Ganesh Prasad Mishra and ors. Vs. Government of Jharkhand and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- constitution of india article 215: [m. karpaga vinayagam, cjm, .y.eqbal & amareshwar sahay, r.k. merathia, narendra nath tiwari, jj] contempt proceedings review powers of high court held, article 215 of the constitution vests the high court with all the powers of court of record including the power to punish for its contempt. this special jurisdiction is inherent in a court of record from the very nature of the court itself. the said special power is not subject to the procedural law either of the criminal procedure code or the contempt of courts act. the high court can deal with the matter summarily and can adopt its own procedure. however, if the high court initiates the proceeding as a court of record, principle of natural justice must be applied and the contemner should be given sufficient opportunity to know the accusation and to defend himself. in the instant case, the contemner was served with the notice to show cause. he was well aware of the accusation. he also admitted his guilt. in view thereof, contention of the contemner lawyer that he was not heard on merit of the contempt application and the impugned judgment of punishing petitioner in contempt of court is violative of principles of natural justice, is not tenable. article 215: contempt proceedings review of conviction held, it is the solemn duty of the bench and bar to maintain and uphold the majesty, authority and dignity of the courts for the sustenance and progress of democracy in our country particularly at the juncture when there are number of instances of outside attempt to disintegrate and destroy the democratic set up of our country. such conduct of a member of the bar brings the authority of the court and the administration of justice into disrespect, erodes and undermine the foundation of the judiciary by shaking faith and confidence of the people in the ability of the courts to deliver free and fair justice, it is a deliberate attempt to insult the high court and denigrate the authority and solemnity and court strongly deprecate such attempt made with biased attitude. such indiscriminate allegations against judges, who are the members of the bench, cannot be a ground for review of the impugned judgment. punishment of prohibiting appearance of contemner/lawyer before high court as well as courts under its jurisdiction is based on his repeated convictions for contempt in the past is not violative of article 19(g) of the constitution. no interference in exercise of review jurisdiction is warranted. - the supreme court having noticed the fact that the selection boardor any of its members had no jurisdiction to lay down the criteria for selection, declared the selection bad.orders.j. mukhopadhaya, j. 1. the petitioners have challenged the advertisement no. 1 of 2004 dated 12th september. 2004 issued by the deputy commissioner, deoghar, published in the daily news paper hindustan, whereby and whereunder the applications have been invited for appointment to the posts of driver from those persons, who have passed matric or equivalent examination. 2. the grievance of the petitioners is that the qualification of matric or equivalent has been prescribed by the deputy commissioner, deoghar, to deprive the petitioners to derive benefit of the orders passed by this court in cwjc 2247 of 1999 disposed of on 16th september, 2002 and in cwjc no. 8980 of 2000 (p) disposed of on 13th may. 2002. those writ petitions were preferred against a panel prepared for the appointment to the post of driver which was published on 6th june, 2000. taking into consideration the fact that the advertisement was published on 7th march, 1997 and the panel was prepared on the basis of a subsequent guidelines dated 25th april, 1997, had already been set aside by the court in the case of bivash kumar v. state of bihar reported in 2000 (1) pljr 787, the court remitted back the case to the deputy commissioner, deoghar, to consider the cases of those persons for their appointment along with other similarly situated and eligible persons against the existing vacancies.3. counsel for the petitioners submitted that the deputy commissioner, deoghar, had no jurisdiction to fix minimum qualification for appointment to the post of driver, being the chairman of the selection committee and in support of such submission placed reliance on a supreme court's decision in krushna chandra sahu and ors. v. state of orissa and ors. reported in : (1996)illj919sc . in that case the selection board decided to adjudge the suitability on the basis of confidential character rolls of the candidates. the supreme court having noticed the fact that the selection boardor any of its members had no jurisdiction to lay down the criteria for selection, declared the selection bad.4. in this case admittedly, no act has been framed by the parliament under article 309 of the constitution nor any statutory rule has been framed by the governor of the state under proviso to article 309. there is no executive instruction issued by the state laying down the qualification for appointment to the post of driver except guidelines of selection as were issued from time to time by the departmental heads.5. it is not in dispute that the deputy commissioner of the district is the appointing authority of the driver's of a collectorate. in absence of any statutory rules or executive instruction or another guidelines with regard to the qualification for appointment to the post of drivers, it was open to the appointing authority i.e. the deputy commissioner to prescribe the qualification and to fill up the posts after following the provisions of law. in the result no relief can be granted. there being no merit. the writ petition is dismissed. interim order dated 28th september, 2004 passed by this court is vacated.

Judgment:
ORDER

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.

1. The petitioners have challenged the Advertisement No. 1 of 2004 dated 12th September. 2004 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, published in the Daily news paper Hindustan, whereby and whereunder the applications have been invited for appointment to the posts of driver from those persons, who have passed Matric or equivalent examination.

2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the qualification of matric or equivalent has been prescribed by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, to deprive the petitioners to derive benefit of the orders passed by this Court in CWJC 2247 of 1999 disposed of on 16th September, 2002 and in CWJC No. 8980 of 2000 (P) disposed of on 13th May. 2002. Those writ petitions were preferred against a panel prepared for the appointment to the post of driver which was published on 6th June, 2000. Taking into consideration the fact that the advertisement was published on 7th March, 1997 and the panel was prepared on the basis of a subsequent guidelines dated 25th April, 1997, had already been set aside by the Court in the case of Bivash Kumar v. State of Bihar reported in 2000 (1) PLJR 787, the Court remitted back the case to the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, to consider the cases of those persons for their appointment along with other similarly situated and eligible persons against the existing vacancies.

3. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, had no jurisdiction to fix minimum qualification for appointment to the post of driver, being the Chairman of the Selection Committee and in support of such submission placed reliance on a Supreme Court's decision in Krushna Chandra Sahu and Ors. v. State of Orissa and Ors. reported in : (1996)ILLJ919SC . In that case the selection Board decided to adjudge the suitability on the basis of confidential character rolls of the candidates. The Supreme Court having noticed the fact that the selection Boardor any of its members had no jurisdiction to lay down the criteria for selection, declared the selection bad.

4. In this case admittedly, no Act has been framed by the Parliament under Article 309 of the Constitution nor any statutory Rule has been framed by the Governor of the State under proviso to Article 309. There is no executive instruction issued by the State laying down the qualification for appointment to the post of driver except guidelines of selection as were issued from time to time by the Departmental heads.

5. It is not in dispute that the Deputy Commissioner of the district is the appointing authority of the Driver's of a collectorate. In absence of any statutory Rules or executive instruction or another guidelines with regard to the qualification for appointment to the post of drivers, it was open to the appointing authority i.e. the Deputy Commissioner to prescribe the qualification and to fill up the posts after following the provisions of Law. In the result no relief can be granted. There being no merit. The writ petition is dismissed. Interim order dated 28th September, 2004 passed by this Court is vacated.