# Roop Singh v. Shri Vinay Kumar Jauhari & Ors - **Citation:** (2020) 9 ILRA 54 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2020-07-13 - **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 262 of 2020 - **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal, Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/roop-singh-v-shri-vinay-kumar-jauhari-ors-46001 - **Pages:** 5 ## Headnote Courts Act, 1971: Section 19; Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952: Chapter VIII, Rule 5 - Maintainability of appeal - Interlocutory orders which finally decide a question or issue in controversy in the main case or which finally decide a collateral issue or a question which is not the subject matter of the main case, are "judgments" for the purpose of filing appeals under the relevant rules of the High Court. (Para 8, 9) In the present case, the order dated 04.03.2020, against which the present appeal has been preferred, is merely of a procedural nature and cannot in any manner be said to touch the merits of the controversy or the dispute between the parties so as to be deemed to have been issued in exercise of powers conferred u/Art. 226 of the Constitution. (Para 11) B. Words & Phrases - "Judgments" - routine orders which are passed to facilitate the progress of the case till its culmination in the final judgment are not to be held as "judgments" for the purposes of filing intracourt appeals. Orders which may cause some inconvenience or some prejudice to a party but which do not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties, would not amount to "judgments". (Para 13) Special appeal dismissed. (E-4) Precedent followed: ## Text 54 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES determined on the basis of the last pay drawn, we are of the view that the petitioner was not legally entitled to continue as Officiating Principal after 20th May, 2010 i.e. the date when the regular incumbent had joined the post of Principal, and as such the prayer for fixation of pension treating the last pay drawn by the petitioner to be that of the Officiating Principal can not be accepted. 6. In this view of the matter, we find no error or irregularity in the judgment under appeal. 7. This special appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. ---------- (2020)09ILR A54 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.07.2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J. THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Special Appeal No. 262 of 2020 Roop Singh ...Appellant Versus Shri Vinay Kumar Jauhari & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Ashok Kumar Lal, Sri Ravindra Narayan Singh Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Uday Pratap Singh, Sri Kshitij Shailendra A. Contempt of Court - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Section 19; Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952: Chapter VIII, Rule 5 - Maintainability of appeal - Interlocutory orders which finally decide a question or issue in controversy in the main case or which finally decide a collateral issue or a question which is not the subject matter of the main case, are "judgments" for the purpose of filing appeals under the relevant rules of the High Court. (Para 8, 9) In the present case, the order dated 04.03.2020, against which the present appeal has been preferred, is merely of a procedural nature and cannot in any manner be said to touch the merits of the controversy or the dispute between the parties so as to be deemed to have been issued in exercise of powers conferred u/Art. 226 of the Constitution. (Para 11) B. Words & Phrases - "Judgments" - routine orders which are passed to facilitate the progress of the case till its culmination in the final judgment are not to be held as "judgments" for the purposes of filing intracourt appeals. Orders which may cause some inconvenience or some prejudice to a party but which do not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties, would not amount to "judgments". (Para 13) Special appeal dismissed. (E-4) Precedent followed: 1. Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. and others Vs. Chunilal Nanda and others, (2006) 5 SCC 399 (Para 7) 2. Shah Babulal Khimji Vs. Jayaben D. Kania and another, (1981) 4 SCC 8 (Para 8) 3. A.P. Verma and others Vs. U.P. Laboratory Technicians Association and others, 1998 (3) AWC 2264 (Para 9) Precedent distinguished: 1. Anil Kumar Gupta and another Vs. Pawan Kumar Singh and others, 2015 (8) ADJ 724 (Para 5, 14) 2. Subhash Chandra Tiwari and 2 others Vs. Kishore and 4 others, Special Appeal No. 314 of 2019, decided on 05.03.2019 (Para 5, 14) 9 All. Roop Singh Vs. Shri Vinay Kumar Jauhari & Ors. 55 3. Vinod Kumar Sharma, District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh and another Vs. Shiv Mohan Dwivedi, Assistant Teacher, Inter College, Sarai Brindabad, District Azamgarh, 2020 (4) ADJ 48 (Para 3, 14) Present special appeal challenges order dated 04.03.2020, passed in Contempt Application (Civil) No. 6748 of 2018. (Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J. & Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.) 1. Heard Sri Ravindra Narayan Singh alongwith Sri Ashok Kumar Lal, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and Sri Uday Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.2 to 5. 2. The present special appeal has been filed seeking to challenge an order dated 04.03.2020 passed in Contempt Application (Civil) No.6748 of 2018. 3. The respondent no.2 in the contempt application is the appellant before us. 4. