- 1 - WP No. 1023 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 1023 OF 2026 (S-CAT) BETWEEN: 1. DR. JAGADEESHA K G, S/O. GOPAL K. L, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, 2ND FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 2. DR. SHALINI RAJNEESH, W/O RAJNEESH GOEL, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, ROOM NO.320, 3RD FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. REUBEN JACOB, AAG A/W SRI V SHIVAREDDY, AGA) AND: 1. MAJOR (RETD.) SIDDALINGAYYA HIREMATH, KAS PRESENTLY WORKING AS CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, DHARWAD INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH AND NEUROSCIENCES, DHARWAD-580001. Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - WP No. 1023 of 2026 2. RACHNA SHAH, SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001. 3. SHASHI RANJAN KUMAR, SECRETARY, UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, DHOLAPUR HOUSE, SHAHAJAHAN ROAD, NEW DELHI-110069. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SIDDALINGAYYA HIREMATH, PARTY-IN-PERSON SRI N AMARESH, ADV. FOR R2 & R3) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 11.12.2025 IN MA NO. 469 OF 2025 IN CP NO.57/2017 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO THIS WRIT PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ORDER DATED 09.10.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-Q AND PASS AN ORDER CLOSING/DROPPING THE SAID CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS IN CP NO. 57/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH AND ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 16.03.2026 COMING ON THIS DAY, S.G.PANDIT J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND - 3 - WP No. 1023 of 2026 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) 1. This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the State Authorities including the Chief Secretary to Government, Government of Karnataka, questions order dated 11.12.2025 passed in M.A.No.469/2025 in C.P.No.57/2017 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bengaluru (for short, ‘CAT’) and also with a prayer to quash order dated 09.10.2025 (Annexure-Q) in C.P.No.57/2017. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the first respondent is an Ex-Military Personnel who served in the Indian Army as Short Service Commissioned Officer from 01.09.2001 to 30.04.2008. Thereafter, respondent was appointed as Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes on 06.06.2008 and served till 13.08.2010. While he was serving as such, he was selected and appointed through Gazetted Probationers Examination to Karnataka Administrative Service (for short, ‘KAS’) (Junior Scale) on 24.08.2010. The first respondent filed O.A.No.230/2016 - 4 - WP No. 1023 of 2026 alleging non-consideration of his case for appointment by promotion to the Indian Administrative Service (for short, ‘IAS’) by giving effect to Regulation 5(2) of the Indian Administrative Services (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 (for short, ‘Regulations, 1955’). The CAT by order dated 01.02.2017 allowed the application of the first respondent and held that the respondent would be entitled to the benefit of fourth Proviso to Regulation 5(2) of Regulations, 1955 and directed the State to consider the respondent’s representations and decide any pending issues including the question of seniority of the respondent in the seniority list of KAS Officers and his claim for appointment to the IAS. 3. The above order passed by the CAT was the subject matter of W.P.No.11337/2017 filed by the Union of India, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 23.03.2017 (Annexure-C). The same was taken up in SLP(C).No.15887/2017 by the Union of India which was dismissed. Thereafter, first respondent filed Contempt Petition No.57/2017 complaining disobedience of order - 5 - WP No. 1023 of 2026 dated 01.02.2017 in O.A.No.230/2016. In the meanwhile, the petitioners herein – the State Authorities submitted proposal to UPSC for promotion of 1st respondent from KAS to IAS on 25.06.2017, 02.06.2017 and 12.09.2017 and, an endorsement was also issued to the 1st respondent intimating compliance of order dated 01.02.2017. The CAT by order dated 21.03.2018 (Annexure-E) closed the contempt petition holding that the order dated 01.02.2017 in O.A.No.230/2016 has been complied with and that there has been no case of any willful violation of the order passed by the CAT. The respondent challenged the said order dated 21.03.2018 passed in Contempt Petition No.57/2017 before this Court and Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 08.01.2020 in W.P.No.103232/2018 (Annexure-F) restored the Contempt Petition and remitted the matter back to CAT for fresh consideration with liberty to the parties to produce any further documents. 