Summary
In litigation over cancellation of Assistant Engineer recruitment, the Court dismissed contempt petitions concerning re-engagement without arrears and a fresh termination order. The earlier directions did not expressly award continuity or back wages. Individual hearings were unnecessary if tainted and untainted candidates could not be separated, but the correctness of the employer’s finding and other challenges to cancellation were left for the High Court.
Issues
- Whether re-engagement without continuity or arrears wilfully disobeyed the earlier orders.
- Whether fresh cancellation of recruitment without individual hearings constituted contempt.
- Whether the direct writ petition was maintainable and where the remaining merits should be decided.
Provisions considered
- Articles 32 and 226, Constitution of IndiaDistinguished maintainability from discretionary entertainment of a direct constitutional challenge; entertained the overlapping issues but relegated the remaining merits to the High Court. (¶¶ 56, 70, 71, 72)
Held
- The prior orders required permission to work on the posts and payment of salary as it accrued; they did not expressly direct continuity or back wages. The employer’s interpretation was at least a possible one, excluding established wilful disobedience. Contempt jurisdiction cannot add relief omitted from the original orders. (¶¶ 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64)
- The requirement of a prior hearing depended on whether tainted and untainted candidates could be separated. Where the employer concluded after inquiry that separation was impossible, cancellation of the entire process without individual notices did not establish contempt. (¶¶ 65, 66, 67, 68, 69)
- The Court did not determine whether the employer’s conclusion that segregation was impossible was correct, or finally uphold the cancellation on all grounds. Those issues remained for the High Court; if impossibility was upheld, the ruling dispensing with individual hearings would bind it. (¶¶ 66, 70, 71)
- Availability of Article 226 relief did not make the Article 32 petition inherently non-maintainable. Its entertainment was justified by the overlapping contempt proceedings and the need for this Court to explain its own earlier orders. (¶ 56)
- The connected challenges should be heard together expeditiously by the High Court, with all contentions except those decided here left open. (¶¶ 70, 71, 72)
Result
Contempt petitions dismissed and show-cause notices discharged. Transfer petition rejected; direct writ petition disposed of with liberty to seek Article 226 relief and a request for analogous, expeditious hearing of overlapping challenges. No costs.