v. Narimetla Vamshi, and is also
contrary to the spirit and letter of the final order dated
21.03.2025. The claim of the Respondent that it has complied
with the order is untenable and disingenuous, given that the
Petitioner has not been appointed to the post of School
Assistant (Physical Science) (Telugu Medium) as directed by this
Court.
4.1. It is also stated, Respondent’s contention that the
backlog and non-joining vacancies of TRT-2017 were notified in
DSC-2024 dated 29.02.2024, prior to the date of the order and
are filled with eligible candidates, is itself an admission of the
fact that the vacancies existed and were available. These
backlog vacancies being notified and filled under DSC-2024 is
contrary to the direction of this Court in the final order dated
21.03.2025, which specifically directed the 2nd Respondent to
consider Petitioner’s candidature against the unfilled or
unclaimed vacancies. Filling these vacancies in another process,
without first complying with this Court’s order, amounts to a
clear circumvention of this Court’s order.
11
4.2. The contention of Respondent that the unfilled
vacancy of BC-C(W)L in Nalgonda District cannot be considered
for Petitioner’s appointment on the ground that Petitioner does
not belong to that specific category is correct in isolation, but
Respondent has, in the same breath, omitted to address the
non-joining and unclaimed vacancies of selected candidates who
may have been selected in other notifications, which was the
very basis on which this Court had allowed Writ Petition vide
the final order dated 21.03.2025. The order of this Court was
specifically premised on the principle that persons selected for
other posts under other notifications could have relinquished
their candidature for the present post, thereby making
vacancies available for Petitioner.
4.3. Respondent’s defence that TGPSC strictly followed
Rule 6-A and that the vacancies had been filled by meritorious
candidates is contrary to the findings already rendered by this
Court in the final order dated 21.03.2025. It is a settled position
of law that a contempt proceeding is not an occasion to re-
agitate the merits of the final order. The final order of this Court
has merged with the record of the Court and has attained
finality in the absence of any appeal, and the Respondents
cannot be heard to re-open the issues already conclusively
decided therein.
12
4.4. Respondent’s contention that there is no violation of
the orders of this Court is wholly untenable in law and in fact.
The direction issued by this Court was a clear positive direction
to select and appoint the Petitioner against the unfilled or
unclaimed vacancies by removing the names of the candidates
who could have relinquished their candidature. The said
direction was neither conditional nor discretionary; it was
mandatory and required immediate compliance by the
Respondent. The failure of the Respondent to appoint Petitioner,
combined with the issuance of a rejection order, amounts to a
clear, willful and deliberate act of disobedience of this Court’s
order.
4.5. The submission of an unconditional apology at this
stage by Respondent, after willfully disobeying the court’s order
for several months, cannot be accepted as a substitute for
compliance, nor can it be treated as a mitigating factor
sufficient to close the contempt proceedings. The said apology is
neither sincere nor accompanied by actual compliance of the
order of this Court, and it is tendered merely as a strategy to
escape the consequences of the contempt, which this Court
should not countenance.
13
5. Heard Sri Allika Suresh, learned counsel for
petitioner as well as Sri P.S. Rajashekar, learned Standing
Counsel for TGPSC on behalf of respondent.
6. At the outset, it is necessary to briefly refer to the
genesis and background of the lis, so as to appreciate the
nature of the obligation cast upon the Respondent by the order
of this Court. TGPSC issued Notification No. 52 of 2017, dated
21.10.2017, notifying 71 posts of School Assistant (Physical
Science) (Telugu Medium) in the School Education Department
across the erstwhile 10 districts of Telangana, including 14
vacancies in Nalgonda District. Petitioner, belonging to
Scheduled Caste (SC) community, participated in the
recruitment process, secured 58.934 marks, and was called for
certificate verification in 1:3 ratio. However, the 2nd Respondent
proceeded to undertake appointments to the said post without
calling for relinquishments from the selected candidates as per
the mandatory procedure prescribed under Rule 6-A of the
Telangana State Public Service Commission Rules. The said
action of the 2nd Respondent resulted in several vacancies
remaining unfilled and unclaimed, due to the unwillingness of
selected candidates to join the said posts, as those candidates
had been selected for higher or other preferred posts under
14
different notifications. Feeling aggrieved, Petitioner filed this
Writ Petition.
7. The Writ Petition came to be allowed by the final
order of this Court dated 21.03.2025. The learned Judge, after
considering the arguments advanced by both the parties, and
having placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Civil Appeal No. 4735 of 2022 in Telangana State
Level Police Recruitment Board v. Narimetla Vamshi, as
also the earlier orders of this Court and the Division Bench of
this Court, directed the 2nd respondent to select and appoint
Petitioner as per his merit against the unfilled or unclaimed
vacancies, if any, by removing the names of the candidates who
could have relinquished their candidature to the post of School
Assistant (Physical Science) (Telugu Medium) under Notification
No. 52 of 2017, dated 21.10.2017. The said order attained
finality, as no Writ Appeal was preferred by any of the
Respondents.
8. The settled legal position with regard to contempt
proceedings in the context of non-compliance with court orders
is that once a court of competent jurisdiction has issued a clear,
positive and categorical direction to a party, compliance with
that direction is not an option available to that party but is a
solemn obligation. The party against whom the direction is
15
issued cannot refuse to comply with it on the ground that the
direction was incorrectly passed or that it disagrees with the
reasoning of the court. The proper remedy for such a grievance
is to challenge the order before the appropriate forum. So long
as the order subsists and has not been stayed or set aside, it
must be obeyed. Disobedience of a court order strikes at the
very root of the rule of law and the authority of the Court, and
the same cannot be permitted to go unaddressed.
9. Adverting to the contentions of Respondent, this
Court is unable to accept the defence urged on behalf of the
TGPSC. The Respondent’s primary defence is that it has
complied with the order in a technical sense by examining the
issue and communicating to the Petitioner, through Memo No.
259/TRT/Rectt-1/4/2017, dated 06.06.2025, that there are no
unfilled or non-joining vacancies left under petitioner’s category
in the district of Nalgonda, and that the backlog vacancies of
TRT-2017 were notified in DSC-2024 dated 29.02.2024, prior to
the date of the order in W.P. No. 19278 of 2019, and are filled
with eligible candidates. This Court finds the said submission to
be wholly unsatisfactory and amounting to circumvention of the
order of this Court, rather than compliance therewith.
10. The direction of this Court in the order dated
21.03.2025 was to select and appoint Petitioner against the
16
unfilled or unclaimed vacancies by removing the names of the
candidates who could have relinquished their candidature. The
predicate of this direction was the specific factual finding,
recorded by this Court in the said order itself, that several
persons who were also in the zone of consideration for the
present post of School Assistant (Physical Science) Telugu
Medium, were already selected for other posts under other
notifications, and that those persons could have relinquished
their candidature for the present post. It was precisely in this
factual and legal context that the Court issued the direction to
the 2nd Respondent. Respondent’s blanket denial, post-facto, of
the very factual premise on which this Court acted, cannot be
countenanced in contempt proceedings and amounts to a
collateral attack on the final order of this Court, which is
impermissible in law.
11. Furthermore, the Respondent’s defence that the
unfilled vacancy in Nalgonda District pertains to the BC-C(W)L
category to which the Petitioner does not belong, and that
therefore his candidature cannot be considered, does not
answer the direction of this Court. The direction was not
confined to the one unfilled BC.C(W) vacancy in Nalgonda
District. The direction was in broader terms: to select and
appoint the Petitioner against unfilled or unclaimed vacancies
17
by removing the names of the candidates who could have
relinquished their candidature across the notified vacancies.
The Respondent has, with conspicuous silence, failed to address
the question of the non-joining and unclaimed vacancies arising
from the selected candidates having been selected elsewhere.
This silence is itself telling and cannot be construed in favour of
the Respondent.
12. Respondent’s contention that the backlog and non-
joining vacancies of TRT-2017 were notified in DSC-2024 dated
29.02.2024, and have since been filled with eligible candidates,
is a matter that deserves serious concern. It is a matter of
record that the final order in Writ Petition was passed on
21.03.2025. If, as the Respondent claims, the DSC-2024
Notification was issued on 29.02.2024, that is to say, before the
final order of this Court was passed, then the Respondent is
seeking to defeat the direction of this Court by pointing to a
process that had been set in motion even before this Court
could adjudicate upon the Petitioner’s rights. This approach is
inconsistent with the spirit of this Court’s order and cannot be
held to constitute compliance with the direction issued. The fact
that the vacancies were absorbed in another process does not
extinguish the obligation of the Respondent to comply with this
Court’s direction to consider the Petitioner’s candidature. A
18
party cannot take shelter behind the very acts of omission or
commission that were the subject matter of the challenge, in
order to defeat compliance with a court’s order.