4. On remand, the State produced communication dated 16.12.2022 (Annexure-G) informing the first - 6 - WP No. 1023 of 2026 respondent consideration of his representation and due compliance of the CAT order dated 01.02.2017. In the said communication, the first respondent was informed that he has been included in the zone of consideration under fourth Proviso of Regulation 5(2) of Regulations, 1955 bypassing 83 Officers senior to respondent in KAS, as they have not completed 8 years of continuous service in KAS. Further, first respondent was informed that, in terms of fourth Proviso to Regulation 5(2) of Regulations, 1955, first respondent’s previous service rendered in the Short Service Commission was taken into consideration to determine the eligibility. The CAT on hearing the Contempt Petition gave divergent views. The Judicial Member was of the opinion that Contempt Petition cannot be closed and deserves to be proceeded with. Whereas, the Administrative Member was of the view that order dated 01.02.2017 in O.A.No.230/2016 stands fully complied with and ordered closure of the contempt proceedings with an observation that if the respondent is not satisfied with fixation of interse seniority in the State Civil Service, he is - 7 - WP No. 1023 of 2026 at liberty to challenge the same before the appropriate forum. 5. In view of the divergence of views, the matter was placed before third Member of CAT. The Third Member, by order dated 25.07.2023 though agreed with the extent of reasoning of the Member (A), disagreed with the conclusion of compliance and held that it needs further consideration. Questioning the majority decision in Contempt Petition No.57/2017, the State and its Officers were before this Court in W.P.No.22901/2023 and Co- ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 25.04.2025 dismissed the said challenge holding that it is only an interlocutory order and even the merits of the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal is justified. Thereafter, compliance affidavit dated 08.10.2025 of the Secretary to Government, Department of Personal and Administrative Reforms, enclosing the revised proposal and also fixing the deemed date of appointment of respondent as 30.10.2000. The CAT by order dated 09.10.2025 was of the opinion that compliance affidavit dated 08.10.2025 is - 8 - WP No. 1023 of 2026 not the compliance and deemed date fixed as 30.10.2000 is not compliance and compliance has to be made counting the services of the respondent in the Short Service Commission and accordingly fix the deemed date of appointment as per the fourth Proviso to Regulation 5(2) of Regulations, 1955. Thus, posted the matter for reporting compliance by 13.11.2025, failing which, the petitioners were directed to be present before the CAT for hearing before framing of charge. The State thereafter filed M.A.No.469/2025 praying to re-call order dated 09.10.2025, which was dismissed by order dated 07.11.2025. 6. The said order dated 07.11.2025 was challenged by the State before this Court in W.P.No.34073/2025 which was partly allowed by order dated 12.11.2025 quashing the order dated 07.11.2025 and restoring M.A.No.469/2025 to consider in the light of this Court’s observation as against order dated 09.10.2025. On re-consideration of M.A.No.469/2025 filed - 9 - WP No. 1023 of 2026 to re-call order dated 09.10.2025, under impugned order, the CAT passed the following order: “46. At the cost of repetition, we reiterate that compliance herein, means first giving deemed date to the applicant joining State Civil Service - Karnataka Administrative Service in terms of 4th Proviso to Regulation 5 (2), not to the Short Service Commission as carried out by the State Government. Fourth proviso is a beneficial legislation enacted with a laudable object of providing benefit to the released Emergency Commissioned Officers & Short Service Commission Officers in recognition of their sacrifice, commitment and discipline in safeguarding the national security which may involve their supreme life. The adoption of scrupulous devices/meticulous technicalities cannot be used to defeat beneficial legislation. Compliance of a judicial order is not an empty formality, strict compliance is warranted with application of mind but the same is absent in the so-called compliance reports filed by the State Government. Accordingly, contempt proceedings deserves to be proceeded with. 47. List the matter for reporting compliance by 19.01.2026, failing which miscellaneous applicants/Respondent Nos.10 and 11 shall be present in person before this Tribunal for hearing before framing of the charges.” - 10 - WP No. 1023 of 2026 Challenging the said order, the petitioners are before this Court in this writ petition. 7. Heard learned Additional Advocate General Sri.Reuben Jacob along with Sri.V.Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for petitioners, Sri.N.Amaresh, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Sri.Siddalingaiah Hiremath, respondent No.1 – Party-in-Person. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 8. Learned Additional Advocate General Sri.Reuben Jacob would submit that the impugned order passed by the CAT is wholly erroneous and is the result of improper appreciation of the direction dated 01.02.2017 in O.A.No.230/2016 and the compliance affidavits along with documents filed by the petitioners. It is submitted that the CAT directed the petitioners herein to consider his representations and to decide any pending issue including the seniority of the respondent in the list of KAS Officers while holding that respondent is entitled to benefit of fourth Proviso to Regulation 5(2) of Regulations, 1955. - 11 - WP No. 1023 of 2026 Learned Additional Advocate General would refer to previous orders passed by the Co-ordinate Benches and submit that recent order of Co-ordinate Bench dated 12.11.2025 in W.P.No.34073/2025 provided an opportunity to the petitioners to show cause against the framing of charges. It is submitted that the petitioners brought to the notice of the CAT the compliance affidavit filed on 08.10.2025 and assignment of deemed date as 30.10.2000 in terms of Regulation 5(2) of Regulations, 1955 and forwarding proposal by the State Government for promotion to the IAS for the select list 2015 and 2016. However, it is submitted that the CAT failed to appreciate the compliance in the light of the fact that the direction in O.A.No.230/2016 dated 01.02.2017 was only to consider respondent’s representations and to decide the respondent’s position in the list of Seniority of KAS Officers. 9. Learned Additional Advocate General would submit that there is no specific direction by CAT while holding that the respondent is entitled to the benefit of - 12 - WP No. 1023 of 2026 fourth proviso to Regulation 5(2) of Regulations, 1955. Learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the direction of the CAT to consider the respondent’s position in the seniority by giving effect to fourth proviso to Regulation 5(2) of Regulations, 1955 has been considered and the respondent was issued with detailed endorsement dated 16.12.2022 (Annexure-G) and subsequently, the respondent was also informed by letter dated 29.10.2025 assigning deemed date of appointment in terms of Regulation 5(2) of Regulations, 1955. In view of those communications, it is submitted that there is compliance of the CAT order dated 01.02.2017 and if the respondent was aggrieved, it was open for him to challenge the same in a separate proceedings and the CAT could not have expanded the order which was complied. Further, learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the petitioners implemented the order of the CAT as it understood, in the absence of any specific direction by the CAT. - 13 - WP No. 1023 of 2026 10. Learned Additional Advocate General would invite attention of this Court to the clarification by the Union of India, Ministry of Personal, Public Grievances and Pension, Department of Personal and Training dated 08.11.2025 insofar as fixing of deemed date in pursuance to fourth proviso to Regulation 5(2) of Regulations, 1955 and submits that deemed date of appointment is used only for reckoning eligibility under Regulation 5(2) of Regulations, 1955 and does not affect or determine seniority within the State Civil Service. Therefore, it is submitted that the CAT could not have proceeded further with the contempt when it was brought to its notice that proposal for respondent’s case for promotion to IAS cadre has been recommended for 2015, 2016 and that his deemed date has been fixed. 11. Learned Additional Advocate General placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SUDHIR VASUDEVA, CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS VS. M.GEORGE RAVISHEKARAN - 14 - WP No. 1023 of 2026 AND OTHERS1 would submit that Court exercising contempt jurisdiction cannot pass supplemental order to the main order passed in writ petition. Further, learned Additional Advocate General would also place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CHADURANGA KANTHRAJ URS AND ANOTHER VS. P.RAVI KUMAR AND OTHERS2 to contend that unless it is established that it is a willful and deliberate disobedience, the Court would not exercise contempt jurisdiction. 12. On the contrary, respondent No.1 – Party-in- person would submit that the writ petition itself is not maintainable against an interlocutory order passed in a contempt proceedings. He submits that impugned order provided the petitioners to report compliance and failing to report compliance only required their presence before the CAT for hearing before charge. Therefore, he submits that the petitioners instead of complying the order dated 01.02.2017 in O.A.No.230/2016 in its letter and spirit, have rushed to this Court. He placed reliance on the 1 (2014) 3 SCC 373 2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3681 - 15 - WP No. 1023 of 2026 decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T.SUDHAKAR PRASAD VS. GOVERNMENT OF A.P., AND OTHERS3 in support of his contention of maintainability of writ petition. 13. Further, Party-in-Person would submit that, in previous orders of the Co-ordinate Bench where under interlocutory orders were questioned, the Co-ordinate Bench has held that the conclusion of the CAT that there is non-compliance is justified and dismissed the writ petition of the petitioners observing that the petitions are without merit. Therefore, he submits that the present writ petition questioning the identical interlocutory order is liable to be rejected. 14. On hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the following points would arise for our consideration: a) Whether as contended by the respondent No.1, writ petition is not maintainable? 