S.Saghir Ahmed and; R.P. Sethi, JJ.
1. Leave granted.
2. The respondent was an employee of A. P. State Cooperative Rice Federation which was wound up and he ceased to be an employee of that Federation. He filed a writ petition in the High Court seeking reliefs, inter alia, that his representation for absorption in alternative government service may be directed to be considered by the State Government. The writ petition was allowed and the direction was issued to the State Government to consider and dispose of the representation. Pursuant to that direction, the State Government considered the representation and rejected the claim of the respondent for absorption in government service. The respondent, instead of challenging the order by which his representation was rejected in a fresh writ petition, filed a contempt petition in which he relied upon a judgment of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 22230 of 1997 and batch decided on 15-10-1997, and the High Court too, relying upon that decision, observed in the impugned judgment as under:
"The stand taken in the impugned order dated 15-4-1998 which has been reiterated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents is that in view of Ordinance 4 of 1997 which was subsequently replaced by Act 14 of 1997 and the consequential orders cancelling GOMs No. 329, Agriculture and Cooperation (Coop. I) Department dated 22-5-1993, the petitioner is not entitled to absorption in any government departments/organisations as sought for by him. I am afraid, it is not open to the respondents to take that stand in view of the order dated 5-12-1997 passed in the earlier Contempt Case No. 1357 of 1997 where the said stand of the respondents was specifically considered and rejected by this Court and the 2nd respondent was directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for absorption. That apart, S.4 of Ordinance 4 of 1997 specifically provides that: 'Nothing in this Ordinance shall disentitle any such employee to the benefits of any scheme of rehabilitation under the relevant orders issued by the Government from time to time.' Similarly, the order of status quo passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLPs (C) No. 1222-23 of 1998 does not in any way come in the way of absorption of the petitioner herein pursuant to the directions granted by this Court in WP No. 10208 of 1993 as well as in CC No. 1357 of 1997. Admittedly, as many as 40 coemployees of the petitioner were already absorbed in other organisations and departments and one Satyanarayana who was a junior to the petitioner is also being continued in service by implementing the orders passed by the authority under the Shops and Establishments Act. Under these circumstances, I do not see why the petitioner herein should be denied the same consideration.
For the aforesaid reasons this contempt case is disposed of directing the respondent to absorb the petitioner in any suitable post in any government department or public undertaking within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
3. The above will show that the High Court has directed the State Government to absorb the respondent against a suitable post either in a government department or in any public sector undertaking. This order, in our opinion, is wholly without jurisdiction and could not have been made in proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act or under Art.215 of the Constitution.
4. The High Court in the writ petition had issued a direction for the consideration of the respondent's representation by the State Government. This direction was carried out by the State Government which had considered and thereafter rejected the representation on merits. Instead of challenging that order in a fresh writ petition under Art.226, the respondent took recourse to contempt proceedings which did not lie as the order had already been complied with by the State Government which had considered the representation and rejected it on merits.
5. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 10-8-1998 is set aside and the contempt petition filed by the respondent is dismissed. We, however, make it clear that it will be open to the respondent to challenge the order by which his representation was dismissed on merits, in such proceedings as he may be advised. There shall be no order as to costs.