SALAUDDIN AHMED vs. SAMTA ANDOLAN

REPORTABLE

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 2504-2505 OF 2012 Salauddin Ahmed & Anr. … Appellants Vs. Samta Andolan … Respondent J U D G M E N T JUDGMENT ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. These appeals arise out of the common judgment rd and order dated 23 February, 2012, passed by the Page 1 2 Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.941 of 2010 and D.B.

contempt of court for having violated the order passed by the Division Bench of the Jaipur Bench of th the Rajasthan High Court on 5 February, 2010, in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8104 of 2008. 2. From the materials on record it transpires that th on 27 November, 1972, the State of Rajasthan issued a Notification providing for reservation for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidates to the JUDGMENT extent of 15% for Scheduled Castes and 7.5% for rd Scheduled Tribes. Subsequently, on and from 3 October, 1973, such reservation was increased to 16% and 12% for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled th Tribes candidates, respectively. On 29 January, 1981, the Rules for promotion based on the criteria of seniority-cum-merit were introduced. In 1992, Page 2 3 in the case of Indira Sawhney Vs. Union of India & Ors. [(1992) Supp.3 SCC 217], this Court had held

permissible. The effect of the said decision was neutralized by the Constitution (Seventy Seventh th Amendment) Act, enacted on 17 June, 1995, whereby Article 16(4-A) was inserted in the Constitution to provide for reservation in respect of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates in promotional posts. 3. The aforesaid amendment led to a spurt of JUDGMENT litigation. In 1996, while considering the said issue in the case of Ajit Singh Januja & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. [(1996) 2 SCC 715] (Ajit Singh-I), this Court held that even if the person in reserved category is promoted earlier than a general category candidate due to operation of roster, and subsequently, the general category Page 3 4 candidate was also promoted, the candidates in the general category would regain their seniority as

seniority came to be known as the “catch-up” th principle. On 30 January, 1997, the Union of India issued a memorandum to all the various departments asking them to implement the decision rendered by this Court regarding regaining of seniority st pursuant to the said direction. Thereafter, on 1 April, 1997, the State of Rajasthan followed suit and introduced the “catch-up” principle. A provisional seniority list of candidates belonging JUDGMENT to the Rajasthan Administrative Services was issued th on 26 June, 2000, on the basis of the Notification st dated 1 April, 1997. However, it was never given effect to and was ultimately quashed by the Rajasthan High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) Nos.2968 of 2000, 2176 of 2000, 3373 of 2000 and 3385 of 2000. Page 4 5 4. In 2001, the Parliament passed the Constitution

category. Thus the said amendment removed the basis of the judgment rendered by this Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Virpal Singh Chauhan [(1995) 6 SCC 684] and in Ajit Singh-I ’s case (supra). The provisions of the said amendment were given retrospective effect from 17.6.1995, in order to remove the provision relating to the “catch-up” principle with retrospective effect. 5. In 2002, a writ petition was filed before this JUDGMENT Court by the All India Equality Forum against the State of Rajasthan, seeking to strike down the Constitution (Eighty Second Amendment) Act and the Constitution (Eighty Fifth Amendment) Act of 2001. The writ petitioner claimed similar reliefs as in Nagaraj M. & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2006) th 8 SCC 212]. Thereafter, on 11 November, 2002, the Page 5 6 interim order regarding implementation of Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution was clarified and it

terms of the provisions of Article 16(4-A), they would be promoted. It was, therefore, the stand of the Union of India that the interim order could not be construed to be a bar to implementation of the amendment to Article 16(4-A). The order also provided that no person was to be reverted from their existing placement or standing in the seniority list. JUDGMENT 6. After having introduced the same, the State of th Rajasthan by its Notification dated 28 December, 2002, withdrew the “catch-up” principle after the introduction of the Constitution (Eighty Fifth th Amendment) Act. From the Notification dated 28 December, 2002, it would be seen that an attempt was made to preserve the rights of general category Page 6 7 candidates, who had already been promoted vide st Notification dated 1 April, 1997. It was also