3 (2001) 1 SCC 516 - 16 - WP No. 1023 of 2026 b) Whether impugned order dated 11.12.2025 in M.A.No.469/2025 in Contempt Petition No.57/2017 in O.A.No.230/2016 needs interference and whether there is substantial compliance of order complained of disobedience i.e., order dated 01.02.2017 in O.A.No.230/2016? 15. Answer to the above points would be in the negative and affirmative respectively, for the following reasons: Respondent No.1 – Party-in-Person contended that writ petition against interlocutory order in a contempt proceedings would not be maintainable. Hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition. In the instant case, the petitioners – State Officers are before this Court questioning interlocutory order dated 11.12.2025 in M.A.No.469/2025 where under the petitioners had sought for re-calling the order dated 09.10.2025 in C.P.No.57/2017 directing the petitioners to report compliance by 13.11.2025, failing which, to be present before the Tribunal for hearing before charge. - 17 - WP No. 1023 of 2026 16. Section 19 of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 (for short, ‘the Act’) provides for appeal against an order of conviction in contempt proceedings. However, the Act would not provide for appeal or remedy against an interlocutory order passed in the contempt proceedings. Therefore, whenever the statute would not provide for remedy, normally writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked. Therefore, it cannot be said that writ petition is not maintainable against an interlocutory order passed in a contempt jurisdiction, however, subject to self-restraint by the writ Court to entertain writ petition depending on facts and situation of each case. The decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in T. Sudhakar (supra) would not bar writ petition against interlocutory order passed in a contempt proceedings. Thus, we hold that writ petition is maintainable against an interlocutory order passed in a contempt proceedings. 17. Contempt Petition No.57/2017 in O.A.No.230/2016 was initiated by respondent No.1 and - 18 - WP No. 1023 of 2026 both petitioners as well as respondent No.1 were before this Court previously questioning the interlocutory orders as well as closure of the contempt proceedings. 18. The CAT passed the following order dated 01.02.2017 in O.A.No.230/2016 filed by respondent: “15. We hold that the applicant is entitled to the benefit offered by the fourth Proviso to Regulation 5(2). The respondents are directed to consider the applicant’s representations and decide any pending issues including the question of the applicant’s position in the seniority list of KAS officers and his claim to be considered for appointment to the IAS within three months of receiving a copy of our order. We make it clear that these issues will be decided in accordance with the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, and other relevant rules, and based on the merits of the case.” The above order holds that the respondent is entitled to the benefit of fourth Proviso to Regulation 5(2) of Regulations, 1955. Further, it directs consideration of respondent’s representations and to decide any pending issues including the respondent’s position in the seniority - 19 - WP No. 1023 of 2026 list of KAS Officers and his claim for appointment to the IAS. However, no specific direction with regard to deemed date of the respondent’s appointment or proposal for promotion of respondent to IAS from a particular year is forthcoming. In other words, no specific direction is issued by the CAT insofar as respondent’s deemed date or seniority in the seniority list of KAS Officers. The above direction issued has become final and binding on both the parties by virtue of dismissal of SLP filed by the Union of India. 19. The CAT by order dated 21.03.2018 taking note of the compliance affidavit and the communication forwarded to the Secretary, UPSC, dropped the contempt proceedings observing that order of the CAT dated 01.02.2017 in O.A.No.230/2016 has been complied with. However, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 08.01.2020 in W.P.No.103232/2018 remitted the matter back to CAT, restoring the contempt proceedings for fresh consideration. However, on remand, the Bench of the CAT differed in its opinion and the matter was referred to third - 20 - WP No. 1023 of 2026 Judge. The majority decision held that there is no compliance and contempt proceedings needs to be further proceeded with. That majority order was the subject matter of W.P.No.22901/2023 and this Court by order dated 25.04.2025 rejected the State’s challenge holding that there is no merit. Therefore, this Court could not go behind the order passed in W.P.No.22901/2023 dated 25.04.2025. 