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-applicant with regard to the maintainability of the special appeal. It has been contended that the order under appeal does not decide the rights of the parties and as such the same cannot be held to be a judgment for the purposes of filing of an intra-court appeal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has supported the maintainability of the appeal by referring to the merits of the case and trying to contend that the order under appeal was legally unjustifiable. In support of his contention learned counsel for the appellant has sought to place reliance upon the judgments in the case of Anil Kumar Gupta and another Vs. Pawan Kumar Singh and others1, Subhash Chandra Tiwari and 2 others Vs. Kishore and 4 others2 and Vinod Kumar Sharma, District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh and another Vs. Shiv Mohan Dwivedi, Assistant Teacher, Inter College, Sarai Brindabad, District Azamgarh3. 6. In order to appreciate the rival contentions we deem it necessary to set out the order dated 04.03.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge, against which the present appeal has been preferred. The order reads as under:- "On 10.12.2019, charges were required to be framed. However, when on 10.12.2019 certain submissions were made by the opposite parties explaining their conduct charges were not framed on that date. On 9.1.2020, the respondents were required to take further instructions. No further instructions have been brought on record. List this case peremptorily on 1.4.2020. On that date, the respondent no. 2 shall be personally present for the framing of charges." 7. The ambit and scope of maintainability of an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 19714 and also an intra-court appeal under the relevant rules of the High Court, in case of an order passed in contempt proceedings was considered in the case of Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. and others Vs. Chunilal Nanda and others5 and it was held that any direction issued or decision made by the High Court, in contempt proceedings, on the merits of a dispute 56 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES between the parties, unless the same is incidental to or inextricably connected with the order punishing for contempt, would not be in the exercise of "jurisdiction to punish for contempt" and, therefore, would not be appealable under Section 19 of the Act, 1971. Such an order, passed by the Contempt Court, was held, amenable to a challenge in an intra-court appeal under the relevant rules of the High Court. The position with regard to filing of appeals against orders in contempt proceedings was summarised thus:- "11. The position emerging from these decisions, in regard to appeals against orders in contempt proceedings may be summarised thus: I. An appeal under Section 19 is maintainable only against an order or decision of the High Court passed in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, that is, an order imposing punishment for contempt. II. Neither an order declining to initiate proceedings for contempt, nor an order initiating proceedings for contempt nor an order dropping the proceedings for contempt nor an order acquitting or exonerating the contemnor, is appealable under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act. In special circumstances, they may be open to challenge under Article 136 of the Constitution. III. In a proceeding for contempt, the High Court can decide whether any contempt of court has been committed, and if so, what should be the punishment and matters incidental thereto. In such a proceeding, it is not appropriate to adjudicate or decide any issue relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties. IV. Any direction issued or decision made by the High Court on the merits of a dispute between the parties, will not be in the exercise of "jurisdiction to punish for contempt" and, therefore, not appealable under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The only exception is where such direction or decision is incidental to or inextricably connected with the order punishing for contempt, in which event the appeal under Section 19 of the Act, can also encompass the incidental or inextricably connected directions. V. If the High Court, for whatsoever reason, decides an issue or makes any direction, relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties, in a contempt proceedings, the aggrieved person is not without remedy. Such an order is open to challenge in an intra-court appeal (if the order was of a learned Single Judge and there is a provision for an intracourt appeal), or by seeking special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India (in other cases)." 8. The question as to whether an intracourt appeal would be available against an interlocutory order containing directions on merits of the dispute was answered by referring to the decision in Shah Babulal Khimji Vs. Jayaben D. Kania and another6, and it was held that interlocutory orders which finally decide a question or issue in controversy in the main case or which finally decide a collateral issue or a question which is not the subject matter of the main case, are "judgments" for the purpose of filing appeals under the relevant rules of the High Court. 