HIDAYATHULLA K.A v. SMT. VANDITA SHARMA

ORDER (I) Writ petition No. 14084/2020 is partly allowed. (II) Order dated 03.09.2020 passed in Application No.2139/2010 by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal is set aside. (III) The Respondent-State is directed to create a supernumerary post and appoint the petitioner the post of Assistant Commissioner, Revenue Department, KAS-Group-A (Junior Scale) from the earliest point available in the recruitment notification dated 15.12.1999 for such appointment and grant all notional benefits including the seniority from the date of such appointment. (IV) In view of the observation made above, Writ Petition No.795/2021 and Writ Petition No.10411/2021 Petition No.16349/2021 are disposed of. Writ (V) Under the facts and circumstances of the case parties to bear their cost.

2. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is as under: (a) On 15.12.1999, The Karnataka Public Service Commission recruitment of Gazetted Probationers to the post of issued a notification 4 Group A and B in the State Services. The said notification did not provide for reservation for the physically disabled person. (b) In response to the aforesaid recruitment notification, the complainant Sri. Hidayathulla. K.A., being a physically disabled person applied to a post in Group-A and B in the State Civil Services. In the combined competitive examination which was held, the complainant was successful and was interview. The Respondent-State called recruitment issued Government had again notification for the Gazette probationers selection during the year 2005. Yet again, there was no provision of reservation made for the physically disabled persons. (c) Since, aforesaid recruitment notifications did not provide for reservation for the physically disabled person in accordance with the provisions of Act, 1995, complainant approached the Tribunal by filing an application No.6276/2005 seeking implementation of the provisions of the Act, 1995. (d) The Tribunal by its common Order dated 14.07.2006 allowed the aforesaid application with a series of directions, directing the Respondent- State and the Union to fully comply with the provisions of the Act, 1995. (e) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Order dated 14.07.2006, Respondents-State preferred a writ petition in W.P.No.13511/2006 before this Court. This Court had declined to grant any interim order of stay and had directed the Respondent- State to implement the order by creating a Supernumerary post and subject to result of the writ petition. Contempt proceedings were also initiated against the Respondent-State for non- compliance of the order of the Tribunal. The Respondent-State had accordingly passed an order creating complainant and others were appointed pursuant to the said order by Notification dated 19.03.2009 to the post of Section Officer, a Group-B post. In five Supernumerary post and 5 view of the appointment of the complainant and others in the supernumerary post and they having completed three years six months of their service their probationary period having been declared as satisfactory, the writ petition was dismissed as it did not survive for Consideration by Order dated 31.07.2008. (f) That after filing of the aforesaid application before the Tribunal the second Respondent had made amendment to Rule 9(1A) of the Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1997, issued Notification dated 13.09.2005 by providing 3% horizontal reservation in Group-A and B effective from 13.09.2005 to the persons (ii) hearing suffering impairment (iii) loco-moto disability and (iv) Celebral palsy and mental illness. (i) blindness, (g) The complainant aggrieved by the aforesaid Amendment by the Respondent-State effective from 13.09.2005 once again approached the Tribunal by filing an Application No.2139/2010 seeking various reliefs in the nature of direction to the Respondent-State to appoint the complainant to the post of Assistant Commissioner, Group-A (Junior Scale) by making proper arrangements in accordance with the provisions of Act, 1995, and for consequential reliefs, on the premise that if 3% reservation had been provided in 1999 Gazette Probationary complainant would have been selected to Group-A post i.e. to the post of Assistant Commissioner, and that non-implementation of the provisions of the Act, 1995 which came into effect from 07.02.1996 Respondent-State Government not having provided the reservation accordingly, opportunity and of his statutory rights. the petitioner was denied notification, recruitment (h) However, the Tribunal by its Order dated 03.09.2020 passed in Application No.2139/2010 filed by the petitioner for similar relief as that of in the aforesaid application Nos.2124/2010 and 3605/2010 dismissed the same for the reasons of same having been barred by "res-judicata" and 6 thus "estopped" also for the reasons of the petitioner having “acquiesced” by accepting his appointment to Group-B post pursuant to its earlier Order dated 14.07.2006, and was seeking any further reliefs. As regards question of parity, the Tribunal declined the plea of the petitioner on the premise that each and every employee shall not approach the Court to seek relief already granted to co-employee or Officer. However, it reserved the liberty to the petitioner to submit his representation for consideration of the Respondent-State.

