G. P. Mathur, J. - (1.) THIS contempt petition has been filed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for punishing the respondents for willfully circumventing the direction of the Full Bench decision dated 30.6.1998. The respondents arrayed in the petition are - -(1) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dev Priya Mohapatra, Chief Justice, Allahabad High Court and (2) Sri S. S. Kulshrestha, Registrar High Court.
(2.) THE petitioner Uma Kant Sharma filed Writ Petition No. 35384 of 1995 arraying State of U. P. through Appointment Secretary. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad through Registrar and 18 other private persons as respondents. The prayer made in the writ petition was that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents to fill up all the existing vacancies of the quota of direct recruits by appointing the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Service Rules 1975, declaring the amendment in the Rules 8, 22 and 26 of the Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975 as ultra vires, for a writ of certiorari for quashing the resolution of the Full Court dated 18.11.1995 in so far as it related to the appointment of direct recruits and promotion of persons belonging to the U. P. Nyayik Sewa to the Higher Judicial Service and for some other reliefs. This writ petition and some other similar petitions were heard by a Full Bench of three Judges. There was a difference of opinion between the members of the Full Bench and the directions issued by the majority of the Judges, while disposing of the writ petitions on 30 -6.1998. are being reproduced below : "(i) The conversion of 13 posts of direct recruits, as available for promotion from Nyayik Sewa, is declared illegal and the recommendation of the Selection Committee dated 2,11.1995 and the resolution of the Full Court dated 18.11.1995 in question in this regard are quashed. (ii) The appointees (respondent Nos. 3 to 15) will be deemed to be appointed on ad hoc basis only and not on substantive basis and that too till the final decision on this point to be taken by the Full Court. (iii) The Full Court is requested to consider the question of increase in the number of vacancies from '6' to '19' which was admittedly available as per report of the Selection Committee itself. (iv) Hon'ble the Chief Justice is requested to take necessary steps expeditiously for formation of a Selection Committee, so that appropriate number of candidates be interviewed for the 13 remaining posts for direct recruitment to the H.J.S. (v) The petition for intervention of Vinod Kumar Verma (filed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35384 of 1995) is rejected." A Full Court meeting was convened on 11.7.1998 and the resolutions passed therein have been filed along with a supplementary affidavit. The relevant part of the resolution which has a bearing on the controversy raised, is being reproduced below : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... Justice A. K. Banerji and Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. K. Phaujdar dated 9.7.1998regarding promotion of 13 officers. who were declared to be holding the posts on ad hoc basis in the judgment dated 30th June, 1998 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35384 of 1995 and 10 other writ petitions. ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]... A perusal of the agenda taken up for consideration by the Full Court would show that the directions issued in the judgment and order dated 30.6.1998 in Writ Petition No. 35384 of 1995, Uma Kant Sharma v. State of U. P. and others, were also taken up for consideration. The Full Court passed a resolution that 13 left over vacancies of direct recruits will not be filled up from out of the applicants in the previous recruitment process of 1990. It was further resolved that in view of the decision in respect of sub -para (iii) of the operative portion of the aforementioned Judgment, the direction contained in sub -para (iv) of the operative portion needs no consideration.
(3.) SRI R. K. Khanna, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that respondent No. 1 willfully disobeyed the specific direction of the Full Bench for constituting a Selection Committee and respondent No. 2 also willfully disobeyed the direction to consider the matter afresh and thereby they have committed contempt of court. In my opinion, the contention raised is wholly devoid of merit. The direction issued by the majority in the Full Bench judgment was a limited one. The Full Court was requested to consider the question of increase in the number of vacancies from 6 to 19 and Hon'ble the Chief Justice was requested to take necessary steps for formation of a Selection Committee so that appropriate number of candidates be Interviewed for the 13 remaining posts for direct recruitment to the H.J.S. The Full Court considered the Judgment but resolved that 13 left over vacancies of direct recruits will not be filled up from out of the applicants in the previous recruitment process of 1990. In view of this resolution, the question of Hon'ble the Chief Justice taking necessary steps for formation of a Selection Committee for holding interview for the 13 posts did not arise at all. In fact the Full Court itself passed a resolution that the direction contained in sub -para (iv) of the judgment did not require any consideration in view of the resolution passed in respect of sub -para (iii) of the judgment.;