9. Taking note of the position that in a proceeding initiated under the Act, 1971 the High Court could either punish or discharge the alleged contemner and in doing so, it could pass all such ancillary orders which 9 All. Roop Singh Vs. Shri Vinay Kumar Jauhari & Ors. 57 are necessary for exercise of such powers but it could not issue any directions or orders regarding the main dispute or controversy between the parties which had led to the filing of writ petition, this Court, in A.P. Verma and others Vs. U.P. Laboratory Technicians Association and others7, held that if any order or direction is made by the Court concerning the merit of the controversy or dispute between the parties, or for implementation of any judgment or order, the same would be de hors the provision of the Act, 1971 and would be deemed to have been issued in exercise of powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution, and such direction would, therefore, be amenable to an appeal under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court. The observations made in the judgment are as follows:- "7. ...Thus there can be no doubt that in any proceeding initiated under the Contempt of Courts Act, the High Court can either punish or discharge the alleged contemner and in doing so it can pass all such ancillary orders which are necessary for exercise of such power but it cannot issue any directions or orders regarding the main dispute or controversy between the parties which has led to the filing of writ petition by either of the parties. However, if any order or direction is made by the Court concerning the merit of the controversy or dispute between the parties, or for implementation of any judgment or order, it will be de hors the provision of Contempt of Courts Act and they can only be deemed to have been issued in exercise of power conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution. Such direction would, therefore, be amenable to an appeal under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court as they are not issued in exercise of any power conferred by the Act..." 10. The aforementioned position of law has been restated in a recent judgment of this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Sharma (supra). 11. In the facts of the present case the order dated 04.03.2020, against which the present appeal has been preferred, is merely of a procedural nature and cannot in any manner be said to touch the merits of the controversy or the dispute between the parties so as to be deemed to have been issued in exercise of powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution. 12. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in Shah Babulal Khimji (supra) is to the effect that orders passed by the Court which are of a routine nature would not be "judgments" even if they cause some inconvenience to the parties. 13. In Midnapore Peoples' Coop. Bank Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court again emphasised that routine orders which are passed to facilitate the progress of the case till its culmination in the final judgment are not to be held as "judgments" for the purposes of filing intra-court appeals. It was also held that orders which may cause some inconvenience or some prejudice to a party but which do not finally determine the rights and obligations of the parties, would not amount to "judgments". 14. The decisions in the case of Anil Kumar Gupta and another, Subhash Chandra Tiwari and others and Vinod Kumar Sharma, which are sought to be relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant do not in any manner support the case of the appellant; rather the aforesaid judgments reiterate the settled legal principle that only if the High Court, in 58 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES contempt proceedings decides an issue or makes any direction, relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties, the said order would be amenable to an intra-court appeal. 15. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the preliminary objection raised with regard to maintainability of the special appeal under the provisions of Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, is sustained. 16. The special appeal is held to be not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed. ---------- (2020)09ILR A58 APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.07.2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J. THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Special Appeal Defective No. 356 of 2020 Manish Kumar ...Appellant Versus The State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Rajneesh Tripathi, Sri Ashish Kumar Ojha Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. A. Service Law - Recruitment ProcessAssessment of fitness-The matters relating to medical evaluation of candidates in a recruitment process involve expert determination and it may not be desirable to supplant the procedure prescribed therefore as laid down under the relevant recruitment rules and taking any other view may have the effect of derailing the recruitment process. (Para 16-18, 22) In Intra-Court Special Appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order. (Para 23) In the instant case, the writ petitioner has been found medically unfit by a duly constituted Medical Board and the said finding w.r.t. his unsuitability on medical grounds has been affirmed by the Appellate Medical Board, and further the opinion of a private medical practitioner which was sought to be relied upon in the writ petition also does not contain any specific opinion that the petitioner was not suffering from the ailment on the basis of which he had been declared unfit by the Medical Board. (Para 19) Special appeal dismissed. (E-4) Precedent followed: 1. Vivek Kumar Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2020 ADJ Online 0073 (Para 22) 2. Md. Arshad Khan Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Special Appeal Defective No. 206 of 2020, decided on 17.03.2020 (Para 22) Present special appeal challenges judgment and order dated 15.11.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ - A No. 17576 of 2019. (Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.) 1. The appeal is reported to be beyond time by 211 days. Delay in filing the special appeal has been sufficiently explained. 2. Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents.