2025:HHC:20884 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No.91 of 2024 Decided on: 2nd July, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Aman Kumar and others …..Petitioners Versus Sh. Manoj Kumar and another .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the Petitioners: Ms. Ritta Goswami, Senior Advocate with Ms. Komal Chaudhary and Ms. Rekha Thakur, Advocates. For the Respondents: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Harsh Kalta, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Surender Sharma and Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocates, for respondent No.2. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge Petitioners allege violation of the directions issued in Aman Kumar and others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others2 and seek action against the respondents for contempt of Court orders. Aman Kumar2 was instituted by the petitioners seeking directions for quashing the entire selection process against the re-advertisement notice dated 01.06.2022 by 1 Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes 2 CWP No.6785 of 2022, decided on 19.05.2023 2 2025:HHC:20884 declaring the same to be illegal and malafide. Alternatively, a prayer was made for grant of 05 grace marks to the petitioners and also for reviewing the result of written test accordingly. A further prayer was made that all such candidates, who are already in service against the advertised posts, be ordered to be granted 10 preferential marks or they be not ordered to be disengaged keeping in view their long experience. Following order was passed in the said writ petition on 28.09.2022:- “The learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 has placed on record a communication dated 27.09.2022 addressed by the Executive Director (Pers.) Vidyut Bhawan, HPSEBL, Shimla to the Secretary, HP Takniki Shiksha Board, Dharamshala. The relevant portion of the said communication reads as follows:- “The petitioners have now filed writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of H.P. at Shimla praying therein that whole selection process against the re-advertisement Notice dated 01.06.2022 may be quashed and set aside or in the alternative 5 grace marks may be given to the petitioners and the result of the written test may be reviewed with further prayer that all the candidates who are already working against advertised post may be ordered to be grant 10 preferential marks. The copy of the petition stands already provided to your office on Whatsapp for scrutiny of the matter. Since the written test was conducted by our Board and answer key to the same was also provided by your office, therefore, you are requested to kindly look into the matter and arrange to place your version/instructions before the Hon’ble Court through the counsel engaged by you in as much 3 2025:HHC:20884 as Takninki Shiksha Board is also one of the party Respondent No.4 in the writ petition.” 2. The learned counsel for respondent No.4 states that respondent No.4 shall consider the case of the petitioners in view of the aforesaid communication and shall take appropriate decision. 3. We record the statement of the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that until the decision is taken by respondent No.4, no further steps shall be taken. We expect of respondent No.4 to take a decision before the next date and place the same on record. 4. List the petition on 17.10.2022 for filing an affidavit-reply alongwith decision taken by respondent No.4.” The aforesaid petition was disposed of on 19.05.2023 with following operative directions:- “3. In compliance to the aforementioned order, respondent No.4 has filed its reply-affidavit, as available on page No.269 of the petition. A perusal of the same goes to show that as against 5 questions, answers to 3 questions, have now been rectified by respondent No.4, whereas, no merit was found with regard to the contention of other questions that were referred to by respondent No.4. 4. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the instant petition by directing that the revised result be declared by respondent No.4, on the basis of compliance affidavit filed on 15.10.2022, within a period of one week from today and, thereafter, supply the same to the 3rd respondent, Executive Director (Personnel), Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited Vidyut Bhawan, Kumar House, Shimla, for necessary action.” It is the grievance of the petitioners that the aforesaid directions issued in para 4 of the decision have been violated by the respondents and therefore, they have committed contempt. 4 2025:HHC:20884 2. With the assistance of learned Senior Counsel on both sides, the factual information has been disseminated as under:- 2(i). Pursuant to the directions given in Aman Kumar2, respondent No.2-H.P. Technical Education Board, Dharamshala (respondent No.4 in the writ petition) declared the result of the screening test for the posts of Driver vide Annexure P-6. Petitioners’ grievance is that even though their result was declared, yet, they have not been issued any appointment order. The result has not been taken to logical conclusion. 2(ii). Stand of respondent No.1-Board is as under:- 2(ii)(a). Result of selection process as declared by the H.P. Technical Education Board was supplied to it for further necessary action. 2(ii)(b). A notification was issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) on 16.01.2023, directing that government vehicles, which are older than 15 years and owned by the Government of India and its Ministries/Departments, State/UT Governments and their Departments, Local Government Institutions, State Transport Undertakings, Public Sector undertakings and Autonomous Bodies with the Government of India and 5 2025:HHC:20884 State Governments shall be scrapped; That no government vehicle shall ply/run after completing 15 years from the date of registration. 2(ii)(c). There were 286 number of vehicles (HMV/LMV) available in various units of respondent No.1-Board, out of which 142 vehicles (HMV/LMV) were either grounded or their Registration Certificates (RCs) were cancelled. Only 144 vehicles were available in different units of HPSEBL. There were 224 number of Drivers working in HPSEBL, out of which 61 were working on regular basis, 15 on daily wage basis and 148 on outsource basis, whereas, number of vehicles available with the Board was 144. 98 drivers engaged on outsource basis with respondent No.1 were lying idle without any vehicle to ply. Faced with this, respondent No.1-Board requested the service provider/ outsource agency that it is not in need of 81 drivers out of total 144 provided to it on outsource basis. 2(ii)(d). In view of changed circumstances, the matter of proceeding further with process of recruitment was reconsidered by the competent authority in the Government as also by the Board of Directors of respondent No.1-Board in its 72nd meeting held on 27.11.2024. It was finally decided to scrap the recruitment process as more vehicles 6 2025:HHC:20884 were in line to be scrapped. Decision was also taken to outsource the services of the vehicles. The said decision has been placed on record as Annexure RA-1/2. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1- Board submitted that notification dated 16.01.2023 was in force at the time of decision of Aman Kumar2, wherein directions were given to the respondent-Technical Education Board to declare the result to enable HPSEB Limited to take necessary action on it. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contends that there was specific direction in Aman Kumar2 to the respondents to take necessary action on the revised result to be declared by respondent No.2-Technical Education Board. The necessary action in the given context can only be by taking the result to its logical conclusion by offering appointments to the petitioners/selected candidates. Reliance in support of this submission was placed upon Goan Real Estate and Construction Limited and another Versus Union of India and others3, wherein well settled principle was reiterated that an order of the Court must be construed having regard to the text and context in which the same was passed; For the purpose, 3 (2010) 5 SCC 388 7 2025:HHC:20884 judgment of the Court is required to be read in its entirety; A judgment, it is well settled, cannot be read as a statute. Construction of a judgment should be made in light of the factual matrix involved therein. What is more important is to see the issues involved therein and the context wherein the observations were made; Observations made in a judgment, it is trite, should not be read in isolation and out of context. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that the directions in the judgment were to declare the result and for taking necessary action. In compliance to the directions, revised result was declared by respondent No.2-H.P. Technical Education Board. The necessary action in the emerging facts and circumstances was taken by respondent No.1-Board. The decision to scrap the entire selection process was taken in view of the changed circumstances, intervening developments and out of necessity & administrative exigencies. 4. I have heard learned counsel on both sides and considered the case file. 4(i). Though some paragraphs of the judgment alleged to be violated have been extracted hereinabove, however, for appreciating the context in which it was 8 2025:HHC:20884 passed, it would be appropriate to extract the entire judgment:- “The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive relief:- “(i) That the whole selection process against the re- advertisement notice dated 01.06.2022 (Annexure P-2) may be quashed and set aside after declaring the same illegal and malafide. Alternatively 5 grace marks may be given to the petitioners and the result of the written test may be reviewed. Further all the candidates who are already doing the job against the advertised posts may be ordered to grant the 10 preferential marks or they may be ordered not to be disengaged, keeping in view their long experience.” 