were not to be reverted. 7. The vires of Article 16(4-A), 16(4-B) and Article 335 of the Constitution was challenged and in M. Nagaraj ’s case (supra) it was considered by a Constitution Bench of this Court, which upheld the validity of Articles 16(4-A), 16(4-B) and the amendment to Article 335 of the Constitution, but imposed certain conditions regarding reservation in JUDGMENT promotion and accelerated promotions. This Court directed that the State should collect quantifiable data, after which the Committee should also examine the requirements relating to backwardness, inadequacy in representation and efficiency for the purpose of grant of reservation in promotion and accelerated promotions. One of the areas of dispute Page 7 8 between the parties is that the State Government also withdrew the “catch-up” principle in favour of

th enunciated in M. Nagaraj ’s case (supra). On 24 June, 2008, a seniority list was drawn up without considering the “catch-up” principle, which also th gave effect to the Notification dated 25 April, 2008. nd 8. On 22 August, 2008, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8104 of 2008 was filed by Bajrang Lal Sharma and th others, challenging the said Notification dated 25 JUDGMENT April, 2008, and the seniority list drawn up consequent thereto. While entertaining the writ petition, the Division Bench of the High Court th stayed the said Notification dated 25 April, 2008. th 9. On 4 March, 2009, a seniority list was prepared, but the same was quashed by the learned th Single Judge. The Notifications dated 28 December, Page 8 9 rd 2002 and 23 April, 2008, were challenged before the High Court by several candidates belonging to

the ground that the conditions precedent laid down in Nagaraj M. ’s case (supra), had not been followed. The High Court was also of the view that the right which had vested to the candidates by st virtue of the Notification dated 1 April, 1997, th and had been protected by Notification dated 28 December, 2002, had been illegally taken away vide th Notification dated 25 April, 2008. JUDGMENT th 10. On 16 November, 2010, the general category employees filed a contempt petition against the Chief Secretary for not implementing the order th passed by the High Court on 5 February, 2010, which was registered as D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.914 of 2010 in D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.8104 of 2009, titled as Samta Andolan Page 9 10 Vs. Salauddin Ahmad & Anr . On an application filed before this Court, this Court vide its order dated

11. The case made out in the Contempt Petition was th that despite the judgment dated 5 February, 2010, and the dismissal of the various Special Leave Petitions filed by the State of Rajasthan and th others on 7 December, 2010, the State authorities were not complying with the said judgment. According to the Petitioners in the Contempt Petitions, the judgment of the High Court passed on JUDGMENT th 5 February, 2010, became final after the dismissal of the Special Leave Petitions, but despite the same, they were not being complied with by the concerned authorities of the State. The authorities were deferring compliance of the judgment dated 5th February, 2010, on the ground that they were undertaking the exercise of collecting quantifiable Page 10 11 data required to enable the State of Rajasthan to exercise its powers under Article 16(4-A) of the

th State on 14 February, 2011, was in purported th compliance of the judgment dated 7 December, 2010, passed in SLP(C) No.6385 of 2010, asking all the Departments to give information with regard to the SC/ST employees from 1.4.1997 onwards on year-wise basis, which was not contemplated in the M. Nagaraj judgment. It was also the case of the Contempt Petitioners that Article 16(4-A) is an enabling provision based on the Government’s information JUDGMENT with regard to the backwardness and inadequate representation of SC/ST employees, which could not be given retrospective effect. 12. On account of the inaction of the alleged contemnors on the said ground, the Contempt Petitioners not only prayed for taking severe Page 11 12 action against the Contemnors, but to also give suitable directions to the said Respondents/

No.8104 of 2008 and that the Petitioners be allowed to regain their accrued and vested seniority. 13. As indicated hereinabove, the Division Bench of the High Court found the Appellants herein to be guilty of having committed contempt of Court for deliberate and willful violation of the order passed by the Division Bench of the Jaipur Bench of th the Rajasthan High Court on 5 February, 2010. JUDGMENT th 14. Thereafter, on 7 December, 2010, the State of Rajasthan filed a Special Leave Petition against th the order passed by the High Court on 5 February, th 2010, by which the Notifications dated 28 th December, 2002 and 25 April, 2008, had been quashed. While upholding the judgment of the High Court, this Court also observed that the claims of Page 12 13 the reserved category candidates could be considered after following the principles laid down

