AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
The present C.P. has been filed by applicant alleging wilful defiance of directions of this Tribunal contained in Order/Judgment dated 23.04.2025 passed in the captioned O.A. Vide Order/Judgment dated 23.04.2025, this Tribunal disposed of the captioned O.A. with the following directions:-
“8.1In the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to prepare and publish a wait list of General category candidates for relevant recruitment process selected candidates within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. Opportunity shall be afforded to the wait-listed General category candidates strictly as per their own merits by offering the appointments.
8.2We also make it clear that if the vacancies are carried forward, the persons, who were offered appointments, shall be adjusted against future supernumerary posts. The fact of the matter is that the applicants have been treated to be outsource as on date. In the event the names of both the applicants are found to be in the respective merit in the wait-listed panel in General Category so prepared they shall be offered appointments as per their own merit subject to fulfilling other eligible conditions. The said appointments shall be treated as fresh appointments for all practical purposes. The applicants are not entitled to any back wages or lay a claim of seniority. We also make it clear that this Order has been passed as a one-time measure in the present cases and the same shall not be treated as a precedent. No further opportunity to any other wait listed candidate(s) other than the vacancies which were not filled due to non availability of wait-listed in the General category shall be operative. The above exercise be completed within a period of three months from date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
8.3With the aforesaid observations and directions, both the OAs are disposed of. All pending applications, if any also disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
8.4Registry is directed to place a copy of this order in the connected OA also.”
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, by referring to the contents of compliance affidavit filed by the respondents on 11.07.2026, submitted that the directions of this Tribunal have been complied with. Paras 5 to 8 of the compliance affidavit read as under:-
“5.That the name of applicant herein, namely Mr. Ravindra Tiwari is not in the waiting list for the post of LDC issued by the institute on 19.12.2025 as only one post remained vacant under UR category and name of only one (01) candidate viz: Mr. Satish Bhatt S/o Mr. Devraj Bhatt was waitlisted who was applicant of OA No 1966 of 2024.
6.That only one UR post of LDC was vacant till 31.01.2024 and 2nd post in UR category became vacant only in 2024 consequent upon technical relieving of Shri Nitin Kumar Sharma on 31.01.2024. The seniority list and relieving Order Shri Nitin Kumar Sharma is hereby marked and annexed as Annexure-2 to this affidavit.
7.That since the 2nd vacancy in UR category arose only on 31.01.2024, it does not pertain to the non-joining vacancies of the 2019 recruitment cycle or caused by resignation within one year of appointment as per DoPT OM dated 13.06.2000. Accordingly, the same can not be offered to the Applicant, Mr Ravindra Tiwari.
8.That thereafter, vide Notice No. AIIMS/RIS/2025/238 Dated 29.12.2025, the said waitlisted candidate, Mr. Satish Bhatt was called for the skill test (typing test), which was held on 01.01.2026 at 11.00 A.M. in the Recruitment Cell, AIIMS, Rishikesh. The notice also contained relevant instructions for the candidate.”
In response to the compliance affidavit filed by the respondents, the applicant filed a rejoinder on 17.09.2026 and submitted that the stand taken by the respondents in their compliance affidavit is factually incorrect and is not borne out from the record. It is submitted that pursuant to Advertisement No. 2017/141, 32 posts of Lower Division Clerk (LDC)/Junior Administrative Assistant were advertised, including 18 posts under the UR category. The result of the Computer Based Examination was published on 04.02.2019. Thereafter, the first waitlist was published on 11.11.2019 for the reserved categories. The applicant subsequently came to know, while reviewing the seniority position on 05.11.2022, that vacancies under the UR category continued to remain unfilled.
Learned counsel further submits that the respondents’ assertion that only one UR post was vacant till 31.01.2024 is contradicted by their own subsequent action. On 17.11.2023, AIIMS Rishikesh advertised five posts of LDC/Junior Administrative Assistant through the Common Recruitment Examination (CRE-AIIMS), including one UR and one EWS post. The CRE result dated 30.12.2023 thereafter declared candidates against the said posts, and offers of appointment were issued on 12.02.2024. According to the applicant, these documents demonstrate that the vacancies existed prior to 31.01.2024 and that the respondents' explanation regarding the availability of the posts is not consistent with the record.
It is further submitted that the applicant had already represented to the respondents on 27.12.2023 requesting that the LDC post be withheld, particularly as the matter concerning the applicant's claim was pending before this Hon'ble Tribunal. Despite the pendency of the proceedings, the respondents proceeded with the recruitment process.
Learned counsel also submits that the present position further supports the applicant's grievance, as the RTI information dated 13.03.2026 indicates that eight posts of LDC under the UR category are presently vacant at AIIMS, Rishikesh. Thus, the respondents cannot contend that no vacancy was available for consideration of the applicant's claim.