2. On 28.9.2022, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed the following order:- “The learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 has placed on record a communication dated 27.09.2022 addressed by the Executive Director (Pers.) Vidyut Bhawan, HPSEBL, Shimla to the Secretary, HP Takniki Shiksha Board, Dharamshala. The relevant portion of the said communication reads as follows:- “The petitioners have now filed writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of H.P. at Shimla praying therein that whole selection process against the re-advertisement Notice dated 01.06.2022 may be quashed and set aside or in the alternative 5 grace marks may be given to the petitioners and the result of the written test may be reviewed with further prayer that all the candidates who are already working against advertised post may be ordered to be grant 10 preferential marks. The copy of the petition stands already provided to your office on Whatsapp for scrutiny of the matter. Since the written test was conducted by our Board and answer key to the same was also provided by your office, therefore, you are requested to kindly look into the matter and arrange to place your version/instructions before the Hon’ble Court 9 2025:HHC:20884 through the counsel engaged by you in as much as Takninki Shiksha Board is also one of the party Respondent No.4 in the writ petition.” 2. The learned counsel for respondent No.4 states that respondent No.4 shall consider the case of the petitioners in view of the aforesaid communication and shall take appropriate decision. 3. We record the statement of the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that until the decision is taken by respondent No.4, no further steps shall be taken. We expect of respondent No.4 to take a decision before the next date and place the same on record. 4. List the petition on 17.10.2022 for filing an affidavit-reply alongwith decision taken by respondent No.4.” 3. In compliance to the aforementioned order, respondent No.4 has filed its reply-affidavit, as available on page No.269 of the petition. A perusal of the same goes to show that as against 5 questions, answers to 3 questions, have now been rectified by respondent No.4, whereas, no merit was found with regard to the contention of other questions that were referred to by respondent No.4. 4. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the instant petition by directing that the revised result be declared by respondent No.4, on the basis of compliance affidavit filed on 15.10.2022, within a period of one week from today and, thereafter, supply the same to the 3rd respondent, Executive Director (Personnel), Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited Vidyut Bhawan, Kumar House, Shimla, for necessary action. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.” The directions are there in para 4 of the above- extracted decision, whereby the Technical Education Board has been specifically directed to:- (i) Declare the revised result on the basis of its compliance affidavit within one 10 2025:HHC:20884 week; and (ii) To supply the revised result to HPSEBL for necessary action. It is not in dispute that both the above directions have been complied with by respondent No.2- Technical Education Board within the timelines stipulated in the decision. The revised result was declared and was supplied to HPSEBL. 4(ii). At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to C. Elumalai and others Versus A.G.L. Irudayaraj and another4, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court examined the issue of contempt in light of several key precedents, particularly focusing on the requirement of “wilful disobedience” for holding a party guilty of civil contempt. The principles set out in Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha & Ors.5 were relied upon where “wilful” was defined as an act or omission done voluntarily and intentionally, with a specific intent to disobey or disregard the law, signifying a deliberate action with evil intent or bad motive. The Court reiterated that wilful disobedience must be established beyond doubt, and mere non-compliance or misunderstanding of an order is not sufficient to constitute contempt. Decision in Kapildeo Prasad Sah v. State of 4 (2009) 4 SCC 213 5 (2003) 11 SCC 1 11 2025:HHC:20884 Bihar6 was also referred to emphasize that contempt powers should be exercised only when there is clear, deliberate, or contumacious disobedience, and that negligence or carelessness may sometimes amount to contempt, but the threshold remains high. Anil Ratan Sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh7 was also cited, highlighting that an unambiguous order must be obeyed and that misunderstanding is not a valid defence; the power to punish for contempt must be used sparingly and only when intentional violation is established. The decision underscores that contempt jurisdiction is a drastic power, to be used only to uphold the authority of the courts and the rule of law, and not for every technical or accidental breach. In Abhishek Kumar Singh Versus G. Pattanaik and others8, Hon’ble Apex Court addressed the issue of contempt in the context of alleged non-compliance with its previous orders. The legal principle reaffirmed was that contempt action can only be sustained where there is clear, wilful