A disputed decision implementing a court order is not contempt absent wilful disobedience.

The complainants, direct recruits to the cadre of Range Forest Officers (RFOs), had challenged a seniority list before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal.

After the Tribunal dismissed their applications, the High Court set aside its order and directed the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests to redraw the list in accordance with V.B. Badami v. State of Mysore and Rule 2 of the Karnataka State Civil Services (Regulation of Promotion, Pay and Pension) Rules, 1978, within four months.

A fresh seniority list was published on 29 June 2024.

The complainants alleged that it substantially replicated the quashed list and therefore amounted to wilful disobedience of the High Court’s directions.

The accused authority filed compliance affidavits asserting that it had corrected the vacancy register, addressed the identified anomalies, considered objections, and prepared the list under the applicable rules and the Court’s directions.

1. Whether publication of the revised seniority list dated 29 June 2024 constituted wilful disobedience of the High Court’s judgment dated 26 May 2023.

2. Whether the contempt proceedings could determine the correctness of the revised seniority list or grant consequential relief, including retrospective seniority or promotion.

Under Article 215 of the Constitution and Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, contempt requires clear, deliberate and wilful disobedience of a court’s direction; disagreement with, or alleged error in, a subsequent administrative decision does not by itself establish contempt.

Where an authority makes a decision in purported compliance with a court order, a challenge to the decision’s legality or merits ordinarily gives rise to a fresh cause of action and must be pursued through appropriate proceedings, not by asking the contempt court to review the decision.

The contempt court cannot enlarge or modify the original directions or sit in appeal over the subsequent decision.

The Court relied on J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar, Snehasis Giri v. Subhasis Mitra, Soorajmull Nagarmull v. Brijesh Mehrotra, S. Tirupathi Rao v. M. Lingamaiah and Dr. U.N. Bora v. Assam Roller Flour Mills Association.

The original direction required the seniority list to be redrawn consistently with V.B. Badami and Rule 2 of the 1978 Rules.

The Court treated the central question as whether the authority had wilfully disobeyed the direction to redraw the list, rather than whether the resulting list was legally correct.

The compliance materials stated that the authority had constituted a committee, corrected and updated the vacancy register, segregated the relevant cadres, addressed the identified anomalies, and considered objections before finalising the list.

On that record, the Court found no wilful disobedience.

It held that the complainants’ objections to the list—including their claim to seniority or promotion from a retrospective date—could not be adjudicated as merits questions in contempt proceedings; they were free to pursue an appropriate remedy.

It closed the contempt petition, discharged the contempt notice, and left the complainants to pursue any available remedy against the seniority list in appropriate proceedings.