1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and also the learned Solicitor General and Mr. G.L. Sanghi, the learned Senior Counsel who were requested to assist this Court as amicus curiae. The orders passed on 18-4-1996, 22-4-1996 and 17-5-1996 by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 6072 of 1995 are under challenge in this appeal. Writ Petition No. 6072 of 1995 (Jawahar Ram Gupta v. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad) was filed before the High Court of Allahabad challenging the selection made for the post of a Section Officer (Protocol) of the said High Court. Initially, the said writ petition came up for hearing before a Division Bench presided over by Mr. Justice P.K. Mukherji on 3-8-1995 and the Court directed that the matter would be listed for further hearing in the next listing. It, however, appears that an application was moved by the petitioner in the said writ petition before a learned Single Judge, but the learned Single Judge was of the view that the matter was to be taken up for hearing before a Division Bench. The record of the said Writ Petition No. 6072 of 1995 was placed before Court No. 9 on 20-12-1995 and the Division Bench of that Court passed an order that the said Writ Petition No. 6072 of 1995 should be listed on 16-1-1996 along with Writ Petition No. 34710 of 1993. It appears that the Registry of the High Court put up a note that Writ Petition No. 6072 of 1995 had been taken up by a Division Bench presided over by Mr. Justice P.K. Mukherji and was heard in part. Hence, the writ petition should be placed before that Bench. Since some complaint was received by the Chief Justice of the High Court about the listing of the said Writ Petition No. 6072 of 1995, the Chief Justice of the High Court directed Appellant 1, A.H. Ansari, who was an Additional Registrar of the High Court (Listing) to place the record of Writ Petition No. 6072 of 1995 along with a report. The Chief Justice thereafter passed an order by assigning the said writ petition before the Divisional Bench presided over by Mr. Justice P.K. Mukherji. The Division Bench at Court No. 9 which had earlier directed the listing of the said matter on 16-1-1996 along with Writ Petition No. 34170 of 1993, however, felt that all relevant facts had not been placed before the Chief Justice of the High Court who passed the order on 4-1-1996 that Writ Petition No. 6072 of 1995 would be placed before a Division Bench presided over by Mr. Justice P.K. Mukherji and the Chief Justice was misled by some of the officials of the Registry.
3. It may be stated here that although the Division Bench presided over by Mr. Justice Dhawan was apprised of the fact that the said case was assigned by the Chief Justice to the Division Bench presided over by Mr. Justice Mukherji, the Division Bench presided over by Mr. Justice Dhawan called a number of officers of the Registry and recorded their statements. Subsequently on 13-4-1996, the successor Chief Justice again assigned Writ Petition No. 6072 of 1995 to the Division Bench presided over by Mr. Justice R.S. Dhawan. It appears to us that on consideration of the statements recorded by the Bench presided over by Mr. Justice Dhawan, the said Division Bench inter alia came to the finding that some of the employees of the Registry had committed contempt of court. Such officers are appellants in this appeal. By an order dated 18-4-1996, the said Division Bench asked the said condemners to appear before the Court on 22-4-1996 to show cause why the Court should not consider appropriate punishment against them. It appears that at this stage, an application was moved by one of the parties to the writ proceeding before the Chief Justice of the High Court. The Chief Justice by an order dated 20-4-1996 constituted a Full Bench and referred the contempt proceeding before the Full Bench for adjudication as it appeared to the Chief Justice that the question of jurisdiction of the Chief Justice in the matter of assignment of cases was involved in the matter and such question was required to be decided by the Full Bench.
4. On 22-4-1996, the said Writ Petition No. 6072 of 1995 came up before the Division Bench presided over by Mr. Justice Dhawan pursuant to the direction that the same should appear on the said date when the contemners would show case in respect of appropriate punishment to be passed against them. The attention of the Division Bench was drawn to the fact that the Chief Justice had assigned the contempt proceeding to a Full Bench constituting a Full Bench of the Court. The Division Bench, however passed the order on 22-4-1996 by indicating that the Division Bench would contemplate over the matter and would await the record. It may be stated here that the Division Bench also directed that the records of the said Writ Petition No. 6072 of 1995 should be kept in the safe custody of the Registrar of the High Court. Pursuant to such direction, the records have been kept in the custody of the Registrar of the High Court. On 17-5-1996, the Full Bench constituted by the Chief Justice assembled but it appears that the hearing could not be made as the record of Writ Petition No. 6072 of 1995 was not placed before it. It however appears that the Registrar on being inquired by the Division Bench had informed the Division Bench that he was ready with the records before the Full Bench.
5. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and also the learned Solicitor General and Mr. Sanghi, learned Counsel assisting this Court as amicus curiae, it appears to us that when on 4-1-1996 the Chief Justice had assigned Writ Petition No. 6072 of 1995 to a Division Bench presided over by Mr. Justice Mukherji, there was no occasion for the Division Bench presided over by Mr. Justice Dhawan to proceed with that writ petition and to cause inquiry whether any officer of the Registry had resorted to a sharp practice. In our view, it was only proper to leave the said writ petition to be considered by the other Division Bench before whom the writ petition was assigned by the Chief Justice. It was open to the said other Bench to consider whether or not any sharp practice had been resorted to by any officer of the Registry and such Bench was quite competent to take appropriate action and also to draw the attention of the Chief Justice of the High Court about lapses if any so that the Chief Justice could take such administrative action as would deem just and proper to him. In the facts of the case, we do not approve recording of statements of the officers of the Registry in between 4-1 -1996 and 13-4-1996 when the Division Bench presided over by Mr. Justice Dhawan had no jurisdiction to entertain the said writ petition. Since the contempt proceeding has been initiated on 18-4-1996 on the basis of the statements recorded prior to 13-4-1996, such initiation of contempt proceeding, even through the writ petition was subsequently assigned to the said Bench cannot be held to be proper. Moreover it appears that without affording any opportunity to the alleged condemners to show cause as to whether a contempt of court, in fact had been committed by them or not, the Division Bench has held ex parte that contempt of court in fact had been committed and condemners would show cause as to punishment to be meted out to them. Such course of action, in our view, cannot be sustained. Consequential order dated 17-5-1996 also cannot be sustained and the said order is also quashed. In view of such quashing of the aforesaid orders, we do not think that there is any occasion for the Full Bench to consider the question since referred to the said Full Bench by the Chief Justice. The reference to the Full Bench has become infructuous. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we request the learned Chief Justice to make a fresh assignment of the said writ petition before a Division Bench so that the said Writ Petition No. 6072 of 1995 is disposed of at an early date since the matter is pending for a long time. It may be stated here that from the affidavit on behalf of the High Court, it transpires that all relevant records were placed before the Chief Justice before the order of assignment of Writ Petition No. 6072 of 1995 before the Division Bench presided over by Mr. Justice Mukherji was passed by the Chief Justice. We make it clear that it will be open to the Chief Justice to take such administrative measures as may appear to him just and proper if the Chief Justice administratively comes to the finding that any officer of the Registry was guilty in not properly dealing with the said Writ Petition No. 6072 of 1995. We also make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion against any of the officers of the Registry. This appeal is accordingly disposed of without any order as to costs.
6. We place on record our deep appreciation of the valuable assistance rendered by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and also by the learned Solicitor General and Mr. Sanghi appearing as amicus curiae in this case.