disobedience of a court order. It was emphasized that mere non-compliance, absent a deliberate 6 (1999) 7 SCC 569 7 (2002) 4 SCC 21 8 (2021) 7 SCC 613 12 2025:HHC:20884 or intentional act to defy the court order, does not amount to contempt. In Prithawi Nath Ram Versus State of Jharkhand and others9, Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified the limited scope of contempt proceedings. That when dealing with a contempt application, the primary concern is whether the earlier judgment or order, having attained finality, has been complied with. The Court cannot revisit or question the correctness of that earlier decision, nor can it take a different view than what was already decided. If a party believes the order is incorrect or impossible to implement, the proper course is to approach the appellate or reviewing court, not to raise such issues during contempt proceedings. The contempt jurisdiction is confined to examining alleged non-compliance or contumacious conduct; it cannot be used to modify, add to, or delete directions from the original order, as that would amount to exercising review jurisdiction, which is impermissible in contempt cases. 4(iii). Reverting to the present case, HPSEBL was though required to take action on the revised result, however, there was no specific direction in the judgment to 9 (2004) 7 SCC 261 13 2025:HHC:20884 respondent No.1-Board for acting on the basis of the declared result, in a particular manner. Considering the notification issued by the MoRTH on 16.01.2023 regarding scrapping of government vehicles, which had completed 15 years from the date of registration, respondent No.1-Board considered the entire gamut of the matter. The availability of vehicles and drivers was ascertained. The Board realized that out of total 286 vehicles available with HPSEBL, 142 had already been grounded and their RCs had been cancelled in view of MoRTH notification dated 16.01.2023. Only 144 number of vehicles were available, against which 224 number of Drivers were working. Out of these Drivers, 148 were on outsource basis and 15 on daily wage basis. As per the pleadings, respondent No.1-Board had already intimated the outsource agency that it was not in need of 81 Drivers on account of emerging factual situation. In view of this, while deciding to scrap the entire recruitment process, it was also decided to outsource the services of the vehicles. Such a course of action taken by the respondents cannot be said to be in violation of the directions issued in Aman Kumar2. Firstly, no specific directions had been issued to the respondent-HPSEBL in Aman Kumar2. The directions were issued to the H.P. Technical Education 14 2025:HHC:20884 Board to declare the revised result and to supply it to HPSEBL for ‘necessary action’. Secondly, course of action so adopted by HPSEBL was available to it in the attending circumstances in view of State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha10, K. Manjushree v. State of Andhra Pradesh11 and Tej Prakash Pathak and Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court and Ors.12. The gist of these decisions is that mere entry in the selection list does not give the selected candidate a right to be appointed. It may happen that the Government for financial or other administrative reasons may not fill up any vacancy. In such a case, the candidates even if in the selection list, will not have an indefeasible right to be appointed. 5. There was no positive, assertive or specific direction in the judgment to respondent-HPSEBL to act or to act in furtherance of revised result declared by the H.P. Technical Education Board for taking it to its logical conclusion by issuing appointment orders on that basis. HPSEBL was to take necessary action on the revised result. On receipt of revised result, the HPSEBL considered the matter administratively and decided that in the developing 10 (1974) 3 SCC 220 11 (2008) 3 SCC 512 12 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3184 15 2025:HHC:20884 circumstances & administrative exigencies, it was not in need of Drivers and decided to scrap the recruitment process. While exercising the contempt jurisdiction, this Court cannot venture into examining the validity of the decision taken by respondent No.1-Board. For the foregoing discussion, the action of respondent No.1-Board in scrapping the entire recruitment process for the posts of Driver cannot be said to be in violation of the directions issued in Aman Kumar2 or in contempt of the directions issued therein. The action taken by respondent No.1-Board, its decision to scrap the entire recruitment process may give a fresh cause of action to the petitioners to assail such decision in appropriate proceedings, but such action, in the face of nature of directions issued in Aman Kumar2 and attending facts & circumstances, cannot be said to be a contemptuous act. Hence, there is no merit in the instant contempt petition. The same is accordingly dismissed alongwith pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. Notices issued to the respondents are discharged. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 02, 2025 Judge Mukesh