It is submitted that the respondents have not satisfactorily explained why the applicant's claim against the available UR vacancy was not considered in terms of the directions issued by this Hon'ble Tribunal. The applicant has consistently pursued his claim by way of representations and thereafter through O.A. No. 3132/2024, and the respondents' compliance affidavit does not satisfactorily answer the material factual discrepancies pointed out by the applicant.
Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the respondents’ compliance cannot be treated as satisfactory merely on the basis of the assertions made in the affidavit, particularly when the contemporaneous recruitment records and subsequent vacancy position indicate otherwise. The applicant accordingly prays that the respondents be directed to comply with the order of this Hon'ble Tribunal in its true letter and spirit and to consider the applicant's claim against the available vacancy in accordance with law.
We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the compliance affidavit filed by the respondents as well as the rejoinder filed by the applicant.
The grievance of the applicant, as raised in the rejoinder, essentially pertains to the factual correctness of the stand taken by the respondents with regard to the availability of vacancies under the UR category and the applicant’s entitlement to be considered against such vacancies. The applicant has sought to rely upon various documents and subsequent developments to contend that the respondents have not correctly implemented the directions of this Tribunal contained in the Order/Judgment dated 23.04.2025.
At the outset, it is necessary to bear in mind the limited scope of the present proceedings. The jurisdiction in contempt proceedings is directed towards examining compliance with the operative directions contained in the Judgment/Order and whether there has been wilful and deliberate disobedience thereof. The present proceedings cannot be converted into a forum for re-hearing the original O.A. or for adjudicating afresh the merits of the claim which stood concluded with the disposal of the O.A.
It is well settled that contempt proceedings are essentially between the alleged contemnor and the Court, as the primary concern of the Court is to ascertain whether its order or direction has been wilfully and deliberately disobeyed. The proceedings are not intended to provide an independent remedy for enforcement of the substantive rights of the applicant, nor can they be converted into a fresh adjudication of the dispute already decided by the Court. The Court, while exercising contempt jurisdiction, is therefore required to confine its consideration to the question whether there has been wilful disobedience of the specific directions contained in the order under consideration. Once the Court is satisfied that its directions have been substantially complied with, or that the alleged non-compliance does not amount to wilful disobedience, the contempt proceedings ordinarily do not survive merely because the applicant may still have a grievance on some other aspect of the matter.
It is well settled that while exercising contempt jurisdiction, the Court has to confine itself to the four corners of the order alleged to have been violated and cannot travel beyond the directions expressly contained therein. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1816 of 2014 (Special Leave Petition (C) No. 23272 of 2012) decided on 04.02.2014 in the matter of Sudhir Vasudeva, Chairman and Managing Director, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited & Ors.Vs. M. George Ravishekaran & Ors., reported in (2014) 3 SCC 373, has held that the contempt Court cannot enter into questions which have not been dealt with or decided in the judgment alleged to have been violated, cannot reopen decided issues and cannot issue any supplemental direction beyond what has already been expressed in the original order. For facility of reference, the relevant para reads as under:-
“15.The power vested in the High Courts as well as this Court to punish for contempt is a special and rare power available both under the Constitution as well as the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is a drastic power which, if misdirected, could even curb the liberty of the individual charged with commission of contempt. The very nature of the power casts a sacred duty in the Courts to exercise the same with the greatest of care and caution. This is also necessary as, more often than not, adjudication of a contempt plea involves a process of self determination of the sweep, meaning and effect of the order in respect of which disobedience is alleged. Courts must not, therefore, travel beyond the four corners of the order which is alleged to have been flouted or enter into questions that have not been dealt with or decided in the judgment or the order violation of which is alleged. Only such directions which are explicit in a judgment or order or are plainly self evident ought to be taken into account for the purpose of consideration as to whether there has been any disobedience or willful violation of the same. Decided issues cannot be reopened; nor the plea of equities can be considered. Courts must also ensure that while considering a contempt plea the power available to the Court in other corrective jurisdictions like review or appeal is not trenched upon. No order or direction supplemental to what has been already expressed should be issued by the Court while exercising jurisdiction in the domain of the contempt law; such an exercise is more appropriate in other jurisdictions vested in the Court, as noticed above. The above principles would appear to be the cumulative outcome of the precedents cited at the bar, namely, Jhareswar Prasad Paul and Another vs. Tarak Nath Ganguly and Others[3], V.M.Manohar Prasad vs. N. Ratnam Raju and Another[4], Bihar Finance Service House Construction Cooperative Society Ltd. vs. Gautam Goswami and Others[5] and Union of India and Others vs. Subedar Devassy PV[6].”
