Balakrushna Behera and Anr. v. Satya Prakash Dash
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court
- Hon'ble Judges
- A.K. Mathur
- Markandey Katju
- Judgment Date
- 2007-10-22
- Court Decision / Holding
- The Court held that a writ of mandamus cannot compel appointment to a post that has been abolished by the State Government. An appointment cannot be claimed as a right merely on the basis of selection. Therefore, no contempt is established. The orders of the High Court directing presence in court and the contempt proceedings were set aside, and the appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
- Final Disposition
- Appeal allowed
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- Balakrushna Behera and Anr.
Respondents
- Satya Prakash Dash
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • Janaranjan Das
- • Swetaketu Mishra
Counsels for Respondents
- • B. K. Pattnaik
- • Rutwik Panda
- • Jana Kalyan Das
Case Synopsis & Summary
This Supreme Court judgment concerns contempt of court arising out of a writ petition seeking mandamus to complete a recruitment process for the post of Lecturer in South & South East Asian Studies at Utkal University of Culture. The High Court of Orissa, by its order dated 10.3.2005, directed the University to complete the entire selection process and publish the results within two months. The results were published, but no appointment letter was issued to the selected candidate, prompting a contempt petition directed at the University’s Registrar and Vice-Chancellor. The appellants contended that, although the High Court directed completion and publication, the State Government’s approval was required for any appointment under the University’s statutes, and that post-restructuring had led to abolition of the posts in question. The State Government declined to grant approval. In response, the University argued that the second proviso to Statute 4(1) of the Utkal University of Culture First Statute, 2001 requires funding and prior administrative approval for appointments, and thus no appointment could be conferred where the post has been abolished. The Court ultimately held that directing appointment to an abolished post is untenable, and that the respondent had no indefeasible right to appointment after selection. The High Court’s contempt findings were set aside, and the contempt notice discharged.
Provisions of Law Cited
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- No indefeasible right to appointment after selection (selection does not confer a right to appointment)
- A post, if abolished, cannot be subject to mandamus for appointment; no contempt arises where post has been abolished and there is no enforceable order to appoint
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
Appellants argued that the High Court directed the University to complete the entire selection process and publish results; the University complied with the directive by publishing results within the time frame, but did not issue an appointment letter. They contended that, under the Second proviso to Statute 4(1) of the Utkal University of Culture First Statute, 2001, all appointments require prior approval of the State Government, and that after restructuring the posts were abolished; the State Government refused to grant approval, making appointment impossible. Therefore, there was no enforceable right to appointment, and contempt could not be established. It was argued that the Post’s abolition rendered any mandamus to appoint untenable; the Court cannot compel appointment to a post that no longer exists, and the University’s compliance with the order extinguished the basis for contempt.
Contentions of Respondents
Respondents contended that the appointment process is governed by Statute 4(1) and its second proviso, requiring prior State Government approval. Given the abolition of the posts and lack of funds, no appointment could be made pending governmental clearance. They argued that contempt petitions were not misplaced since the High Court’s directions included mandamus to complete the process and publish results; however, abolition of the post justified denying appointment even after selection, and therefore there was no contempt of court to punish.
Cited Precedents (1)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India | [1991] 3 SCC 47 | Positive | Cited as authority that there is no indefeasible right to appointment by mandamus; supports the proposition that directing appointment to an abolished post is untenable and may not constitute contempt. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Balakrushna Behera and Anr. v. Satya Prakash Dash and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.