3. On passing of the order by the learned Single Judge supra, the complainant approached respondents No.1 to 3 vide representation dated 12.05.2022 to comply with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The respondents No.1 to 3 have failed to comply the said order, aggrieved by the same, the complainant initiated this contempt petition. However, following the initiation of this contempt petition, the Government has passed the Notification dated 08.04.2024, respondents No.1 to 3 had appointed the complainant as KAS (Junior Scale) Group 'A' post by creating supernumerary post with effect from 01.02.2006 i.e., the date on which the appointment order issued to the last candidate selected to KAS (Junior Scale) Group 'A' post vide recruitment Notification issued by the Karnataka Public Service Commission dated

15.12.1999. The benefits extended to the last candidate selected vide order dated 01.02.2006 (excluding the wages and allowance with retrospective effect) was also extended to the complainant with 7 the pay scale of Rs.56800-99600 as applicable to KAS (Junior Scale) Group 'A' post. Further, in view of providing notional benefits to the complainant vide Notification dated 06.06.2024, the retrospective promotion was also given to the complainant and presently, the complainant is serving as KAS (Super Time Scale Cadre) Personal Secretary to the Minister for Health and Family Welfare, Government of Karnataka. The same is admitted by the complainant. However, it is the contention of the learned Senior counsel for the complainant that all other KAS Officers in the Batch of 1998, 1999 and 2005 have already been considered for IAS confirmation from State service and the complainant has been appointed through Notification dated 08.04.2024 to the post of KAS (Junior Scale) Group 'A' post with effect from 01.02.2006. As per the order passed by the Writ Court, notional benefits from earliest point available in the recruitment Notification dated 15.12.1999 is required to be extended to the complainant. The learned Senior counsel by emphasizing on the reply issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Services-6) for an RTI application of the applicant that the Secretariat Cadre in which the complainant served is equivalent to various KAS Cadres, submitted that, the complainant worked in Group 'A' post equivalent to KAS (in different Cadres) for more than 12 years and that he worked in the posts of Secretary, Under Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Joint 8 Secretary as well as Additional Secretary on deputation basis, his service has to be considered for State Civil Service (hereinafter referred to as ‘SCS’) IAS confirmation by considering the direction issued by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the writ petition i.e., ‘grant all notional benefits including seniority from the date of such appointment’. He submitted that, the seniority has to be taken into consideration from the year 1999 and the other officers who were appointed in the year 1999 have already been considered by the State Government for IAS Cadre and they have been working as IAS officers, however, the complainant is deprived of similar benefits which clearly falls within the purview of wilful disobedience the order passed by learned Single Judge W.P.No.14804/2020.

