P.S. Mishra, C.J.
1. Petitioner moved this Court when the third respondent was allegedly selected although he did not fulfil the requisite qualifications for the post of a lecturer in Sri Venkateswara University. A learned single Judge of this Court took notice of the comparative merit and qualifications of the petitioner and the third respondent herein and held against the appointment of the third respondent. The University preferred appeal. This Court while disposing of the Writ Appeal No. 554 of 1996 has recorded as follows :
'The learned single Judge has taken notice of the fact that person who possessed all requisite qualifications and was placed in the I Class in the qualifying M.A. examination along with M. Phil., has been discriminated in the matter of appointment to the post of Lecturer in the appellant-University when the University has chosen to appoint a person who had obtained less than qualifying marks (less than 54%) in M.A. examination only on the basis of the oral interview in which, allegedly, assessment based on a total of 50 marks went in favour of the candidate selected for the post. Courts have repeatedly pointed out that viva voce tests or interviews are not meant for determining the merit of a person for a post, but to see that he possessed the temperament for the post which is going to be offered to him and such assessment should not be made on the basis of a high percentage of variables such as 50 marks out of which 30 marks were allegedly allotted to the 3rd respondent in the writ petition who was not qualified on the date of selection and only 17 marks were allotted to the petitioner-respondent.
There is no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.'
2. According to the petitioner, he remained waiting and anticipating that the vacancy would be advertised afresh and applications from eligible candidates would be invited for the post. He has, however, alleged.
'To my utter surprise, I learnt that the 2nd respondent herein in his proceedings No. E.11(2)96(Temp. Appointment) dated 6-12-96 once again appointed the 3rd respondent as temporary Lecturer in the Department of Philosophy for a period of one year in the scale of Rs. 2200-75-2800-100-4000 besides Dearness Allowance etc., invoking the power under Section 49 of Chapter-VIII of A.P. University Act, 1991 as amended. In the reference the resolution on the Executive Council dated 3-12-1996 and the order of the Vice-Chancellor dated 6-12-1996 are referred.'
Petitioner has alleged that the action of the respondents in reappointing the third respondent, whose appointment has been set aside by the Court, tantamounts to contempt of Court. According to the petitioner, respondents 1 and 2 innovated the method to flout the order of the Court and to continue the third respondent in service though his appointment has been set aside by the Court and without conducting any selection and without considering any other eligible candidate, including the petitioner, issued the order of reappointment in favour of third respondent. Respondents have since responded to the notice. First respondent - acting Vice Chancellor of the University has attempted to justify the action by stating that in obedience of the judgment of the Court, the Executive Council of the University relieved the third respondent from the duties, vide its resolution dated 5-8-1996. Third respondent, it is said, was actually relieved on 13-9-1996 and thus according to the first respondent, the judgment of the Court has been implemented in letter and spirit. He has further stated as follows :
'3rd respondent has specialisation in Western Philosophy. By 13-9-1996 he was the only teacher in Philosophy department who was teaching Western Philosophy to M.A. students. There was no lecturer or Reader in the said department to teach Western Philosophy as none of them has specialisation in the same. Filling up lectuerer's post on a regular basis in the University involves a lengthy process. As per Section 43 of A.P. Universities Act, 1991, the Board of Studies of the department must prepare a panel of outside experts every year and the said panel must be approved by the Board of Management (now designated as Executive Council) of the University. As per Section 43 of the said Act, a Selection Committee must be constituted with three outside experts from the said approved panel in addition to Head of the department and Chairman, Board of Studies. Notification must be issued calling for applications. On the recommendations of the Selection Committee after conducting interviews, the Executive Council of the University has to make appointments following the rule of reservation. All this process consumes lot of time. Subsequent to relieveing 3rd respondent from Lecturer's post, the University could not issue notification calling for applications to fill up the said vacancy in view of the ban on recruitment imposed by Government of Andhra Pradesh in G.O.Ms. No. 275 dated 14-12-1995 and clarification letter No. 102/UE. I-2/96-8 dated 1-10-1996. Though the University in letter No. E.II(2)/VC-SC-ST/96 dated 9-1-1997 requested State Government to lift the ban and permit the University to fill up the vacancies, there was no response from the State Government.