Captain Gurvinder Singh & Ors. etc. challenging the vires of the Rajasthan Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, Special Backward Classes & Economically Backward Classes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions in the State and of Appointments & Posts in Services under the State) Act of 2008, hereinafter referred to as “2008 Act”. The main ground of challenge was with regard to the reservation exceeding the 50% ceiling JUDGMENT due to extension of reservation to Special Backward Classes & Economically Backward classes. The High nd Court by its order dated 22 December, 2010, restrained the State from giving effect to Sections 3 and 4 of the 2008 Act. It is the case of the Appellants that the said order was directed against the reservation in respect of Special Backward Page 13 14 Classes & Economically Backward Classes and had nothing to do with reservation in respect of

candidates. st 15. On 31 March, 2011, the State Government constituted the Bhatnagar Committee to look into the different aspects relating to reservation in promotion and consequential seniority in terms of the judgment rendered in M. Nagaraj ’s case (supra). th Immediately, thereafter, on 13 April, 2011, a further contempt petition was filed by Shri Bajrang Lal Sharma. The Bhatnagar Committee Report was JUDGMENT th submitted to the State Government on 19 August, th 2011 and on 11 September, 2011, the State Government, in exercise of its powers under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and on the basis of the Bhatnagar Committee Report, st framed a Rule with retrospective effect from 1 April, 1997, so that the vacuum which had been Page 14 15 created could be filled up. The Rule also provided for roster-based promotion based on the posts

st th promotions between the period 1 April, 1997 to 28 December, 2002, or the promotions which had actually been given effect to in terms of the st repealed Notification dated 1 April, 1997. 16. Appearing for the Appellants, the learned Attorney General pointed out that the Notification th issued by the State Government on 11 September, 2011, had been declared void by the High Court by JUDGMENT holding that the same did not amount to valid st compliance and the Notification dated 1 April, 1997, should be given effect to. The learned Attorney General submitted that since by the th Notification dated 11 September, 2011, the earlier st Notification dated 1 April, 1997 had been withdrawn, the same could not be given effect to Page 15 16 th without first declaring the Notification dated 11 September, 2011, to be ultra vires .

th Notification dated 11 September, 2011, could not have been declared ultra vires in the absence of a substantive writ petition challenging the same, and, in any event, it could not be questioned in a contempt proceeding or be declared ultra vires therein, particularly, when the Bhatnagar Committee had been appointed in terms of the order passed by this Court in M. Nagaraj ’s case (supra) and the th Notification dated 11 September, 2011, was issued JUDGMENT in pursuance of the Report of the said Committee. 18. The learned Attorney General urged that by the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8104 of 2008, th the Notifications dated 28 December, 2002, and 25th April, 2008, were declared to be ultra vires the Constitution. As a result, the consequential Page 16 17 orders passed by the State, including preparation of the seniority list of the Super-time Scale

basis of the aforesaid Notifications, were quashed. Aggrieved by the said order, the State of Rajasthan and Shri Suraj Bhan Meena filed separate Special Leave Petitions before this Court which were th disposed of on 7 December, 2010. This Court allowed the claim of Suraj Bhan Meena (SC/ST candidates), subject to the conditions laid down in Nagaraj M. ’s case (supra). JUDGMENT 19. While the various above-mentioned proceedings were being pursued, Writ Petition No.13491 of 2009 was filed challenging the vires of the 2008 Act. A prayer was also made to review the ceiling limit in favour of SC, ST and OBC candidates of 16%, 12% and th 21%, respectively. The Notification dated 25 August, 2009, was also questioned. The subject Page 17 18 matter of the Writ Petition was focussed on reservation to special backward classes and

Petition, a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court stayed the operation of Sections 3 and 4 of th the Act along with Notification dated 25 August, 2009, and the matter was referred to the Rajasthan State Backward Classes Commission, before whom the State Government was directed to place the quantifiable data within a period of one year. The stay granted was directed to continue till the matter was decided afresh. JUDGMENT 20. Subsequently, contempt proceedings were taken, being No.359 of 2011, challenging the letter dated th 14 February, 2011, issued by the State of Rajasthan to the Heads of all Departments asking for information regarding representation of SC/ST employees. Ultimately, by the order impugned in Page 18 19 these appeals, the High Court held the Appellants herein to be guilty of contempt of Court, inasmuch