4. The learned Senior counsel by emphasizing the order passed Central Administrative Tribunal O.A.No.170/00410/2019 dated 17.07.2019 (which is also challenged along with W.P.No.14084/2020 by the State W.P.No.795/2021) submits that, in the said application, the complainant challenged his placement in the seniority list as per the Indian Administrative Service vide Regulations, 1955 and the KAT has issued a mandamus to the State Government and the Central Government to appoint him as an Assistant Commissioner in the list following 1998 selection and clearly observed that there is a failure 9 on the part of State Government by not giving the seniority to the complainant for all the notional benefits and once the applicant had worked in a particular position, his total seniority will date back from the day on which the first person in the 1998 selected list had been appointed. The said order was not challenged by the Central Government and strangely challenged by the State Government in W.P.No.795/2021 c/w W.P.No.14084/2020 and the said writ petition was disposed by the learned Single Judge without any directions. Elaborating this contention, the learned Senior counsel submitted that, it is the constitutional right of the complainant as stipulated in Article 312 of the Constitution of India that if the council of State has declared by resolution, the parliament may by law provide for the creation of one or more All India Services common to the Union and States. Further, by relying on Section 3 of the All India Services Act, 1951, he submitted that, the Central Government may on consultation with the Government of the State make rules for the regulation of recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to an All India Service. Further, the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment By Promotion) Regulations, 1955, defines the SCS in Section 2(j)(ii) that in all other cases any services or services approved for the purpose of recruitment of rules by Central Government in consultation with State Government, a member of which normally holds, for the 10 purpose of revenue and general administration, charge of Sub- division of a District or a post of higher responsibility. Further, learned Senior counsel by relying on the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 submitted that, Rule 4 of the said rules defines the method of recruitment of the service and 4(b) of the same reads that the recruitment of service shall be on commencement of said rules by competitive examination so also by promotion of a substantive member of a civil service. The disqualification of such appointment as stipulated in Rule 5 enumerates that, no person shall be qualified for appointment to the Service unless he is a citizen of India or belongs to such categories of persons as may, from time to time, be notified in this behalf by the Central Government. However, Rule 5 is not applicable to the complainant herein. He further laid emphasis on Rule 8 of the said rules which stipulates that the Central Government may on the recommendations of the State Government concerned, in consultation with the Commission in accordance with such regulation as the Central Government may after consultation with State Government and the Commission from time to time, make, recruit to the service such persons by promotion from amongst the members of the SCS. This being the position, the State Government and Central Government have collectively failed to consider the case of the complainant for promotion to IAS Cadre 11 even on receiving specific directions by this Court to grant the notional benefits including seniority.

5. The learned Senior counsel additionally submitted that, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench in the case of Surya Madhaba Panigrahi vs. Union of India and others in O.A.No.521/2021 held that, ‘the rejection of candidature for the reason that the applicant does not complete 8 years of continuous service in terms of 3rd proviso to Regulation 5(2) of Indian Administrative Service (appointment by promotion) Regulation 1955 does not hold good’. Further, by relying on the judgment passed in Union of India v. Maj. Gen. Madan Lal Yadav, reported in (1996) 4 SCC 127 submitted that, the State Government and Central Government committed error by denying promotions and seniority to the complainant as per the Rules following his appointment, as such having done the said wrong and ‘a wrong doer ought not be permitted to make a profit of his own wrong’. The learned Senior counsel by relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Others vs. K.B.Rajoria reported in 2000 3 SCC 562, argued that, ‘regular service’ does not mean ‘actual service’ and the expression on a regular basis would mean the appointment to the post on a regular basis in contra distinction to appoint on adhoc or stoppage or purely temporary basis. Similarly, in the case on hand, the complainant 12 was recruited and given notional promotion as per the Court order, as it shall be construed as a regular basis service, he is entitled for all subsequent seniority. Accordingly, learned Senior counsel submitted that, the State Government and the Central Government both have failed to comply the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.14804/2020 and hence, he prays to frame the charges against the respondents/accused.