20. Thereafter, before the CAT the petitioners filed compliance affidavit dated 08.10.2025 enclosing the letter dated 08.10.2025 addressed to the Union Public Service Commission informing the fixation of deemed date as per fourth proviso to Regulation 5(2) of Regulations, 1955 as 30.10.2000 and the respondent’s eligibility to be considered for promotion for 2015 and 2016. The Annexure attached to the said letter indicates that the date of appointment of respondent in the State Civil Services is indicated as 24.08.2010, date of confirmation as 24.08.2010. However, deemed date is shown as 30.10.2000 in terms of Regulation 5(2) of Regulations, - 21 - WP No. 1023 of 2026 1955. The petitioners also enclosed communication dated 29.10.2025 (Annexure-R) addressed to the respondent No.1 wherein he was informed that he has been given benefit of fourth proviso to Regulation 5(2) of Regulations, 1955 by relaxing third proviso. 21. However, it is the case of the respondent No.1 that, the benefit extended to one Captain Dr.Rajendra.K., is to be extended to him by fixing seniority in the seniority list of KAS Officers. The communication dated 29.10.2025 (Annexure-R) makes it clear that Captain Dr.Rajendra.K., has not been given deemed date of seniority in the KAS (Junior Scale) by considering his service rendered in Short Service Commission. The clarification issued by the Department of Personal and Training (Annexure-V) also makes it clear that deemed date of appointment in the context of Regulation 5(2) of Regulations, 1955 is used only for reckoning eligibility under Regulation 5(2) of Regulations, 1955 and does not affect or determine seniority within the State Civil Service. Moreover, whether the respondent No.1 would be entitled for similar benefit - 22 - WP No. 1023 of 2026 as extended to Captain Dr.Rajendra.K., cannot be gone into and decided in a contempt proceedings. In contempt proceedings, the Court/Tribunal shall confine itself to examine as to whether direction issued is complied and if not, whether there is willful or intentional or deliberate disobedience of the order complained. 22. When this Court in its order dated 12.11.2025 in W.P.No.34073/2025 set aside the order dated 07.11.2025 in M.A.No.469/2025 filed to re-call order dated 09.10.2025 and remitted the matter to the CAT to provide an opportunity to the petitioners to show cause against the framing of charges, the CAT was required to examine whether it is a case for framing charge or whether it is a case to drop the proceedings by re-calling order dated 09.10.2025 in the light of the compliance affidavit dated 08.10.2025, communication dated 08.10.2025 to the UPSC and communication dated 29.10.2025 (Annexure-R) to the respondent No.1 communicating respondent No.1 that Captain Dr.Rajendra.K., has not been given deemed date of seniority in the KAS (Junior Scale) by considering - 23 - WP No. 1023 of 2026 his service rendered in Short Service Commission and that the respondent has been extended the benefit of fourth proviso to Regulation 5(2) of Regulations, 1955 by relaxing third proviso. 23. The Hon'ble Apex Court in SUDHIR VASUDEVA, CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS (supra) was examining the question framed at paragraph 14 which reads as follows: “14. The question that arises in the present appeal, in the backdrop of the facts noted above, is whether the appellants who are the officers of the Corporation and had complied with the alternative direction contained in the order dated 2-8-2006 passed in M. George Ravishekeran v. ONGC Ltd. [M. George Ravishekeran v. ONGC Ltd., WP No. 21518 of 2000, order dated 2-8-2006 (Mad)] would still be liable for commission of contempt and the only way in which the appellants can purge themselves of the contempt allegedly committed is by creation of supernumerary posts of Marine Assistant Radio Operators? An answer to the above question centres around the contours of the power of the Court while exercising its contempt jurisdiction.” - 24 - WP No. 1023 of 2026 At paragraph 19, while examining the above question and the power of the Court while exercising the contempt jurisdiction has observed as follows: “19. The power vested in the High Courts as well as this Court to punish for contempt is a special and rare power available both under the Constitution as well as the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is a drastic power which, if misdirected, could even curb the liberty of the individual charged with commission of contempt. The very nature of the power casts a sacred duty in the Courts to exercise the same with the greatest of care and caution. This is also necessary as, more often than not, adjudication of a contempt plea involves a process of self-determination of the sweep, meaning and effect of the order in respect of which disobedience is alleged. The Courts must not, therefore, travel beyond the four corners of the order which is alleged to have been flouted or enter into questions that have not been dealt with or decided in the judgment or the order violation of which is alleged. Only such directions which are explicit in a judgment or order or are plainly self- evident ought to be taken into account for the purpose of consideration as to whether there has been any disobedience or wilful violation of the same. Decided issues cannot be reopened; nor can the plea of equities be considered. The Courts must - 25 - WP No. 1023 of 2026 also ensure that while considering a contempt plea the power available to the Court in other corrective jurisdictions like review or appeal is not trenched upon. No order or