February, 2010, the Appellants failed to do so even after a lapse of 14 months after their Special Leave Petitions were dismissed by this Court. The High Court also took note of the fact that the Appellant No.1 herein, Shri Salauddin Ahmed, did not even reply to the show-cause notice issued to him, which the High Court interpreted to mean that the said Appellant had nothing to say in his defence regarding the allegation of contempt of JUDGMENT Court made against him. The High Court further noted that on several occasions time was sought for th by the State to comply with the order passed on 5 February, 2010, but nothing was done in the matter. Giving the Appellants 3 days’ time to purge themselves of the contempt and to comply with the orders passed by the Court, the Court further Page 19 20 directed the Appellants to be present in person before the Court for the purpose of sentencing in

21. Aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, the State Government th filed Civil Appeal No.2504-2505 of 2011 and on 27 February, 2012, this Court issued notice and stayed further proceedings before the High Court. 22. The learned Attorney General submitted that the th order dated 5 February, 2010, was in two parts. While one part dealt with quashing of the th Notifications dated 28 December, 2002 and 25th JUDGMENT April, 2008, the other part was with regard to the directions given in M. Nagaraj ’s case (supra) for the collection of quantifiable data. It was further submitted that the State of Rajasthan had consistently acted as per the directions given in paragraph 68 of the judgment rendered in Suraj Bhan Meena’s case (supra), whereby it was directed that Page 20 21 the claim of the Petitioners, Suraj Bhan Meena and Sriram Chordia, in SLP (C) No.6385 of 2010, would

23. The learned Attorney General submitted that pursuant to the directions given in Suraj Bhan Meena’s case (supra), the State of Rajasthan issued th a letter to all the Departments on 14 February, th 2011, to ensure compliance of the judgment dated 7 December, 2010. In addition, the State Government sought information with regard to representation of SC/ST employees in public employment from 1.4.1997 JUDGMENT to 1.4.2010 on a year-wise basis. The learned th Attorney General contended that on 8 March, 2011, one more contempt petition was filed, viz., Contempt Petition No.359 of 2011, in relation to th the letter dated 14 February, 2011, referred to hereinabove. It was submitted that the State cannot collect data with retrospective effect in pursuance Page 21 22 of the decision in M. Nagaraj ’s case (supra) and th the judgment dated 7 December, 2010. It was also

th with the judgment dated 5 February, 2010. 24. It was also contended that the contempt petitioner had misunderstood the import of the th judgment dated 5 February, 2010, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in relation to the th judgment of this Court dated 7 December, 2010. The learned Attorney General submitted that it was on account of the confusion in the mind of the JUDGMENT Petitioner that a prayer had been made in the Contempt Petition for suitable directions upon the th contemnors to implement the judgment dated 5 February, 2010, passed in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8104 of 2008 and to allow the Petitioners to regain their accrued and vested seniority given to them in pursuance of the seniority list of Page 22 23 26.6.2000. It was submitted that the seniority list of 26.6.2000 had already been quashed by the

Court by way of a Special Leave Petition. 25. The learned Attorney General submitted that the constitution of the Bhatnagar Committee in th pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 7 December, 2010, was challenged by filing of interlocutory applications, both before this Court and also before the High Court. All the interlocutory applications were taken up for JUDGMENT th consideration and disposed of by this Court on 20 July, 2011. The learned Attorney General submitted that in the said order, this Court had recorded the fact that Mr. M.L. Lahoti, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents, did not challenge the formation of the Committee, but contended that its findings should have prospective operation and Page 23 24 could not affect the case of the writ petitioners, Suraj Bhan Meena and others. It was also emphasized

restraint orders with regard to its functioning. On the other hand, while disposing of the several interlocutory applications, this Court also observed that the parties would be free to make their submissions with regard to the action taken by the State Government in the matter pending before the High Court. The learned Attorney General urged that the High Court had noticed the th order passed by this Court on 7 December, 2010, JUDGMENT but had not considered the directions contained therein. 26. The learned Attorney General submitted that the Bhatnagar Committee Report had been submitted on th 19 August, 2011, and after due consideration of th the Report, a Notification was issued on 11 Page 24 25 September, 2011. However, it was also noticed by the High Court that the constitution of the

conformity with the judgment rendered by the High th Court on 5 February, 2010, without noticing that the same was in compliance of the directions contained in paragraph 68 of the judgment delivered th by this Court on 7 December, 2010. The learned Attorney General submitted that the directions th contained in the aforesaid judgment dated 7 December, 2010, recognizing the rights of the reserved category (Petitioners therein) and JUDGMENT directing the determination of such rights, be undertaken after completion of the exercise laid down in M. Nagaraj ’s case (supra). 27. On maintainability, it was contended that it was beyond the powers of this Court to declare a law ultra vires in the contempt jurisdiction. It Page 25 26 was also contended that in view of the decision of this Court in State of U.P. vs. Hirendra Pal Singh

