Contempt proceedings cannot test compliance merits once the underlying order has been obeyed.

The applicants initiated contempt proceedings alleging wilful disobedience of the Tribunal’s order dated 6 March 2024, which directed the respondents to examine vacancies under Employment Notice No. 02/2010 and, if vacancies existed, consider eligible applicants for appointment under the replacement quota.

The respondents’ challenge to that order was dismissed by the High Court on 5 December 2025. The High Court directed a focused vacancy audit, including examination of the 2010 recruitment and relevant later recruitments, to identify vacancies that remained legally available for filling from the 2010 replacement list.

The applicants disputed the respondents’ audit report and relied on alleged unfilled vacancies; the respondents maintained that they had complied and submitted the report with their reply.

1. Whether the respondents’ submission of the vacancy audit report and the action taken pursuant to it constituted compliance with the Tribunal’s order, so as to defeat the contempt allegation.

2. Whether the Tribunal could, in contempt proceedings, examine the correctness of the vacancy audit or determine the applicants’ underlying entitlement to appointment.

In Union of India v. Subedar Devassy P.V. (decided 10 January 2006), the Supreme Court held that contempt jurisdiction is confined to determining compliance with the order alleged to have been disobeyed; it cannot be used to test the order’s correctness, vary its directions, or grant additional relief. A party aggrieved by an order or its implementation must seek relief from the court that passed it or invoke appellate jurisdiction.

In M.K. Sthapak v. Prashant Mehta, Conc. No. 196/2018 (decided 27 April 2018), the Madhya Pradesh High Court similarly held that, once an order has been complied with, its correctness on the merits cannot be examined in contempt jurisdiction, nor can relief beyond the original order be granted.

The Tribunal treated the direction as requiring the respondents to examine the vacancy position and consider the applicants if vacancies remained and they were eligible.

The respondents had submitted a vacancy audit report with their reply; the applicants’ challenge to its findings concerned the merits and correctness of that exercise, rather than establishing non-compliance with the operative direction. Applying the limits on contempt jurisdiction stated in Subedar Devassy and M.K. Sthapak, the Tribunal declined to reassess the audit or determine appointment entitlement in the contempt proceeding.

It closed the contempt petition and discharged the respondents from the notice of contempt.