A RATNAMANIKYAM Vs. K S R SARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a Post-Graduate (M.A. Economics) from the Andhra University, applied and was selected to the post of Junior Lecturer in the Government Colleges in Zone II pursuant to the notification No. 9/83 issued by the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission on April 20, 1983 inviting applications to recruit 1372 Junior Lecturers (to fill substantive vacancies by direct recrnitment). In Zone II, comprising of East Godavari, West Godavari and Krishna Districts, eleven posts of males and one post for women in Economics were ear-marked by direct recruitment. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was 13th among the 15 candidates and the sole woman candidate selected and was forwarded to the Government for appointment. On October 10, 1984, a communication in this regard was also sent to the selected candidates. The Government accepted and in their Memo No. 3078-VI/84-I, Education, dated August 22, 1984 communicated to the Director of Higher Education the said list of 15 candidates and directed to appoint them as Junior Lecturers in Economics in Zone II. The Director in his proceedings No. 4217 dated September 26. 1984, in turn, communicated to the respondent to appoint them and candidates 1 to 11 were appointed. The petitioner is a Backward Class-B candidate. She is a local candidate. She stands at No. 13. No. 12 is one K. Venkata Subbaiah, a non-local candidate. He also belongs to Backward Ciass-B. At that stage, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 4508/86 for a direction to the respondent the Director of Higher Education and the Government to give effect to the selection made by the Public Service Commission to appoint her as Junior Lecturer in Economics and to give her posting orders. The writ petition came up for admission on April 21, 1986. On that day notice was given to the Government Pleader to obtain instructions explaining the circumstances as to why the petitioner was not appointed and was adjourned to April 24, 1986. The learned Government Pleader on instructions stated on April 24, 1986 that there are about 200 surplus superannuated candidates who are awaiting reinduction pursuant to the orders of the Supreme Court and that therefore the petitioner could not be appointed. In that background, this Court passed the following Order :

(2.) The petitioner alleges that vacancies have arisen in the Government Junior College for Girls at Nuzvid in Krishna District on December 1, 1986 and the Government Junior College in Chagallu (now admitted at Nidadavolu) in West Godavari District, yet, the respondent was not issuing any posting orders despite her making repeated representations personal as. well as in writing, and the respondent had deliberately omitted to implement the direction issued by this Court and denied her posting orders. Her representation through the Government Pleader on June 26, 1987 too evoked no response. The respondent has thereby "wilfully disobeyed the orders of this Court" and committed contempt of this Court. She filed the contempt case on December 16, 1987. It came up for admission on January 29,1988 and it was posted to February 1, 1988, on which date it was admitted and interim direction was given in Application No. 48/88 directing the respondent to issue posting orders and allow the petitioner to join duty. Later she was appointed and was posted to the Junior College for Girls at Nuzvid.

(3.) The learned Government Pleader raised an objection that the contempt case is barred by limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act (Act 70 of 1971) for short, "the Act". It is his contention that as per the affidavit, the alleged contempt was committed on December 1, 1986 ; the contempt case was admitted on February 1, 1988 by which date it is time-barred. Sri Ramamohan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner has countered it by arguing that Article 215 of the Constitution preserves to the High Courts and the Supreme Court the pre-existing inherent right to initiate proceedings for contempt of itself suo motu or otherwise and hedged with no limitation, The Act is an ordinary law. Section 20 cannot take away the power of the High Court preserved as Court of Record in Article 215. Therefore, Section 20 is ultra vires the power of the Parliament. He also contends that the direction given in the writ petition is to issue posting orders as per rules. As and when the vacancy has arisen, appointment order and posting order are to be given. Reasonable time taken to fill up the post has to be excluded for delay due to administrative exigencies which is inevitable and the limitation begins to run only thereafter. So construed, it is in time.