Page 26 27 Article 16(4-A) to acquire quantifiable data regarding the inadequacy of representation of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes communities in public service and that the Rajasthan High Court th had rightly quashed the notifications dated 28 th December, 2002 and 25 April, 2008, issued by the State of Rajasthan providing for consequential seniority and promotion to the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes communities. The Special Leave Petitions were, therefore, disposed of by observing that the claim of the Petitioners, Suraj Bhan Meena and Sriram Chordia in SLP (C) No.6385 of 2010, would be subject to the JUDGMENT conditions laid down in M. Nagaraj ’s case (supra). The Special Leave Petitions filed by the State of Rajasthan were consequently dismissed. The learned Attorney General urged that this Court had, in fact, directed that the parties would be free to make their submissions with regard to the action Page 27 28 taken by the State Government in the matter pending before the High Court. 29. The learned Attorney General concluded on the note that as recently observed by this Court in Dinesh Kumar Gupta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2010) 12 SCC 770], in order to establish that a civil contempt had been committed, it would have to be shown that the concerned authority had willfully and deliberately disobeyed the orders passed by the High Court without any reasonable or rational interpretation of the order. It was also observed that it would not also be correct to hold JUDGMENT that a contempt had been committed when the disobedience was neither deliberate nor willful, but the steps taken were on account of the ignorance of the correct legal position and the action taken was in good faith without any malafide motive to defeat or defy the Court’s order. Page 28 29 30. The learned Attorney General submitted that in this case, in compliance with the decision in Suraj Bhan Meena ’s case (supra) and the directions given both in M. Nagaraj ’s case (supra)and in Suraj Bhan Meena’s case (supra), the concerned authorities had appointed the Bhatnagar Committee to enter into a fact finding exercise in accordance with the provisions of Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution. It could not be said that there was any willful or deliberate intention or malafide motive on the part of the concerned authorities in not complying with the directions contained in the judgment of the High Court dated 5th February, 2010. The Contempt JUDGMENT Petition was, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 31. Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, learned Senior Advocate, who had appeared for the second contemnor, Khemraj Chaudhary, while adopting the submissions made by the learned Attorney General, submitted that the steps taken by the Respondents were in keeping with Page 29 30 the directions given both in M. Nagaraj ’s case (supra)and in Suraj Bhan Meena ’s case (supra), for identifying such members of the SC/ST communities who would be entitled to the benefits provided under Article 16(4-A) of the Constitution. Mr. Vaidyanathan reiterated the submissions made before the High Court that the Contempt Petitions were, in fact, not maintainable as the orders out of which the same had arisen had merged in the order of this Court when the Special Leave Petitions were dismissed by a reasoned judgment. Accordingly, by virtue of the doctrine of merger, the said orders do not exist and, if any contempt is alleged, it JUDGMENT would be with regard to the orders passed by this Court and the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. 32. Mr. Vaidyanathan further submitted that on account of non-compliance with the three requirements indicated in Nagaraj M. ’s case Page 30 31 th (supra), the notification dated 28 December, 2002, stood vitiated. However, with the quashing of the th said notification dated 28 December, 2002, the st notification dated 1 April, 1997, which stood th deleted by notification dated 28 December, 2002, stood revived and continued to be in operation. 33. Mr. Harish Salve, learned Senior Advocate, who also appeared for the Respondents, contended that Civil Appeal No.171 of 2002, filed by the State of Rajasthan against Hanuman Singh Bhati & Ors., was pending before this Court, but this Court had not stayed the operation of the orders either of the JUDGMENT Single Bench or the Division Bench. As a result, even by sheer inaction in carrying out the directions contained in the judgment of this Court th dated 7 December, 2010, the contemnors had violated the orders of this Court, as there was no justification for the contemnors not to give effect to the directions contained in the said order. Mr. Page 31 32 Salve submitted that in Maninderjit Singh Bitta Vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2012) 1 SCC 273], this Court had held that even inaction to implement the orders of the Court amounts to disobedience within the meaning of civil contempt. Mr. Salve urged that in the absence of any stay, the contemnors ought not to have sat over the matter, but should have taken steps to implement the directions contained in the said order. Mr. Salve submitted that so long as the catch up principle in terms of st the Notification dated 1 April, 1997, continued to be in existence, no change could be made in matters of promotion, unless the requirements set out in M. JUDGMENT Nagaraj’s case were fully satisfied. Mr. Salve urged that in the facts and circumstances of this case, contempt was writ large on account of inaction of the contemnors in giving effect to the th directions contained in the judgment dated 5 February, 2010. Page 32 33