13. This Court is also conscious of the principle, as
settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Telangana State
Level Police Recruitment Board v. Narimetla Vamshi that
public employment is an important source of employability for
young people in this country, where the problem of adequacy of
jobs is acute, and that an interpretation of the applicable rules
in a manner that leaves a large number of vacancies unfilled
would go against the very ethos of providing public employment
to persons eligible and meritorious. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
has authoritatively declared that such an interpretation would
not be appropriate. It was precisely relying on this position of
law, as also the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Ashok alias Somanna Gowda v. State of Karnataka
reported in (1992) 1 SCC 28, that this Court allowed the Writ
Petition vide order dated 21.03.2025. Respondent’s attempt to
resist compliance by projecting technical objections relating to
category-specific vacancies and reservation rules is at variance
with the spirit of the authoritative pronouncements of the
Supreme Court and the final order of this Court.
19
14. The plea of Respondent that it has the highest
regard for the orders of this Court and has no intention to
disobey the same, and the tender of an unconditional apology,
cannot be treated as an answer to or a substitute for actual
compliance. An unconditional apology, to be meaningful and to
carry any weight in the eye of law, must be accompanied by
genuine and demonstrable compliance with the order of the
Court. A bald apology, offered strategically to stave off adverse
consequences, without any sincere attempt to comply with the
Court’s order, does not merit acceptance. As the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has consistently held, the dignity and majesty of
the courts are to be maintained not merely by verbal assertions
of respect and deference but by actual compliance with their
orders and directions. In the instant case, the Petitioner
remains un-served by the order of this Court, despite the
passage of several months since the said order was passed on
21.03.2025.
15. The contention of the Respondent that it sought
information from the School Education Department regarding
non-joining vacancies, and that the said department replied vide
letter No. 88/RC-1/2025 dated 30.05.2025, informing that all
non-joining or unfilled vacancies left under TRT-2017 were
notified in DSC-2024 dated 29.02.2024 prior to the date of the
20
order, does not advance the Respondent’s case on the question
of contempt. Even assuming for argument’s sake that the said
vacancies had been absorbed into DSC-2024, the Respondent
was still duty-bound to comply with the direction of this Court
by bringing this fact to the notice of the Court at the earliest
and seeking appropriate directions, rather than unilaterally
treating its obligation to comply with the order as having been
discharged. The Respondent’s decision to treat the matter as
closed and communicate its rejection to the Petitioner, without
any further reference to this Court, is a high-handed act and is
inconsistent with the duty of compliance owed to the Court.
16. Having regard to all the foregoing findings, this
Court is of the firm view that Respondent has committed willful
and deliberate disobedience of the final order dated 21.03.2025
and has thereby committed contempt of this Court, punishable
under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Respondent has shown, through its conduct, that it has no
regard whatsoever for the binding directions of this Court and
has sought to defeat the legitimate rights of the Petitioner, who
had knocked the doors of this Court with a genuine grievance
and succeeded in obtaining a final order in his favour.
21
17. This Court is also placing reliance upon the law
laid down in Celir LLP v. Mr. Sumathi Prasad Bafna 1,
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
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:
1
2024 INSC 978
22” 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;”
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.
23
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
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
24nature, 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
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
25jury, 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
exercised 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
26finds 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
undertaking, 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
27
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
time, 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
28
absence of such specific mandates, the deliberate conduct of parties
aimed at frustrating court proceedings or circumventing its eventual
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
29
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)”
18. The law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court,
mentioned supra in Celir LLP, is squarely applicable to the
present case. In the result, having regard to the entirety of the
facts and circumstances obtaining in the present case, the
material placed on record, the legal position as settled by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgments referred to above, and
the nature and gravity of the disobedience committed by the
Respondent, this Court is of the considered view that the
Contempt Case deserves to be allowed.
19. 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
30filed against the State of Telangana (represented through
Principal Secretary, Roads & Buildings Department), and
Telangana 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. Therefore, 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. Both the
TGPSC as well as the State are duty-bound to take action to
implement the order under contempt.
20. 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.
21. 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. 19278 of 2019,
31if necessary by creating supernumerary post, within eight weeks
from today.
21.1. 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.
22. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if
any shall stand closed.
——– —————————–
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
29th June 2026
ksld
32