6. Per contra, learned AAG Sri Reuben Jacob, contended that, the order passed by the Writ Court has been comprehensively complied with in the following manner: “A. In terms of Notification dated 08-05-2024, the complainant has been appointed to the Cadre of KAS - Group-A (Junior Scale) with effect from 01-02-2006, which is the date of issuance of appointment orders at the earliest point in time to selected candidates in terms of recruitment notification dated 15-12- 1999. In the same order the complainant has been extended pay scale of Rs.56800-99600, which is the KAS Group- A (Junior Scale) pay scale with effect from 01-02-2006 notionally. Copy of the said notification dated 08-04- 2024 is produced herewith as Annexure-R1. B As per Notification dated 08-05-2024, the complainant has bean declared to have successfully completed the probationary period, by exempting the actual completion of the probationary period by the complainant. Copy of the Notification dated 08- 05- 2024 is produced herewith as Annexure-R2. C. As per Notification dated 16-05-2024 the complainant has been placed in the seniority lists of KAS (Junior Scale), KAS (Senior Scale), KAS (Selection Grade) and KAS (Super Time Scale) on the basis of notional placement of the complainant in the seniority 13 lists of each of the said Cadres. Copy of the Notification dated 16-05-2024 is produced herewith as Annexure- R3. D. As per Notification dated 06-06-2024, retrospective promotion has been granted to the complainant to the KAS (Senior Scale), KAS (Selection Grade) and KAS (Super Time Scale) with effect from 17-09-2011, 20-09-2019 and 13-12-2021 respectively. Copy of the Notification dated 06-06-2024 is produced herewith as Annexure-R4”.

7. He further contended that, the contention of the learned Senior counsel to consider the case of complainant in SCS IAS confirmation is wholly out of purview of the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the same cannot be considered by the State Government for the reason that the Regulation 2(j) of Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955 defines the term "State Civil Service" as follows: "2(j) "State Civil Service" means, (i) for the purpose of filling up the vacancies in the Indian Administrative Service Cadre of the Arunachal Mizoram-Union Territories under rule 9 of the Recruitment Rules, any of the following services, namely:- Pradesh-Goa- (a) the Delhi and Andaman and Nicobar Islands Civil Service; (b) the Goa Civil Service; (c) the Pondicherry Civil Service; (d) the Mizoram Civil Service; (e) the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Service; 14 (ii) in all other cases, any service or services, approved for purposes of the Recruitment Rules by the Central Government in consultation with the State Government, a member of which normally holds, for purposes of revenue and general administration, charge of a sub-division of a district or a post of higher responsibility."

8. It is submitted by the learned AAG that, in the State of Karnataka, "State Civil Service" [as defined in aforesaid Rule 2(j)] means, The Karnataka Administrative Service and all the Cadres above and including the Cadre of KAS Group ‘A’ (Junior Scale) are eligible to be considered for promotion [subject to fulfilment of other eligibility criteria] in terms of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955.

9. As per third proviso to Rule 5(2) “the Committee shall not consider the case of a member of the SCS, unless on the first day of January of the year for which the selection list is prepared, he is substantive in the SCS and has completed not less than eight years continuous service (whether officiating or substantive) in the post of Deputy Collector or in any other posts declared equivalent thereto by the State Government". He further contended that, for the purpose of said proviso, notional service will not be counted and only eight years of actual continuous service (whether officiating or substantive) is a mandatory condition. In view of the fact, the complainant was appointed to the Cadre of KAS (Junior Scale) 15 Group 'A' post only on 08.05.2024, as the complainant has not completed eight years of actual continuous service (whether officiating or substantive) in the Cadre of KAS (Junior Scale) Group 'A' post, hence, the complainant is not entitled to be considered for promotion under the SCS IAS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955. Accordingly, he prays to drop the contempt proceedings. In order to buttress his argument, he relied on the following judgments:

3. 2019 6 SCC 647 (Girish Kumar v. State of Maharashtra and Others). 2023 SCC OnLine MP 7037 (Vidya Bhushan Mishra v. State of M.P. and Others) 2014 3 SCC 373 (Sudhir Vasudeva v. M. George Ravishekaran)

4. W.P.No.1252-1256/2018 and connected matters passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 08.02.2018.

10. Learned ASGI Sri Aravind Kamath contended that, though this Court impleaded the respondent No.4 as party to the proceedings by allowing the I.A.No.1/2024 filed by the complainant under Sections 11 and 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 vide order dated 07.08.2024, respondent No.4-Central Government is not a relevant party to the proceedings and there is no such directions issued by the learned Single Judge in writ proceedings against the respondent No.4-Central Government. The Central 16 Government was arrayed as a party to this petition on lapse of two years from the date of filing of this contempt petition. Moreover, the learned Single Judge disposed the W.P.No.795/2021 without any such direction/order.