Page 33 34

Page 34 35 36. In order to establish that a person had deliberately and willfully committed contempt of Court, two essential ingredients have to be proved. Firstly, it has to be established that an order has been passed by the Court which either directs certain things to be done by a person or to restrain such person or persons from doing certain acts and that the person or persons had knowledge of the said order. Secondly, it has to be established that despite having knowledge of such order, the person concerned deliberately and willfully violated the same with the intention of lowering the dignity and image of the Court. We JUDGMENT have to see whether in the facts of this case the said two tests are satisfied. 37. Admittedly, Civil Writ Petition No.8104 of 2008, along with several other writ petitions, were disposed of by the Division Bench by its judgment th and order dated 5 February, 2010, by quashing the Page 35 36

Page 36 37 conceded by the learned Advocate General that the exercise as contemplated in M. Nagaraj ’s case (supra), had not been undertaken by the State th before issuing the Notifications dated 25 April, th 2008 and 28 December, 2002. It is on that basis that the said two Notifications and all consequential orders or actions taken by the Respondent State, including preparation of seniority list of Super Time Scale and Selection Scale Officers of the Rajasthan Administrative Service, on the basis thereof, were also quashed and set aside. While quashing the said Notifications, the Division Bench took note of the JUDGMENT observations made in M. Nagaraj ’s case (supra) that Clause (4-A) of Article 16 was only an enabling provision and the State was not bound to make reservations of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the matter of promotion, but if they did wish to exercise their discretion in that regard, the State had to collect quantifiable data showing Page 37 38 backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment, in addition to compliance with Article 335. The same not having been done, the said Notifications were quashed. 38. Inasmuch as, no further action was taken by the State and its authorities after the said Notifications were quashed, the contempt petition was filed mainly on the ground that the State and its authorities had by their inaction in complying with the requirements set out in M. Nagaraj ’s case (supra), committed contempt of Court and the same JUDGMENT was accepted and the Appellants herein were found guilty of having committed contempt of Court by such inaction. 39. The next thing that we are required to consider is whether such inaction was on account of any circumstances which prevented the State Government and its authorities from taking action in terms of Page 38 39

Page 39 40

Page 40 41 the data necessary in terms of the judgment and order passed in M. Nagaraj ’s case, which had been reiterated by this Court in Suraj Bhan Meena ’s case (supra). 42. The explanation given on behalf of the State and its authorities cannot be discounted, since in order to act in terms of the sentiments expressed by the High Court and this Court, it was necessary to collect the quantifiable data in respect of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates. For collection of such data, the State appointed the Bhatnagar Committee which was entrusted with JUDGMENT the work of obtaining such quantifiable data so that the provisions of the amended Clause (4-A) included in Article 16 of the Constitution could be given effect to in terms of the directions given in Nagaraj M. ’s case subsequently reiterated in Suraj Bhan Meena ’s case. Page 41 42

Page 42 43 their part to defy the orders of this Court. The very fact that the Bhatnagar Committee was appointed indicates that the State and its authorities had every intention to implement the aforesaid observations, though the progress of such implementation has been tardy. Accordingly, we are unable to sustain the impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court holding the Appellants guilty of contempt of Court for purported violation of the order passed by the Division Bench of the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan th High Court on 5 February, 2010, while disposing of the Civil Writ Petition No.8410 of 2008. JUDGMENT Consequently, the judgment and order under appeal has to be set aside. 45. We, accordingly, allow the appeals and set aside the aforesaid judgment, but with the further direction that the State and its authorities act in terms of the Report of the Bhatnagar Committee, in Page 43 44

………………………………………………………J. (ALTAMAS KABIR) ………………………………………………………J. (J. CHELAMESWAR) New Delhi Dated:29.08.2012. JUDGMENT Page 44