Petitioners alleged wilful disobedience of a court directive requiring them to be kept on a waiting list or posted per their choices. Since each petitioner had been granted his second choice of posting, the court found no disobedience and dismissed the contempt petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~72
NO 09SF1529132 CONST PARDEEP KUMAR & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. H.S. Tiwari, Adv.
versus
T V SOMANATHAN, IAS AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vivek Sharma, Senior Panel Counsel with Ms. Prerna Singh, Mr. Rishav Dubey, INSP Kundan Kumar, 9th Battalion, RPSF.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
ORDER (ORAL) % 05.05.2025
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. This petition alleges contumacious and wilful disobedience, by the respondents, of the direction contained in para 11 of the order dated 3 March 2025, which reads thus:
“11. Accordingly, we direct that the petitioners shall be kept on a waiting list for posting, except where they can be accommodated in any of their three choices of posting. We make it clear that this protection shall be applicable only to those petitioners who have given their three choices of posting. If they have not given any of their three choices of posting, the interim protection shall not be applicable.”
Signature Not VerifiedCONT.CAS(C) 683/2025 Signed By:AAKANSHA SHARMA Signing Da te:0 8.05.2025 15:10:07
Page 1 of 2
2. It is an admitted position that each of the petitioners in this case has been granted the second of the three choices of posting indicated by him.
3. Though Mr. H.S. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioners, sought to advance arguments as to the legality of the decision to grant the petitioners the second choice of their positing, that is not an aspect which can engage us in contempt jurisdiction.
4. Once the petitioners have been granted the second of the three choices of posting, no disobedience, much less any wilful or contumacious disobedience of the order dated 3 March 2025 can be alleged.
5. The contempt petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
AJAY DIGPAUL, J.
MAY 5, 2025 /AS
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not VerifiedCONT.CAS(C) 683/2025 Signed By:AAKANSHA SHARMA Signing Da te:0 8.05.2025 15:10:07
Page 2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether granting petitioners the second of three posting choices constitutes disobedience of the court's 3 March 2025 posting direction.
Pardeep Kumar & Ors.
T V Somanathan, IAS
Anr.
C. Hari Shankar
Ajay Digpaul
As recorded by the court registry
Proceedings for wilful disobedience of a court order under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
