Non-availability of vacancy cannot justify non-compliance with judicial directions for promotion where eligibility is established.

The petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging wilful disobedience of a judgment dated 03.02.2023 passed in W.P.(C) 4881/2013.

In the original writ, the Court found that the petitioner possessed a superior right to be promoted as PGT (History) over Respondent No. 3, who was ineligible due to an "average" ACR grading.

Despite this, the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) convened in April 2026 and declined the promotion, citing the non-availability of a post because it was currently occupied by the ineligible Respondent No. 3.

This justification was previously rejected when the respondent's Special Leave Petition (SLP) was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

1. Whether the non-availability of a vacancy due to the continued occupation of the post by an ineligible candidate constitutes a valid ground to deny promotion directed by the Court.

2. Whether the respondents’ failure to grant promotion to the petitioner amounts to wilful disobedience under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

The court applied the principles of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, specifically Section 12, regarding the consequences of breaching judicial directions.

It also relied on the doctrine of finality of judgments, noting that once an SLP against a High Court judgment is dismissed, the administrative authorities cannot raise the same impediments (such as lack of vacancy) to frustrate the implementation of the original order.

Furthermore, the court emphasized that "non-availability of vacancy" is not a legal impediment to providing relief in derogation of specific court directions.

The Court reasoned that the petitioner had suffered "inherent injustice" because the post of PGT (History) was granted to an ineligible candidate (Respondent No. 3) despite the petitioner’s superior merits.

The respondents' attempt to justify non-compliance by citing the lack of a vacant post was dismissed as legally untenable, especially since this argument had already failed before the Supreme Court.

The Court observed that because the school is an aided institution (95% government funding), the Directorate of Education (Respondent No. 1) has the authority to sanction an additional post to rectify the legal wrong.

The Court found that maintaining the status quo was a "wilful disobedience" of the judgment dated 03.02.2023.

The Court directed Respondent No. 1 (Directorate of Education) to sanction an additional post of PGT (History) and directed Respondent No. 2 (the School) to thereafter convene a DPC and grant the promotion within four weeks.

The petition was disposed of with a direction for a compliance report on 29.05.2026, stipulating that continued non-compliance would result in formal action under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act.