No contempt lies where non-appointment results from failure to meet prescribed recruitment eligibility criteria.

Seven of the 20 applicants in O.A. No. 430/2016 filed this contempt petition alleging non-compliance with the Tribunal’s order directing the respondents to extend benefits similar to those granted to 12 persons, within 90 days

The respondents challenged that order before the Orissa High Court, which dismissed the challenge and directed implementation within eight weeks, while permitting the respondents to seek information or documents needed to process the claims

Following scrutiny, some applicants were found over the notified age limit, one applicant’s educational certificate was reported not genuine, and another was found medically unfit; appointments were offered to applicants found eligible

The petitioners argued that the High Court had directed age relaxation, while the respondents denied that any such direction had been made

1. Whether the respondents’ failure to appoint certain applicants, following eligibility and document verification, amounted to intentional or deliberate disobedience of the Tribunal’s order

2. Whether the High Court’s order required the respondents to relax the notified upper-age limit or appoint applicants irrespective of the genuineness of their educational certificates and medical fitness

The Tribunal referred to the Contempt of Court Act and Rules in considering whether the alleged non-compliance warranted further contempt proceedings

Its reasoning turned on whether there had been an intentional and deliberate violation of the underlying order; the judgment identified no specific statutory provision or precedent.

It also treated the High Court’s directions as requiring implementation of the Tribunal’s order, not appointment irrespective of the applicable recruitment eligibility criteria

The Tribunal found that the respondents had processed the claims and offered appointments to applicants who satisfied the applicable requirements

It rejected the petitioners’ interpretation that the High Court had ordered a general relaxation of the notified age limit, distinguishing that direction from the treatment of delay caused by continuing litigation

Given the age, certificate-authenticity and medical-fitness findings, the Tribunal was not persuaded that the respondents had intentionally or deliberately disobeyed its order

The contempt petition was dropped, the notices discharged, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs