In CONT.CAS (C) 1257 of 2022- DEL HC- Courts have to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a contempt has been committed before passing an adverse order: Delhi High Court
Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora [24-05-2023]

Read More: R.K. Mishra v Nidhi Pandey

Simran Singh

New Delhi, May 26, 2023: The Delhi High Court, in a Civil Contempt petition, dismissed the grievance pertaining to the fact that the respondent had not complied with the directions issued by the Division Bench (DB) of this Court vide judgment dated 11-10-2022, whereby the respondent  was directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation for a ‘Request Transfer’ in accordance with Rule 16(h) of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghathan Transfer Guidelines, 2021[1]  (‘Transfer Guidelines, 2021’)  within a period of 4 weeks.

The Court stated that the other applicants, who were seeking transfer to Kendriya Vidyalaya (‘KV’) at Jaipur and having been denied the said transfer despite having higher number of transfer count, failed to appreciate the wrong as alleged by the petitioner. Therefore, opined that the directions issued by the DB vide judgment dated 11-10-2022 had been complied with by the respondent.

In the matter at hand, the petitioner being a Trained Graduate Teacher (English) working under the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghathan (‘KVS’) at KV Pali had been seeking a transfer to one of the KVs at Jaipur vide application dated 14-10-2022 on ‘spouse ground’, however, since he did not receive any decision on the said representation within 4 weeks, which expired on 08-11-2022, he preferred the present contempt petition on 16-11-2022 aggrieved by the non-communication of the decision.

The respondent in its Memorandum dated 17-11-2022 while disposing of the petitioner’s application dated 14-10-2022, recorded that paragraph 16 (b) (iii) of the Transfer Guidelines, 2021 had been kept in abeyance vide notice dated 12-09-2022 and that the Annual Transfer Process of KVS had been suspended for the academic year 2022-23 and only administrative transfers were being affected for the purpose of re-distribution and rationalisation of the teaching staff. It was stated that currently it was not feasible to transfer the petitioner to any of the KVs at Jaipur on ‘spouse ground’.

This Court vide order dated 02-12-2022, after perusing the Memorandum dated 17-11-2022 opined that it was a non-speaking order and directed the respondent to pass a reasoned order on petitioner’s representation dated 14-10-2022. The respondent in deference to this Court’s order dated 02-12-2022 issued a Memorandum dated 09-12-2022, wherein reference was made to a subsequent judgment dated 04-11-2022 passed by the DB of this Court, wherein it had taken note of the Notice dated 12-09-2022, issued by KVS suspending the Annual Transfer Process for the academic session of 2022-23. The respondent relied upon the said judgment to state that the DB had duly taken note of the suspension of the Transfer Guidelines 2021 and therefore, reiterated that petitioner’s request for transfer on the ‘spouse ground’ was presently suspended and could not be considered. Pertinently, in the judgment dated 04-11-2022, the DB had granted liberty to the petitioner to apply for a transfer as per paragraph 9 of the Transfer Guidelines, 2021 which he did not elect for.

The petitioner subsequently filed a civil miscellaneous application contending that there were vacancies in KV No. 1, Jaipur and KV No. 2, Jaipur, wherein the petitioner could be accommodated and it was averred that the rejection of the petitioner’s application dated 14-10-2022 was in contravention of the direction issued by the DB vide order dated 11-10-2022. The Respondent filed its reply to the said application explaining the circumstances in which the Annual Transfer Process had been suspended and the rationale behind it. The respondent had taken a stand that the petitioner was not eligible for transfer to KVs, at Jaipur at this stage. The respondent had also placed on record written instructions dated 07-03-2023 to contend that two other applicants who had applied for transfer to KVs in Jaipur and even though the said applicants had more transfer counts than the petitioner herein, their applications were not accepted either.

The Bench opined that the direction issued by the DB vide judgment dated 11-10-2022 had been complied with, upon perusing the Memorandum dated 17-11-2022 and 09-12-2022 issued but he respondent explaining the circumstances in which the request for transfer on ‘spouse ground’ could not be considered by them. The respondent had also placed reliance on the Notice dated 12-09-2022 suspending the Annual Transfer Process for the academic year 2022-23 and its consideration by the DB in the subsequent judgment dated 04-11-2022.

The Court while referring to the Supreme Court judgment of J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar stated that the the directions issued by the DB was limited to directing the respondent to ‘consider’ the said application and the said direction had been complied with. The contents of the written instructions dated 07-03-2023 filed by the respondent had not been disputed by the petitioner and in fact the contents thereof were borne out by the copies of the RTI reply handed over to the Court by the petitioner during the proceedings.

The Bench referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj, wherein it was observed that the Court had to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a contempt had been committed by the respondent. In view thereof, the Court stated that there had been no violation or disobedience of the judgment dated 11-10-2022. Accordingly, the present petition alleging contempt could not be maintained, thus, dismissed.