The said principle has also been reiterated in Er. K. Arumugam Vs. V. Balakrishnan & Ors., in Civil Appeal No. 1510 of 2019, and Dr. U.N. Bora, Ex. Chief Executive Officer & Ors. Vs. Assam Roller Flour Mills Association & Anr., (2022) 1 SCC 101. More recently, in Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs & Ors. Vs. P. Ravikumar & Ors., the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated that the contempt Court is required to examine whether the direction contained in the original judgment has been complied with in its true sense and cannot embark upon an enquiry as to what the judgment ought to have contained. Thus, where the grievance raised by the applicant requires determination of disputed questions concerning the vacancy position, the applicability of the relevant instructions and the applicant's substantive entitlement against particular vacancies, such issues cannot be adjudicated afresh in the present contempt proceedings.
In the present case, the Order/Judgment dated 23.04.2025 required the respondents to undertake a specific exercise, namely, to prepare and publish a wait list of General category candidates in terms of the directions contained therein and to offer appointment to candidates strictly in accordance with their merit, subject to the conditions stipulated in the said order. The order also specifically recorded that the benefit was being extended as a one-time measure and that no further opportunity to any other wait-listed candidate(s), other than in respect of vacancies which were not filled due to non-availability of wait-listed candidates in the General category, would be operative.
The respondents have placed on record that, pursuant to the aforesaid directions, a wait list was prepared and issued on 19.12.2025. They have also explained the vacancy position and have stated that the applicant’s name did not figure in the wait list as, according to their assessment, only one vacancy was available for the purpose of the exercise contemplated by the judgment and the said vacancy was utilized for the candidate who stood eligible in terms of the wait-list.
The applicant, on the other hand, disputes the factual basis of the aforesaid exercise. The applicant relies upon the recruitment initiated in 2023, the result and appointment offers issued thereafter, the seniority position, the representation dated 27.12.2023 and the RTI information dated 13.03.2026 to contend that vacancies were available and that the respondents have incorrectly determined the vacancy position.
We find that the aforesaid contentions raised by the applicant would require a fresh examination of the recruitment records, the chronology and nature of vacancies, the effect of the subsequent recruitment process, the applicability of the DoPT O.M. dated 13.06.2000 and, ultimately, the applicant’s entitlement to be considered against a particular vacancy. These are matters which travel beyond the limited question as to whether the respondents have complied with the operative directions contained in the Order/Judgment dated 23.04.2025.
More importantly, the applicant’s contention that the respondents ought to have considered him against the vacancies referred to in the rejoinder would necessarily require this Tribunal to determine afresh whether those vacancies fell within the category of vacancies contemplated by paragraph 8.2 of the judgment and whether the applicant was entitled to appointment against any such vacancy. Such an exercise would, in substance, amount to re-adjudication of the applicant's claim and modification or expansion of the directions already issued.
It is settled that contempt jurisdiction cannot be utilized to enlarge, modify or add to the substantive directions contained in the original judgment. If a party considers that the order has not been correctly implemented or that subsequent action of the respondents gives rise to an independent cause of action, the appropriate remedy would lie in accordance with law. The contempt proceedings cannot be allowed to become a substitute for such substantive proceedings.
In the present case, we also find that there is no material before us from which wilful or deliberate disobedience of the specific directions contained in the Order/Judgment dated 23.04.2025 can be inferred. The respondents have undertaken the exercise directed by this Tribunal and have placed their explanation on record. The applicant may dispute the correctness of the conclusions reached by the respondents, but mere disagreement with the manner in which the directions have been implemented, particularly where such disagreement involves determination of disputed facts and entitlement, cannot by itself constitute wilful disobedience warranting continuation of the present contempt proceedings.
We make it clear that we have not examined or adjudicated upon the correctness of the applicant’s claim regarding the alleged vacancies, the recruitment undertaken in 2023, the effect of the subsequent vacancies or the RTI information relied upon by the applicant. We have also not expressed any opinion on the applicant’s entitlement to appointment against any presently available vacancy. Those questions, if otherwise maintainable, may be agitated by the applicant before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. The applicant cannot, however, be permitted to argue the matter afresh in the present C.P. or seek enlargement of the relief granted in the original O.A. through contempt proceedings.
In view of the compliance affidavit placed on record and the explanation furnished by the respondents, coupled with the nature of the objections raised by the applicant which require adjudication beyond the scope of contempt jurisdiction, we are of the considered view that no further proceedings in the present C.P. are warranted.
We, therefore, find that no further proceedings in the present C.P. are warranted. The petitioners/applicants shall be at liberty to approach appropriate legal forum by way of appropriate proceedings for revival of the C.P., if occasion arises. It is, however, made clear that no opinion is being expressed on the merits of the rival claims.
The present C.P. is closed and accordingly, the notices are discharged.