11. By relying on the arguments advanced by the learned AAG, he submitted that in terms of Regulation 5(2) of the SCS Officer to IAS under IAS (Appointment By Promotion) Regulation, 1955, it is clear that 8 years of continuous service (whether officiating or substantive) in the post of Deputy Collector is a mandatory condition for an SCS Officer to be eligible for consideration for promotion as an IAS. Any presumption of evaluating the case of an officer based upon the service record which are not of relevant period had also not of the relevant post would tantamount to officiating the entire selection committee proceedings and may deliver altogether different results. Accordingly, learned ASGI submitted that, respondent No.4 had neither received any communication in the case of the complainant from the State Government nor from the UPSC, as such no action is pending on part of the Central Government. Accordingly, he prays to drop the contempt proceedings against respondent No.4.

12. We have given our anxious consideration for the submission made by the respective parties to the proceedings. It is 17 not seriously disputed by the learned Senior counsel for the complainant that the State Government has complied the order passed by the learned Single Judge by creating the Supernumerary post to the complainant so also given the notional pay scale and subsequent promotions by placing him in the seniority list of KAS and promoting him to KAS (Super Time Scale) on the basis of notional placement. Further, as per Notification dated 06.06.2024, retrospective promotion has been granted to the complainant as per the direction issued by learned Single Judge W.P.No.14084/2020. In such circumstances, the grievance of the complainant is that, he has not been considered for promotion in terms of Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955. As rightly contended by Sri Reuben Jacob, learned AAG, as per Rule 5(2) of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment By Promotion) Regulations, 1955, in order to consider the member of the SCS to IAS Cadre, the candidate has to as stipulated in the SCS complete not less than eight years of actual continuous service in the post of Deputy Collector or in any other post or posts declared equivalent thereto by the State Government which is a mandatory condition. Admittedly, the complainant has not completed eight years of actual continuous service in KAS Cadre (Junior Scale) Group 'A' post as he was appointed only on 18

08.05.2024. In such circumstances, the State Government cannot consider his service to IAS Cadre.

13. We are unable to accept the contention made by the learned Senior counsel that the service rendered by the complainant in Group 'A' post equivalent to KAS for over 12 years and the State Government is bound to consider his case for promotion to IAS when there is a mandatory provision under the Regulations 5(2) so also under the provisions of Rule 4 and 8 of Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954. Nevertheless, there is no such specific direction by the learned Single Judge to consider the case of complainant for SCS to IAS promotion. Though the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 describes the method of recruitment of rules and recruitment by promotion or selection for appointment of State and joint Cadre, the said rules have to be followed as per the Indian Administrative Service regulations, 1955 and Rule 5(2) is clear that in order to consider the members of SCS for IAS Cadre, he shall complete not less than eight years of continuous/actual service. When a regulation prescribes the minimum qualification for the appointment of Government servants for the specific post, the State Government or Central Government cannot circumvent the same and consider his claim for promotion. In the similar circumstances, the Co-ordinate 19 Bench of this Court in W.P.No.1252-1256/2018, held in Paragraphs No.18 and 19, reads as under: "18. It is indubitable that, appointment of SCS Officers to Indian Administrative Service is governed by the 'Regulations'. Unless, the name of an SCS Officer is found in the list prepared as per Regulation No.5 by the Selection Committee, his case cannot be considered by the UPSC, while preparing the 'select list' under Regulation No.7. Therefore, unquestionably, it shall be the prerogative of the Committee constituted under Regulation No.3 to prepare a list of eligible State Civil Service Officers Indian for appointment Administrative Service.

