Supreme Court Dismisses Contempt Petitions Where No Positive Direction For Absorption Existed

A bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Rajesh Bindal heard contempt petitions alleging non‑compliance of an order dated 31.08.2017 passed in Civil Appeal No. 2703 of 2017 and batch titled “Krishna Nand Yadav & others Vs. Magadh University & others”. The petitions arose from claims by persons appointed as Class IV employees that they were entitled to absorption into vacant posts at R.K. Dwarka College under Magadh University pursuant to directions of the J. Sinha Commission.

The Court held that there was no willful or deliberate non‑compliance of the earlier order and dismissed the contempt petitions. The bench noted that the J. Sinha Commission had not issued a positive direction of absorption but had only directed the University to "consider the qualified persons as per their inter‑se seniority to fill up the vacant posts." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “On perusal of the above orders, it is apparent that there is no positive direction in favour of the petitioners herein for absorption. Rather, J. Sinha Commission merely directed the University to consider the qualified persons as per their inter‑se seniority to fill up the vacant posts.” The Court further recorded the State of Bihar’s stance that the University’s recommendations for absorption were not in accordance with the J. Sinha Commission’s directions and that the State had requested revised recommendations, a fact which the Court treated as negating any case of deliberate non‑compliance. The bench clarified that dismissal of the contempt petitions would not "debar the petitioners to avail any other remedy for redressal of their grievances, if any, in accordance with law" and disposed of pending interlocutory applications.

Background: The dispute stemmed from appointments of the petitioners as Peons (Class IV) in R.K. Dwarka College and subsequent proceedings before a one‑man commission constituted under retired Justice S.B. Sinha (the J. Sinha Commission). The commission passed an order dated 05.05.2016, noting vacancies and directing that "the vacant posts may be filled up by the University from amongst the persons who are qualified therefor their interse seniority." A supplemental order dated 24.06.2016 inserted eight omitted names, including the petitioners, and stated, "Let all concerned treat this order to be a part of the order dated 5.5.2016." The petitioners relied on these orders to assert entitlement to absorption, and alleged non‑compliance with the Civil Appeal order of 31.08.2017.

The State of Bihar filed a counter‑affidavit saying that when the University forwarded recommendations for absorption they did not conform to the commission’s directions and that the State had requested the University to send fresh recommendations strictly in terms of the commission’s order, which were not received. The Supreme Court examined the commission’s orders, the supplemental insertion of names and the State’s response, and concluded that the commission had not issued a mandatory command for absorption but had left the matter to the University’s consideration according to inter‑se seniority. Finding absence of willful disobedience, the Court dismissed the contempt petitions while leaving open statutory and other remedies for the petitioners and disposing of interlocutory applications.

Case Details: Case No.: CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NOS. 379-380 OF 2019 in CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2788-2789 OF 2017 (2025 INSC 58) Case Title: Dinesh Kumar Singh and Anr. v. R.K. Mahajan and Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Advocates not mentioned in the order For the Respondent(s): Advocates not mentioned in the order