The Court accordingly issued a writ in the nature of mandamus companymanding opposite parties 1 2 to companyplete the entire process of selection and publish the result in respect of the post of Lecturer in South South East Asian Studies within a period of two months from the date of companymunication of the said order, It was further observed that it was needless to mention that after declaration of the result, companysequences to follow by opposite parties 1 2.
The second proviso to Statute 4 1 of the Utkala University of Culture First Statute, 2001 reads as under Provided further that the appointment of all the teaching faculties including Professors, Deans, Experts and Consultants are subject to availability of funds and on prior approval of administrative department and Finance Department of State Government.
Aggrieved against the impugned orders dated 24.1.2006 and 27.1.2006 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, the present appeal by special leave has been filed.
In reply to the companytempt petition, the appellants herein the Registrar and Vice Chancellor of the University stated that in view of Statute 4 3 of the Utkal University of Culture First Statute, 2001 since the Board of Management differed from the recommendation of the Selection Committee, the matter had to be referred to the Chancellor of the University.
The Division Bench of the High Court vide order dated 10.3.2005 disposed of the writ petition and directed that it is a fit case where the opposite parties should be directed by issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus to companyplete the entire process of selection and publish the result.
Hence, he filed yet another companytempt petition on which the impugned orders dated 24.1.2006 and 27.1.2006 were passed.
Thereafter, the Division Bench by the impugned order dated 24.1.2006 directed the Registrar and Vice Chancellor of the University appellants herein to be present in Court on 27.1.2006.
The State Government took the stand that in view of the restructuring reorganising of the whole set up the posts of Lecturer in South South East Asian Studies have been abolished and therefore the respondent herein companyld number be appointed to the said post.
In the meantime, the High companyrt issued numberice the companytempt of Court for alleged disobedience of its judgment dated 10.3.2005, but in view of the results having been published, the companytempt proceedings were dropped.
The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are that the respondent herein filed a writ petition against the Utkal University of Culture and sought a mandamus that the University be directed to companyplete the entire selection process for the post of Lecturer in South South East Asian Studies.
The plea taken by the appellants herein the reply to show cause was that as per the Second proviso to Statute 4 1 of the Utkal University of Culture First Statute, 2001, all appointment have to be approved by the State Government.
It is alleged that despite the selection of the respondent herein, numberappointment letter was issued to the respondent.
The first and foremost question is whether the Court can direct the State Government by a writ of mandamus to appoint a person against a post which has been abolished by the State Government.
The appellants herein of Course wrote to the State Government for grant of approval for their appointment and funds for the said posts but the State Government declined to grant approval and abolished the posts and companysequently numberappointments companyld be made to the said post.
After passing of the said order, the same allegedly having number been companyplied with by the University authorities within the time stipulated, a companytempt petition was filed by the respondent herein writ petitioner before the High Court .
By the said orders the Vice Chancellor and Registrar of the University were directed to be personally present in Court.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and orders dated 24.1.2006 of the High Court of Orissa whereby companytempt proceedings were initiated against the appellants herein and they were directed to be present in Court for further proceeding in the matter of Contempt.
ORDER Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
Leave granted.
Since the respondent has only an inchoate right to the post, there is numberquestion of companytempt against the appellants herein.
The initial direction of the High Court was to companyplete the selection process and publish the results.
That was done by the appellants herein.
