Facts
The petitioner filed a Contempt Petition (CP) alleging breach and willful disobedience of an order dated 03.04.2019 passed by the Tribunal in OA No. 1424/2018
Source reference: p.2, para. 1The CP was initially disposed of as infructuous on 16.08.2022 due to the pendency of a Review Petition (No. 221/2021) filed by the respondents against the OA order, which had stayed the Tribunal's order dated 03.04.2019
Source reference: p.2, para. 2The petitioner was granted liberty to revive the CP after the dismissal of the Review Petition
Source reference: p.2, para. 2Subsequently, the Review Petition was dismissed, and MA No. 408/2025 was filed by the petitioner, leading to the revival of the Contempt Petition on 08.10.2025
Source reference: p.3, para. 3The respondents filed a memo dated 16.02.2026, attaching a Notification dated 12.02.2026 for interviews for the post of Scientist, which included the petitioner's name, as a compliance measure
Source reference: p.3, para. 4Issues
Whether the respondents have substantially complied with the order dated 03.04.2019 passed in OA No. 1424/2018?
Source reference: p.3, para. 4; p.4, para. 6Whether the Contempt Petition should be kept alive due to the petitioner's apprehension, despite the alleged compliance?
Source reference: p.4, para. 5; p.4, para. 7Law Applied
The court applied the principle that contempt proceedings are initiated only when there is a clear breach and willful disobedience of a court order
Source reference: p.2, para. 1; p.4, para. 7Substantial compliance with the directions issued in the original order can lead to the closure of contempt proceedings, even if there are residual apprehensions
Source reference: p.4, para. 6; p.4, para. 7The original order in OA No. 1424/2018 had directed that the applicant's relative merit should be considered strictly according to merit, without prejudice due to the filing of the OA
Source reference: p.4, para. 6Reasoning
The court found that the respondents had made substantial compliance with the directions issued in OA No. 1424/2018
Source reference: p.4, para. 6The memo, along with the notification for interviews dated 12.02.2026, issued by Respondent No. 3, which included the petitioner's name for the post of Scientist in Group IV (2), was considered a compliance measure
Source reference: p.3, para. 4The original order explicitly stated that it was up to the Screening Committee to make a final decision on the applicant's relative merit and that the case should be decided strictly according to merit without prejudice
Source reference: p.4, para. 6Therefore, the court concluded that the petitioner's entitlement was primarily to be called for an interview and have their merit considered, which had been fulfilled
Source reference: p.4, para. 5; p.4, para. 6The court emphasized that mere apprehensions, without established willful disobedience, such as the petitioner's current concern that the Contempt Petition should be kept alive, are insufficient to continue contempt proceedings when substantial compliance has been demonstrated
Source reference: p.4, para. 7Holding
The Contempt Petition stands closed
The notices are discharged, as the court found substantial compliance by the respondents, who included the petitioner's name in the list of candidates for interview for the post of Scientist
Source reference: p.3, para. 4; p.4, para. 6The court declined to keep the Contempt Petition alive based on the petitioner's apprehensions, ruling that willful disobedience or breach must be established
Source reference: p.4, para. 7Original Court PDF
Vinayaraya P.vs.Dr. (Mrs.) N. Kalaiselvi and Ors. CP.No.170/00 027/2022/CAT/BANGALORE
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in