After the 3rd respondent was releived, the Head of Philosophy Department represented to the University administration that there was no teacher to teach Western Philosophy to M.A. Philosophy students and that services of a person to teach Western Philosophy to M.A. students are urgently required. M.A. (Philosophy) students also represented that they were suffering for want of a teacher to teach Western Philosophy. Under these circumstances, this matter was placed before the Executive Council (as constituted under Section 18 of A.P. Universities Act, 1991), on 3-12-1996. The members of the Executive Council discussed and pondered over about the ways to see that the students should not suffer for want of teacher. By then, it was in the midst of academic year. 3rd respondent taught the subject of Western Philosophy to the students to some extent. By then, 3rd respondent having secured the required marks in M.A. (by improvement) and also had M.Phil and Ph.D. in Philosophy., was fully eligible for appointment for the post of lecturer in Philosophy.
Under these circumstances, all the members of the Executive Council opined that the only way to see that students do not suffer loss, is to appoint temporarily and on ad hoc basis 3rd respondent as lecturer for one year. While coming to the said opinion, the members of the Executive Council referred to Section 10 of Ch.X of Laws of University (which has statutory force) which enables the University to make short term appointments in special cases. The members of the Executive Council also referred to the proviso to Section 49 of the A.P. Universities Act, 1991. Having thus opined, all the members of the Executive Council unanimously resolved on 3-12-1996 to appoint 3rd respondent temporarily for one year as Lecturer in Philosophy department. Following the said resolution orders were issued on 6-12-1996 by the Registrar (2nd respondent) as Secretary of the Executive Council.'
3. Second respondent in his affidavit, inter alia, has stated as follows :
'Filling up lecturers' posts on regular basis in the University is a lengthy process. As per Section 43 of A.P. Universities Act, 1991, the Board of Studies of the department must prepare a panel of outside experts every year and the said panel must be approved by the Board of Management of the University. As per Section 43 of the Act, a Selection Committee must be constituted with three outside experts from the said approved panel and with others. Notification must be issued calling for applications. On the recommendations of the Selection Committee after conducting interviews, the Executive Council of the University has to make appointments following the rule of reservation. All this process consumes lot of time.
Subsequent to relieving 3rd respondent from lecturer's post on 13-9-1996, the University could not issue notification calling for applications to fill up the said vacancy in view of the ban imposed on recruitment in G.O.Ms. No. 275, Finance and Planning (Finance Wing - Surplus Manpower Cell) department, Government of Andhra Pradesh dated 14-12-1995 and clarification letter No. 102/UE.I-2/96-8 dated 1-10-1996. Though the University in letter No. E.II(2)/BC-SC-ST/96 dated 9-1-1997 requested State Government to relax the ban and permit the University to fill up the vacancies, there was no reply from the State Government.
The student community cannot be made to suffer for want of teachers. As mentioned above, the process of filling up teachers' posts in the University, consumes lot of time. There may be other contingent circumstances like ban (as mentioned above) etc., also disabling the University from taking urgent steps to fill up the teaching posts. Hence, to meet the dire need or academic necessity, a provision was made in Section 59 of A.P. Universities Act enabling the Executive Council (previously Board of Management) to make temporary appointments for the posts of teachers in the University for a period not exceeding one year.
The students of Philosophy faculty also represented that, for want, of lecturer, they were put to loss. Under these circumstances, the Executive Council of the University by resolution dated 3-12-1996 resolved to appoint 3rd respondent temporarily for a period of one year as lecturer in Philosophy department. Accordingly, orders were issued by me on 6-12-1996. As per Section 15(2) of A.P. Universities Act, as Registrar, I am the Secretary of the Executive Council. Passing of resolution dated 3-12-1996 by Executive Council, appointing 3rd respondent temporarily for one year does not amount to disobedience, muchless, wilful disobdience of the judgment in W.A. No. 554 of 1996 of this Honourable Court. Further, issuance of orders dated 6-12-1996 by me as Registrar and Secretary of the Executive Council in pursuance of the resolution of the Executive Council dated 3-12-1996 does not amount to disobedience or wilful disobedience of the judgment of W.A. No. 554 of 1996 on my part. In passing the resolution dated 3-12-1996 by the Executive Council I had no role. I never intended to disobey the judgment of this Honourable Court in the writ appeal.'
4. The third respondent has filed an affidavit stating that he too, besides the University, had filed appeal against the order of the Court in writ petition, but his appeal was dismissed for default and,
'His counsel Sri B. Tarakam informs me that he would take steps to get the writ appeal restored to file. I have become a victim of the circumstances. I have lost my permanent job at Bangalore and also my post in Sri Venkateswara University after putting in service of 4 years and two months. I reliably understand that Sri Venkateswara University had appointed me temporarily taking into consideration my merit, efficiency and the qualification of Ph.D. which I acquired in the year 1993. I further understand that the University is under ban for making recruitment on regular basis due to the orders of the State Government. My appointment on temporary basis is based upon the academic necessity in the Department of Philosophy in S.V.University.'
