- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and also the learned Solicitor general and Mr G. L. Sanghi, the learned Senior Counsel who were requested to assist this court as amicus curiae. The orders passed on 18/4/1996, 22/4/1996 and 17/5/1996 by a division bench of the Allahabad High court in Writ Petition No. 6072 of 1995 are under challenge in this appeal. Writ Petition No. 6072 of 1995 (Jawahar Ram Gupta v. High court of judicature at Allahabad) was filed before the High court of Allahabad challenging the selection made for the post of a Section Officer (Protocol) of the said High court. Initially, the said writ petition came up for hearing before a division bench presided over by Mr Justice P. K. Mukherji on 3/8/199595 and the court directed that the matter would be listed for further hearing in the next listing. It, however, appears that an application was moved by the petitioner in the said writ petition before a learned Single judge, but the learned Single Judge was of the view that the matter was to be taken up for hearing before a division bench. The record of the said Writ petition No. 6072 of 1995 was placed before court No. 9 on 20/12/1995 and the division bench of that court passed an order that the said Writ Petition no. 6072 of 1995 should be listed on 16/1/1996 along with Writ Petition No. 34710 of 1993. It appears that the Registry of the High court put up a note that Writ Petition No. 6072 of 1995 had been taken up by a division bench presided over by Mr Justice P. K. Mukherji and was heard in part. Hence, the writ petition should be placed before that bench. Since some complaint was received by the chief justice of the High court about the listing of the said writ Petition No. 6072 of 1995, the chief justice of the High court directed appellant 1, A. H. Ansari, who was an Additional Registrar of the High court (Listing) to place the record of Writ Petition No. 6072 of 1995 along with a report. The chief justice thereafter passed an order by assigning the said writ petition before the Divisional bench presided over by Mr Justice p. K. Mukherji. The division bench at court No. 9 which had earlier directed the listing of the said matter on 16/1/1996 along with Writ Petition No. 34170 of 1993, however, felt that all relevant facts had not been placed before the chief justice of the High court who passed the order on 4/1/1996 that Writ Petition No. 6072 of 1995 would be placed before a Division bench presided over by Mr Justice P. K. Mukherji and the chief justice was misled by some of the officials of the Registry.
(3.) It may be stated here that although the division bench presided over by Mr Justice Dhawan was apprised of the fact that the said case was assigned by the chief justice to the division bench presided over by Mr justice Mukherji, the division bench presided over by Mr Justice Dhawan called a number of officers of the Registry and recorded their statements. Subsequently on 13/4/1996, the successor chief justice again assigned Writ petition No. 6072 of 1995 to the division bench presided over by Mr Justice r. S. Dhawan. It appears to us that on consideration of the statementsrecorded by the bench presided over by Mr Justice Dhawan, the said division bench inter alia came to the finding that some of the employees of the Registry had committed contempt of court. Such officers are appellants in this appeal. By an order dated 18/4/1996, the said division bench asked the said contemnors to appear before the court on 22/4/1996 to show cause why the court should not consider appropriate punishment against them. It appears that at this stage, an application was moved by one of the parties to the writ proceeding before the chief justice of the High court. The Chief justice by an order dated 20/4/1996 constituted a full bench and referred the contempt proceeding before the full bench for adjudication as it appeared to the chief justice that the question of jurisdiction of the Chief justice in the matter of assignment of cases was involved in the matter and such question was required to be decided by the full bench.;