19. It is settled that, Courts do not sit as an appellate authority to assess the suitability of SCS Officers. It may be relevant to extract following passage from the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of M.V.Thimmaiah and Others v. Union Public Service Commission and Others reported in (2008) 2 SCC 119: "36. Therefore, in view of a catena of cases, Courts normally do not sit as a Court of appeal to assess ACRs and much less the Tribunal can be given this power to constitute an Independent Selection Committee over the statutory Selection Committee. The guidelines have already been given by the Commission as to how ACRs to be assessed and how the marking has to be made. These guidelines take care of the proper scrutiny and not only by the Selection Committee but also the views of the State Government are obtained and ultimately the Commission after scrutiny prepares the final list which is sent to the Central Government for appointment."

14. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Girish Kumar v. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in 2019 6 SCC 647, held in paragraph No.9 as under: 20 IX "9. In the present case, the High Court has considered Rule 5 of the Seniority Rules, 1982 and has not at all considered the Recruitment Rules, 1967. Respondent 3 might have been granted the deemed date of promotion to the post of Office Superintendent with effect from 7- 10-2005. However, he was actually promoted as Office Superintendent on 22-10-2007. Therefore, in fact, he has rendered service as Office Superintendent only from 22-10-2007. As per Appendix Recruitment Rules, 1967, the eligibility for appointment to the promotional post of Section Officer requires three years' continuous service. The language used Appendix IX is unambiguous, simple and plain. Therefore, on a fair reading of Appendix IX of the Recruitment Rules, 1967, to become eligible for the promotional post of Section Officer, a person ought to have rendered continuous service of not less than three years. “Continuous service” might have been defined under the Seniority Rules, 1982. However, the same shall be for the purpose of seniority and the Seniority Rules only. Therefore, if any employee is granted the deemed date of promotion, his seniority shall be considered accordingly from the deemed date of promotion. However, that shall be only for the purpose of inter se seniority only and the same shall not be applicable while considering the eligibility criteria under the Recruitment Rules. In the Recruitment Rules, “continuous service” is not defined. Therefore, one has to consider the ordinary dictionary meaning of “continuous” which means “uninterrupted or unbroken”. The High Court has added the word “actual” which as such is not there in Appendix IX. While considering the relevant provisions and as per the rule of interpretation, when the language used is unambiguous, plain and simple, the provision is required to be read as it is and nothing is to be added. Therefore, when in Appendix IX, the eligibility criteria is that no person shall be eligible for promotion unless he has completed service for a continuous service of not less than three years means he has to render/complete service for a continuous period of uninterrupted/unbroken three years' service. Therefore, when Respondent 3 has not completed three years of service for a continuous period of not less than three years in the feeder Cadre in District Service (Class III) (Ministerial) Grade II, he was not eligible for promotion to the post of Section Officer. The High Court 21 has committed a grave error in holding otherwise. Therefore, the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad rightly allowed the appeal and rightly set aside the order of promotion of Respondent 3 dated 1- 2-2008 to the post of Section Officer."

15. The facts of this case juxtapose with the findings of the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment enumerated supra, it is clear that, 'if an employee is granted the deemed date of promotion, his seniority shall be considered accordingly from the deemed date of promotion. However that shall be only for the purpose of inter se seniority only and the same shall not be applicable while considering the eligibility criteria under the Recruitment Rules'. Further, it is clarified that the continuous service means ‘uninterrupted or unbroken service’. In the case on hand, admittedly, the complainant has given notional benefits and promotions, albeit, he has served in multiple posts, he has not completed actual service of eight years as stipulated under Rule 5(2) of the Regulations. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vidya Buhsan Mishara v. State of M.P. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine MP 7037, held in Paragraphs No.30, 31, 32 as under: "30. Thus, besides requirement of seniority to be considered while preparing a list of suitable officers in terms of Regulation (5), third proviso below it, provides two more contingencies that on the date i.e. 1st January of the year for which select list is prepared, the concerned officer should be substantive in the State Forest Service and, secondly, should have completed not less than 8 years of continuous service. 22