direction supplemental to what has been already expressed should be issued by the Court while exercising jurisdiction in the domain of the contempt law; such an exercise is more appropriate in other jurisdictions vested in the Court, as noticed above. The above principles would appear to be the cumulative outcome of the precedents cited at the Bar, namely, Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly [(2002) 5 SCC 352 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 703] , V.M. Manohar Prasad v. N. Ratnam Raju [(2004) 13 SCC 610 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 907] , Bihar Finance Service House ConstructionCoop. Society Ltd. v. Gautam Goswami [(2008) 5 SCC 339] and Union of India v. Subedar Devassy PV [(2006) 1 SCC 613] .” The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that only such directions which are explicit in a judgment or order or are plainly self-evident ought to be taken into account for the purpose of consideration as to whether there has been any disobedience or willful violation of the same. Further, it observed that no order or direction supplemental to what has been already expressed should be issued by the Court - 26 - WP No. 1023 of 2026 while exercising jurisdiction in the domain of the contempt law. 24. In Chadurang Kantharaj Urs (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that in order to punish under contempt law, it has to be established that disobedience of the order is willful, intentional, deliberate. Relevant Paragraphs 1.10, 1.11 and 1.12 reads as follows: “1.10. In order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of the order is ‘wilful’. It means knowingly-intentional, conscious, calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom. It would exclude casual, accidental, bonafide or unintentional acts or genuine inability and would also not include involuntary or negligent actions. The deliberate conduct of a person means that he knows what he is doing and intends to do the same. It is too well settled that if two interpretations are possible, and if the action is not contumacious, a contempt proceeding would not be maintainable. 1.11. The weapon of contempt will not be used for execution of the decree or implementation of an order for which alternative remedy in law is provided for. The paramount consideration is given to maintain court's dignity and majesty of law. - 27 - WP No. 1023 of 2026 In Sudhir Vasudeva v. George Ravishekeran1 this Court has observed that a Court exercising jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 must not travel beyond the four corners of the orders in relation to which contempt has been alleged. That the Court hearing a contempt petition ought to restrict the scope of its enquiry to such directions which are explicit in the judgment or orders of which contempt has been alleged. 1.12. The civil contempt would mean a wilful disobedience of a decision of this Court. What would be relevant is the “wilful disobedience”. Hence, knowledge of having acted in disregard to an order is sine qua non for being proceeded with if there is a deliberate, conscience and intentional act then the jurisdiction can be clutched.” 25. In the above background of principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, if we examine the present impugned order, we are convinced that the CAT failed to exercise proper jurisdiction vested in it under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and in terms of the provisions of the Act. The CAT also exceeded its jurisdiction while examining the disobedience of order dated 01.02.2017 in O.A.No.230/2016 whereunder CAT - 28 - WP No. 1023 of 2026 had directed only to consider the respondent’s representations and decide any pending issues including the question of the respondent’s position in the seniority list of KAS Officers. The CAT was required only to examine whether there is proper consideration of the respondent’s representations in the light of Regulation 5(2) of Regulations, 1955, particularly, in the absence of specific direction by the CAT. The CAT exceeded its jurisdiction in making the following supplemental direction or observation under impugned order dated 11.12.2025 in M.A.No.469/2025 at paragraphs 45, 46, which read as follows: “45. We fail to comprehend the purpose of the State Government giving deemed date to the original applicant joining Short Service Commission on 30.10.2000 which is his actual date of joining. Deemed date is legally or contractually established date that is treated as official date for an event, even if the actual occurrence happened on a different day. What is the necessity of giving ‘deemed date’ to an actual date of joining Short Service Commission remains a puzzle. - 29 - WP No. 1023 of 2026 46. At the cost of repetition, we reiterate that compliance herein, means first giving deemed date to the applicant joining State Civil Service – Karnataka Administrative Service in terms of 4th Proviso to Regulation 5(2), not to the Short Service Commission as carried out by the State Government. Fourth proviso is a beneficial legislation enacted with a laudable object of providing benefit to the released Emergency Commissioned Officers & Short Service Commission Officers in recognition of their sacrifice, commitment and discipline in safeguarding the national security which may involve their supreme life. The adoption of scrupulous devices/meticulous technicalities cannot be used to defeat beneficial legislation. Compliance of a judicial order is not an empty formality, strict compliance is warranted with application of mind but the same is absent in the so-called compliance reports filed by the State Government. Accordingly, contempt proceedings deserves to be proceeded with.” 26. The petitioners who were accused before the CAT in the above stated contempt proceedings in their compliance affidavit dated 08.10.2025 had indicated that the deemed date is fixed as 30.10.2000 and paragraphs 11 and 12 of the said affidavit reads as follows: - 30 - WP No. 1023 of 2026 “11) It is submitted that, in view of the order of the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal dated 25.07.2023, the “deemed date” of the Officer joining Short Service Commission as per the fourth proviso to Regulation 5(2) of the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 is now mentioned under column 9 (Date of Continuous Officiation in the post of Dy Collector or Equivalent) of Annexure 3.1(A) to Checklist/proforma for sending proposals by State Government for promotion of SCS officers to Indian Administrative Service for the Select List 2015 and Select List 2016. It is respectfully submitted that, in compliance with the orders of the Hon’ble Tribunal and as per the fourth proviso to Regulation 5(2) of the IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, the deemed date is fixed as 30.10.2000, that is the date on which the complainant joined that service i.e., Short Service Commission.” 12) It is respectfully submitted that the deemed date so fixed as stated in the previous paragraph has been included in Column 9 of Annexure 3.1 (A) in the revised proposal for consideration to the eligibility list of Select List 2015 and 2016. The proposal has been sent to the Union Public Service Commission on 08.10.2025 and is placed as Annexure A.” 27. The communication dated 29.10.2025 (Annexure-R) while considering the fresh representation of - 31 - WP No. 1023 of 2026 the respondent to extend the benefit extended to Captain Dr.Rajendra.K., made it clear that the said Captain Dr.Rajendra.K., has not been given deemed date of seniority in the KAS (Junior Scale) by considering his service rendered in Short Service Commission. The relevant portion of the communication reads as follows: “It may be noted that 'Captain Dr. Rajendra.K got selected ahead of his seniors of 1998 batch and his batch mates of 1999 batch not because of re- fixing his seniority in KAS by fixing the deemed dated of appointment in KAS (Junior Scale) considering his service in Short Service Commission but because all the candidates who got selected to KAS (Junior Scale)under the 1998 and 1999 batch reported to service in 2006 due to various Court cases and all of them except Captain Dr.Rajendra.K became eligible to be considered for the empanelment to IAS only in Select List 2015 i.e., after rendering eight years of continuous service in the Deputy collector or equivalent post'. Captain Dr.Rajendra.K, became eligible to be considered for IAS in Select List-2011 due to the benefit of 4th Proviso to the extent of relaxing 3rd Proviso of Regulation 5(2) of IAS (APPOINTMENT BY PROMOTION) REGULATIONS, 1955, while all the other KAS Officers of 1998 and 1999 batches became - 32 - WP No. 1023 of 2026 eligible only in Select List 2015. All these points were considered in the UPSC Review Selection Committee Meeting held on 08/08/2017. Hence, it is hereby reiterated that Captain Dr. Rajendra K has not been given deemed date of seniority in the KAS (Junior Scale) by considering his service rendered in Short Service Commission. He has been given only the benefit of 4th proviso to the extent of relaxing 3d proviso to Regulation 5(2) of IAS (APPOINTMENT BY PROMOTION) REGULATIONS, 1955.” 28. In the light of the above, we are of the considered opinion that there is substantial compliance of the order dated 01.02.2017 in O.A.No.230/2016 and if at all, the respondent is aggrieved by fixing of deemed date or fixation of his position in the seniority list of KAS Officers, it would be open for him to challenge the same before the appropriate forum. 29. For the reasons recorded above, the following: ORDER a) Writ petition is allowed. - 33 - WP No. 1023 of 2026 b) Impugned order dated 11.12.2025 in M.A.No.469/2025 in C.P.No.00057/2017 in O.A.No.00230/2016 is quashed. c) Consequently, M.A.No.469/2025 is allowed. d) Order dated 09.10.2025 in C.P.No.57/2017 in O.A.No.230/2016 is re-called and C.P.No.57/2017 stands dropped holding that there is substantial compliance by the petitioners with the order dated 01.02.2017 in O.A.No.230/2016 and it is open for the respondent No.1 to agitate independently fixation of deemed date under fourth Proviso to Regulation 5(2) of Regulations, 1955 and fixation of his position in the seniority list of KAS Officers. e) No order as to costs. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE NC CT:bms