Contempt jurisdiction is limited to verifying compliance and cannot be used to re-adjudicate substantive issues.

The applicant filed a contempt petition under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, alleging non-compliance with the Tribunal’s order dated 14.03.2013

In the original O.A., the Tribunal had quashed the appointment of Respondent No. 5 as GDS BPM Pali and directed the official respondents to complete the selection process for the post strictly in accordance with rules within four months

The applicant alleged that the respondents acted in a mala fide manner by constituting a fresh selection committee and declaring him unfit due to a nominal discrepancy in his name (Amit Sharma vs. Amit Kumar) across educational and domicile records to defeat his claim

The respondents filed a compliance affidavit stating that a new committee was formed on 27.02.2025, which reviewed all candidates and found no one fit for engagement based on the notification's criteria

Whether the respondents' act of forming a new committee and subsequently finding the applicant unfit constitutes willful disobedience of the Tribunal’s directions dated 14.03.2013

Whether the Tribunal, while exercising contempt jurisdiction, can re-examine the merits and findings of the newly constituted selection committee

The court primarily applied Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, regarding the power to punish for contempt

It relied heavily on the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jalim Singh v. Nand Kishore (2026 LiveLaw (SC) 364), which established that contempt jurisdiction is strictly confined to examining compliance with specific directions and does not permit the court to expand the inquiry, re-adjudicate concluded issues, or re-examine the merits of administrative decisions like regularization or absorption

The Tribunal observed that the original direction was to "complete the selection process" according to the rules

The respondents demonstrated compliance by constituting a new committee on 27.02.2025, which scrutinized the applications and prepared a tabulation chart

The committee found the applicant unfit due to discrepancies between his application form (Amit Sharma) and high school marksheet (Amit Kumar)

The Tribunal reasoned that since the committee had been formed and a decision had been reached based on the notification terms, the order was complied with "in its spirit"

Following the mandate in Jalim Singh, the Tribunal noted it could not expand its scope to re-evaluate the correctness of the committee's finding that the applicant was unfit, as contempt proceedings are limited to ensuring directions are followed, not re-judging the merits of the underlying administrative action

The court declined to interfere with the committee's specific findings regarding the applicant's eligibility.

Consequently, the contempt petition was dropped, notices were discharged, and all associated Miscellaneous Applications (MAs) were disposed of