The Telangana High Court has held that deliberate non-compliance with a judicial order directing appointment of an acquitted candidate constitutes wilful contempt, irrespective of pending appeals. The judgment reinforces that judicial directives must be implemented immediately unless stayed, and delays resulting in loss of employment cannot be justified by procedural challenges.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Bommagani Dhanujay, was acquitted of charges under Section 354D IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 12 of the POCSO Act in a criminal case. Despite this acquittal, he was excluded from the 2022 recruitment process for Police Constable (TGSP) by the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board. He filed W.P. No. 25870 of 2022 before the High Court, challenging the exclusion.
Key Facts
- The petitioner was acquitted of all criminal charges on 18.06.2022
- The recruitment notification for Police Constable (TGSP) was issued on 05.07.2022
- The petitioner applied for the post and was shortlisted but was rejected on grounds of pending criminal proceedings
- The petitioner challenged the rejection before the High Court on 15.09.2022
- The High Court, by order dated 21.12.2023, held that since the petitioner had been honourably acquitted before the notification, his exclusion was illegal and directed:
- Issuance of appointment letter to the petitioner
- Consequential benefits including seniority and pay
- Sending the petitioner for training along with the next batch
- The petitioner was not issued any appointment letter or sent for training despite the order
- The first recruitment batch after the order was sent for training on 21.02.2024
- The second batch was sent for training in May 2025
- The petitioner was excluded from both batches
- On 17.12.2025, the Recruitment Board issued a selection order citing Rule 3G(vi) of G.O.Ms.No.97, Home (Legal-II), dated 01.05.2006, stating the petitioner was "not suitable" due to the prior criminal case
- After the Court expressed displeasure, a revised order dated 17.12.2025 was issued deleting the reference to unsuitability, but still conditioned appointment on "successful completion of training" and "post facto government permission"
- The petitioner filed a Contempt Case on 10.03.2024
- The Recruitment Board filed a Writ Appeal against the 21.12.2023 order, which was dismissed on 21.10.2024
- The respondents filed an SLP (C) Diary No. 63066 of 2025 before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 20.09.2025
- The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP again on 27.01.2026
- The petitioner remained unemployed for over two years
Procedural History
- 18.06.2022: Petitioner acquitted in criminal case
- 05.07.2022: Recruitment notification issued
- 15.09.2022: W.P. No. 25870 of 2022 filed
- 21.12.2023: High Court order directing appointment and training
- 10.03.2024: Contempt Case filed
- 15.03.2024: Notice issued to Respondent No.1
- 12.07.2024: Respondent No.2 impleaded via I.A. No.1 of 2024
- 21.10.2024: Writ Appeal dismissed by Division Bench
- 17.12.2025: First selection order issued (contemptuous)
- 17.12.2025: Revised selection order issued (after Court’s observation)
- 20.09.2025: Supreme Court dismissed SLP
- 27.01.2026: Supreme Court dismissed SLP again
- 17.03.2026: Contempt hearing concluded
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner
The petitioner argued that the respondents deliberately ignored the High Court’s clear direction to appoint him. He emphasized that his acquittal was final and binding, and the respondents’ reliance on the withdrawn criminal charges was legally untenable. He highlighted that two batches of recruits were trained after the order, yet he was excluded, causing two years of lost employment.
For the Respondents
The respondents contended that they were awaiting finality of the matter due to pending appeals and SLPs. They claimed the selection order issued on 17.12.2025 was issued in compliance, albeit with conditions, and that the deletion of the objectionable portion was a corrective step. They argued that appointment could only follow training and government permission.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought punishment of Respondent No.2 under Sections 10 to 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for wilful disobedience. He sought imposition of imprisonment and fine, and directed immediate issuance of appointment letter with all consequential benefits.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether wilful non-compliance with a High Court order directing appointment of an acquitted candidate, despite no stay being granted and two recruitment cycles having passed, constitutes contempt of court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on S.P. Gupta v. Union of India and K. Veeraswami v. Union of India to argue that judicial orders must be obeyed unless stayed. He emphasized that acquittal extinguishes any disqualification under recruitment rules, and that the respondents’ reliance on the withdrawn criminal case was a deliberate circumvention of the Court’s directive. He cited State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal to show that delay in compliance, especially when employment rights are involved, amounts to contempt.
For the Respondent
The respondents argued that the pendency of Writ Appeal and SLP created legal uncertainty, and that they were acting in good faith by awaiting final adjudication. They contended that the revised selection order of 17.12.2025 was compliant, and that conditioning appointment on training and government permission was procedural, not defiant.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the 21.12.2023 order and found it to be unambiguous, mandatory, and devoid of any conditionality. The order directed immediate appointment and training, not conditional compliance. The Court noted that the respondents filed appeals without seeking a stay, thereby accepting the risk of non-compliance.
"The respondents chose to litigate the matter through appellate channels without seeking a stay. This cannot be a shield for non-compliance with a clear, operative order."
The Court rejected the argument that the revised selection order of 17.12.2025 was compliant. It observed that the initial order explicitly referenced the acquitted criminal case as a ground for unsuitability - a direct contradiction of the Court’s finding that acquittal rendered the charge irrelevant. The deletion of this portion only occurred after the Court’s displeasure was expressed, indicating reactive compliance, not proactive obedience.
The Court further noted that two recruitment batches - January 2024 and May 2025 - were conducted after the order, and the petitioner was excluded from both. The Supreme Court’s dismissal of the SLP on 27.01.2026 confirmed the finality of the High Court’s order. The Court held:
"The loss of two years of employment, a fundamental right under Article 21, cannot be compensated merely by issuing a selection order after prolonged litigation. The respondents’ conduct reflects a pattern of disregard for judicial authority."
The Court emphasized that the Contempt of Courts Act is not punitive but protective of judicial dignity. Non-compliance, especially when it causes tangible harm to an individual’s livelihood, is not excused by the pendency of appeals.
The Verdict
The Contempt Case is allowed. Respondent No.2, V.V. Srinivas Rao, Chairman, Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board, is punished under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, with simple imprisonment for a period of two (02) months and a fine of Rs. 2,000. If the fine is not paid within 30 days, he shall undergo further simple imprisonment for ten (10) days. He shall be entitled to subsistence allowance at Rs. 500 per day during detention, to be borne by the State. The petitioner shall be issued an appointment letter immediately, with all consequential benefits including seniority from the date of the original recruitment notification, and shall be sent for training with the next available batch.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Judicial Orders Must Be Implemented Immediately Unless Stayed
- Practitioners must advise public authorities that filing appeals without seeking a stay does not suspend the obligation to comply with court orders
- Delay in implementing judicial directions, especially in employment cases, invites contempt proceedings
- The burden is on the authority to seek a stay - not on the litigant to compel compliance
Acquittal Nullifies Disqualification in Recruitment
- A final acquittal extinguishes any disqualifying criminal record under recruitment rules
- Authorities cannot resurrect dismissed charges to deny appointment, even if they file appeals
- Any reference to acquitted charges in selection orders constitutes contempt and legal malpractice
Loss of Employment Is a Valid Ground for Contempt
- Prolonged denial of employment due to non-compliance with court orders qualifies as harm warranting punishment
- Subsistence allowance to be borne by the State is a novel but necessary remedy for victims of administrative defiance
- Courts will not tolerate bureaucratic inertia that deprives individuals of livelihood rights
