Respondents cannot introduce new grounds to circumvent final orders or re-adjudicate issues during compliance proceedings.

The petitioner filed this Contempt Petition alleging willful disobedience of the Tribunal’s order dated 25.10.2024 in O.A. No. 2902/2017, which directed the respondents to consider her candidature and, if eligible, appoint her with consequential benefits

The said order attained finality as it remained unchallenged by the respondents

Despite receiving multiple opportunities, including a "last opportunity" granted on 11.11.2025, the respondents failed to comply within the stipulated timeframe

The respondents subsequently filed a compliance affidavit seeking to deny relief by raising new grounds concerning the petitioner’s CTET certificate—an issue not raised during the original adjudication

1. Whether the respondents’ act of introducing new grounds in a compliance affidavit to deny relief constitutes willful disobedience of the Tribunal’s final order

2. Whether the respondents can legally re-open or sit in appeal over a finally adjudicated issue under the guise of compliance proceedings

The Tribunal applied the principle of finality of adjudication, holding that once an issue is finally decided, respondents cannot sit in appeal over the order under the guise of compliance proceedings

It further applied the doctrine that introducing new grounds in a compliance affidavit, without challenging the original order in a higher forum, amounts to willful disobedience and an attempt to circumvent and overreach the court’s authority

The Tribunal observed that the respondents’ reliance on the CTET certificate to deny the petitioner’s OBC-category appointment was a meritless attempt to re-litigate the case.

It clarified that a CTET certificate merely reflects examination performance and is not a substitute for a caste certificate, which the petitioner had already provided

The Tribunal noted that because the original order dated 25.10.2024 was never challenged, the respondents were legally bound to implement it in "true letter and spirit"

By attempting to justify non-compliance through grounds that were not part of the Original Application or the subsequent adjudication, the respondents’ conduct was deemed a prima facie case of willful disobedience

It directed the respondents to strictly comply with the order dated 25.10.2024 and extend all consequential benefits to the petitioner within four weeks of receipt of the order

The Contempt Petition was disposed of with the caveat that the petitioner may seek revival of the petition or other legal remedies if the respondents fail to comply within the new stipulated period