5. One can easily thus gather from the above that there has been only a pretence of compliance of the directions of this Court by the respondents and when the vacancy was in existence, a decision was taken to fill in the same by extending one year's temporary appointment to the third respondent, who, it appears, has improved his M.A. research, but nonetheless they are yet not on par in educational qualification with the petitioner. This temporary appointment to the third respondent was given without there being any application by him, without any advertisement or inviting applications by any other method and even the semblance of interview which originally has resulted to eliminate the petitioner and to select the third respondent, the appointment of which this Court found invalid. Thus a clandestine shakehand and a back-door appointment is extended to third respondent. Sri. T. S. Harnath, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 has urged before us that in the circumstances - (1) students were demanding a teacher in Western Philosophy; (2) the State Government has put a ban on the recruitment; and (3) the academic session was going on and the Executive Council of the University thought it appropriate to send for the third respondent and give to him the temporary appointment. The order of the Court according to him, was complied with and the temporary appointment extended to third respondent is in no way disobedience to the order of the Court. We are not persuaded, however, to accept the above for the simple reason that the Court's order indicated the procedure of selection and found fault with the appointment of third respondent for more than one reasons and if there is one command which all concerned must obey is the command of Constitution of India in Art. 16(1) read with Art. 14 thereof that in appointments to public offices and posts equal opportunity must be extended to all similarly situated persons. It is not correct to say that no one other than the third respondent was available because it was never the case of the respondents that the petitioner did not possess the qualification for the post and if no one else was available, atleast the petitioner, besides the third respondent, was available for selection. There has been gross violation of the rights of the petitioner and other similarly situated candidates, when the third respondent was originally selected for the post and a grosser violation is committed in accommodating him once again in the same post by ignoring altogether the equality of opportunity rule as enshrined in Articles 16 and 14 of the Constitution of Inida. It seems to us thus that respondents have committed a fraud upon the Court by showing compliance of the judgment, but without ever intending to comply with the direction of the Court and by bringing back the third respondent in the same post from which the court wanted to remove by a method unkown to law. It is not disobedience as such which the Courts have held to be contemptuous and objectionable it is wilful disobedience and the courts have emphasised that contempt power is exercised more for the wilful act than for mere disobedience. The instant case, in our view, is one in which the rule as above is fully attracted and respondents are guilty of wilful disobedience of the order of the Court.
6. None of the respondents have tendered unqualified apology. After, however, notice in contempt proceedings, it is said, third respondent has again been disengaged from the work. In some other situations and circumstances, we would have taken disengagement of third respondents as an attempt by the respondents to purge themselves of contempt. Since, however, they have made all efforts to justify their contempt and have not tendered unqualified apology, we cannot hold that they have purged themselves of the contempt of the Court. Courts in the country and particularly this court are flooded with the cases of various acts and omissions of the Universities and it is almost becoming a regular feature that laws are thrown to the winds matters not only concerning appointment of teachers etc., but even academic and standard of teaching, conducting of examinations etc. This University has already distinguished itself of having in its fold a teacher who was appointed as Convenor for the Entrance Test for the year 1996 by the Vice Chancellor of the University, who allegedly leaked the question papers. The University has already thus earned the reputation of one which excels in other things than in academic activities. It is time that those who are concerned with the administration of University take notice of the deterioration and if not improved, do not allow the affairs of the University to deteriorate further. The instant case, in our view, is one which shows that the University is not ready to learn from the past errors. The Vice Chancellor and the Registrar of the University in particular are expected to know that no command, including that of the Executive Council, could undo the directions of the Court. In the way things moved, no other view is possible except to hold that the move of the time was to continue the third respondent whether by fair means or by foul means. Still, keeping in our view the regard the Courts always have for the persons who hold distinctions in academic life and are involved in the affairs of the academics, we do not intend to impose any imprisonment as the punishment for the wiflful disobedience of the order of the Court. The third respondent has chosen a convenient affidavit before us saying that he does not know why he was again called to join, but nonetheless has admitted that he never was an applicant for the temporary appointment. This lends support to our view that there has been something beneath the move of implementing the order of the Court on one hand and on the other hand continuing the third respondent as a teacher in the University in the post in which his appointment was held to be illegal. Taking all these in view, we are inclined to impose a fine of Rs. 500/- each upon first and second respondents to be deposited in Court, failing which they shall be taken in custody and put in civil prison for a period of one week. A severe reprimand be maintained in the records in respect of the conduct of the third respondent.
7. Order accordingly.