31. In the present case, whole dispute is in regard to interpretation of words “Continuous Service”. counsel petitioners

32. As far as judgment on which reliance is placed by i.e. K.B. learned Rajoria (supra) is concerned, requirement of the Central Public Works Department (Director General of Works) Recruitment Rules, 1986, was two years regular service on feeder post for becoming eligible for promotion. There the Supreme Court was dealing with the interpretation of words “Regular Service” and not with interpretation of words “Continuous Service”. Therefore, when the said judgment is examined on the basis of context in which it was delivered, then it is evident that words “Continuous Service” were not the in K.B. subject matter Rajoria (supra) and, therefore, Supreme Court had no occasion interpretation of words “Continuous Service, which is the subject-matter of present petition and which is the language used in the third proviso below Regulation 5(2)". to deal with petition

16. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court by referring the judgment in Girish kumar v. State of Maharashtra and Others supra held in paragraph No.34 as under: "34. In Girish Kumar (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that ordinary dictionary meaning of ‘continuous’, means uninterrupted or unbroken service of 8 years in the Cadre of Assistant Conservator of Forest. In fact, that is not the case and as held by Supreme Court and which is an established principle of interpretation of statute, which provides that language used in a regulation or a statute, if unambiguous, simple and plain, then it is not required to cause any violence to give any other interpretation than which can be derived from reading of the statute, this Court is of the opinion that meaning assigned to words ‘continuous service,’ means uninterrupted or unbroken service and when order dated 19-11-2022 is examined in this light, then it cannot be said that there is violation of third proviso to Regulation 5(2) of the Indian Forest Service 23 (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1966, which provides that the committee shall not consider the case of a member of the State Forest Service unless on the 1st day of January of the year for which the select list is prepared, he is substantive in the State Forest Service and has completed not less than 8 years of continuous service. Therefore, when examined in totality neither the communication dated 29-11-2022, nor Regulation can be said to have been violated by the Union Public Service Commission while issuing the communication calling for names of next two eligible officer."

17. Thus, it is settled that, the complainant is not entitled for a promotion to IAS Cadre by virtue of notional promotion he obtained though the order passed by this Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court the case of Sudhir Vasudeva v. M.George Ravishekaran reported in 2014 3 SCC 373, has held that, 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. As such, neither the decided issues can be reopened nor can the plea of equities be considered. The Courts must 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 24 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.

18. Against this backdrop, it could be construed that, as per the directions issued by this Court, the respondent-State has complied with the order by giving notional benefits and seniority to the complainant. The present claim of the complainant for consideration to IAS Cadre by the State does not arise as the same is out of purview of this contempt petition.

19. The grievance of the complainant, if any, in the said aspect, he is entitled to obtain such necessary order from the appropriate forum to that effect. This being a contempt petition, this Court cannot extend and egress the scope of contempt beyond the direction/order passed by the learned Single Judge. On meticulous examination of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the State Government has comprehensively complied with the order by creating Supernumerary post to the complainant; also, by giving notional promotion and benefits including seniority from the earliest point available in the Recruitment Notification dated

15.12.1999. The other grievance of the complainant cannot be dealt 25 within this contempt petition owing to the limited scope as stipulated under Sections 2(b), 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 along Article 215 of the Constitution of India. Further, as rightly contended by the learned ASGI, the role of the Central Government in the instant case is not established by the complainant. Hence, respondent No.4-Central Government is not a necessary party to this contempt. In view of the above discussion, in our considered opinion, the contempt petition does not survive for further consideration. Accordingly, the contempt proceeding is dropped. Notice is discharged against the respondents. Sd/- (K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV