Full order THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM Contempt Petition (MD) SR No.62844 of 2021 S.Radhika … Petitioner -vs- 1.Mrs.G.Latha, IAS, The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, 4th Floor, EVK Sampath Maaligai, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai-06. 2.Mrs.R.Swaminatha, Chief Educational Officer, O/o.The Chief Educational Office, Madurai. 3.Mr.S.Krishnasamy, The Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Council for Higher Education, Wellington College for Lady Campus, Chennai. … Respondents Prayer:- Petition filed under Section 11

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 11.02.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
Contempt Petition (MD) SR No.62844 of 2021
S.Radhika … Petitioner -vs-
1.Mrs.G.Latha, IAS,
The Chairman,
Teachers Recruitment Board,
4th Floor, EVK Sampath Maaligai, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai-06.
2.Mrs.R.Swaminatha,
Chief Educational Officer, O/o.The Chief Educational Office, Madurai.
3.Mr.S.Krishnasamy,
The Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu State Council for Higher Education,
Wellington College for Lady Campus,
Chennai. … Respondents
Prayer:- Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act to punish the contemnor/3rd respondent herein for their willful, deliberate and disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD) No.512 of 2021 dated 25.01.2021 under the Contempt of Courts Act.
For Petitioner : Mr.Niranjan S.Kumar
******
O R D E R
This Contempt Petition is listed on account of the objections
raised by the Registry, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. regarding the maintainability of the contempt petition on the ground that this Court by order dated 25.01.2021, while disposing of W.P.(MD) No.512 of 2021, issued a direction directing the 3rd respondent to consider the representation submitted by the writ petitioner dated 31.12.2020. Therefore, respondents 1 and 2 are unnecessary parties to the contempt petition.
2.Secondly, a sub application in Sub Application (MD) SR.No.
62845 of 2021, which is filed for a direction to keep one post of Computer Instructors Grade-I (Post Graduate Cadre) – 2018-2019 vacant, is beyond the scope of the contempt petition.
3.In reply to the objections raised by the Registry, the learned
counsel, who filed the contempt petition has stated as follows:-
“1.The cause title correction rectified. The 1st and 2nd Contemnors are maintainable for Sub
Application only not for Contempt Proceedings.
2.The Sub Application filed, is maintainable, originally the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner, the petitioner had secured eligible marks conducted by the all contemnors, the petitioner cannot submit her equivalent certificate before the 1st and 2nd Contemnor, while the situation being so, the 1st and 2nd Contemnor filling the vacancy post, if the petitioner’s Sub Application is not accepted, the petitioner will put irreparable lose and hardship. Hence the Sub Application is maintainable”.
4.Learned counsel for the petitioner advanced his arguments in
the line of the reply given to the objections raised by the Registry.
5.This Court is of the considered opinion that the scope of the Contempt of Courts Act cannot be extended for the purpose of granting the relief, which was not considered by the Court in a writ petition or such prayer falls beyond the scope of the contempt proceedings. In the present case, a direction was issued by this Court directing the 3rd respondent to consider the representation dated 31.12.2020. The observations made by the Court could not be a ground to seek a relief other than the relief granted by the Court. The observations made by the Court are only for the purpose of understanding the facts and circumstances and ultimately, the direction issued alone would provide a cause for institution of contempt proceedings. Thus, relying on the observations, the petitioner cannot institute a contempt petition, unless such observations are issued in the form of a direction or order.
6.A mere direction to consider the representation would not confer
any right for the petitioner to seek a positive relief in contempt petition beyond the scope of the directions issued by the Court in the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the observations made by the
Court in para 3 which reads as under:-
“3. It is needless to point out that whenever a representation of this nature is made to a Statutory Authority, there is a duty cast upon the respondents to consider the same on its own merits and pass appropriate orders in one way or other, instead of keeping the same pending indefinitely. As such, nonconsideration of the representation by the Statutory Authority would amount to dereliction of duty and hence this Court will be justified in invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India and direct them to consider the same within a stipulated time.”
7.Such observations provide a condition that the petitioner should
establish her right before the authorities competent. The right, if any, established before the competent authority alone be considered for the purpose of considering the representation. Thus, the order of the Court to consider the representation, at no circumstances, be misconstrued for the purpose of filing a contempt petition as if the rights of the petitioner are crystallised by the Court. Even in case of issuing direction to consider the representation, the petitioner is bound to establish the right. In the absence of any such right, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief before the authorities.
8.Contempt proceedings cannot be taken undue advantage of by
the petitioner merely based on the order of direction to consider the representation. Once a direction is issued to consider the representation, the observations made by the Court would not be binding on the respondents, as all such observations require scrutinization and verification and the Courts under that context, direct the authorities to consider the representation. Once the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to consider the representation, then it is to be construed that all the merits of the case are to be adjudicated or considered by the authorities and any observation made by the Court is only for the consideration and cannot be taken as an order.
9.There is a growing trend of sending varieties of representations
to the public authorities which all are sometimes non-statutory and sometimes statutory. No doubt in respect of statutory representations, the authorities are bound to dispose of the same in accordance with law. As far as the non-statutory appeals or representations are concerned, some times, it will not be possible for the public authority to deal with all such representations within a time limit, on account of various factor including non-availability of materials. However, the practice prevailing as of now is that litigants are sending some representation through Registered Post and immediately filing a writ petition and getting an order of direction to consider the writ petition. Courts are bound to consider the volume of public works involved and mitigating factors and likelihood of prejudice to be caused to the authorities in dealing such cases. Mostly, such representation do not contain all the relevant factors. The authorities are bound to verify the records. It may not be possible for the authorities to dispose of all the representations immediately. In the event of any mistake, then again a writ petition is filed by creating fresh cause of action. Thus, a tactics being adopted is for restoring the lapsed cause of action or to create a new cause of action either to get some benefits or to escape from the clutches of law. Thus, contempt petition cannot be entertained in a routine manner in respect of general directions to consider the representation without adjudicating the merits.
10.In the present case, the petitioner seeks an equivalence
certificate to declare the qualification as equivalent. As far as the grant of equivalence of degrees are concerned, the Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission has to scrutinise the equivalence with reference to the subjects and a recommendation is to be made to the Government. The Government alone is competent to pass orders granting equivalence and based on the Government Orders, persons, who all are eligible, may seek equivalence.
11.In the present writ petition, the Government, which is the
competent authority, is not even impleaded as respondent. While so, the very issue raised cannot be finalized. Only if the Government accepts the recommendation of the Committee, issues an order of equivalence, then alone the candidates may avail the benefit of equivalence, but not otherwise. Therefore, such directions to consider the representation would not confer any cause for the purpose of filing a contempt proceedings, as if it is an order on merits. Therefore, the authorities cannot be unnecessarily pressurized by admitting the contempt petitions, which would cause prejudice to the interest of the administration. Therefore, it is to be made clear that
(i) only if the issues are decided on merits and a clear direction is
given, the contempt proceedings can be initiated against the authorities against whom a direction is issued;
(ii) in respect of the directions issued to consider the
representation, the observations made by the High Court would not confer any right for the petitioner for filing a contempt proceedings against the respondents. Such observations are made based on the affidavit and such observations also required to be adjudicated or considered by the competent authorities on merits and in accordance with the documents and evidences;

(iii) unnecessary parties cannot be impleaded in the contempt
proceedings; and
(iv) the authority against whom a direction is issued alone must be
a party to the contempt proceedings.
12.Furthermore, the sub application filed beyond the scope of the
directions issued in the writ petition cannot be entertained. A fresh adjudication cannot be done on merits in a contempt proceedings. Contempt proceedings are to be confined with reference to the directions issued by the High Court in the writ petitions. Thus, any such application filed seeking for the relief, which is not falling within the relief already granted in the writ petition is not maintainable.
13.In respect of the orders of direction passed by the High Court to consider the representations, the contempt petition need not be entertained based on the merits involved and in respect of the issues raised by the petitioners. Contempt petitions can be filed only if the directions issued to dispose of the representation within the time limit stipulated has not been complied with. The petitioner is at liberty to delete all the unnecessary parties and withdraw the sub application and rectify the defects and re-present the contempt petition strictly with reference to the directions issued in the writ petition and in such an event, the Registry shall examine the petition for numbering the case.
14.In view of the above clarification, the objection raised by the
Registry stands confirmed and the Contempt Petition (MD) SR.No.62844 of 2021 is rejected.
11.02.2022
abr
Index:Yes
Speaking Order
To
1.Mrs.G.Latha, IAS,
The Chairman, Teachers Recruitment Board, 4th Floor, EVK Sampath Maaligai,
DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai-06.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
abr
2.Mrs.R.Swaminatha,
Chief Educational Officer, O/o.The Chief Educational Office, Madurai.
3.Mr.S.Krishnasamy,
The Member Secretary,
Tamil Nadu State Council for Higher Education, Wellington College for Lady Campus, Chennai.
Cont.P.(MD) SR No.62844 of 2021
11.02.2022