Anil K. Narendran, J.

1. The petitioner, who is the 1st respondent in W.A.No.2118 of 2025, has filed this contempt case, invoking the provisions under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India, alleging wilful disobedience of the direction contained in the judgment dated 14.01.2026 of this Court in that writ appeal, whereby the respondent herein, who is holding the post of Director of General Education, was directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P16 revision petition filed by the petitioner herein, strictly in accordance with law, with notice to both sides, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of that judgment.

2. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that while passing Annexure A2 order dated 15.03.2026, the respondent herein failed to comply with the direction contained in Annexure A1 judgment, in letter and spirit, and, therefore, the petitioner can invoke the contempt jurisdiction of this Court under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act and Article 215 of the Constitution of India.

4. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that pursuant to the direction contained in Annexure A1 judgment, the respondent has already passed Annexure A2 order. If the petitioner is feeling aggrieved by that order, she has to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings.

5. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and also the submissions made at the Bar, we notice that while dismissing W.A.No.2118 of 2025 filed by the 5th respondent in W.P.(C)No.23529 of 2025, declining interference on the judgment dated 27.06.2025 of the learned Single Judge in that writ petition, this Court directed the respondent herein (3rd respondent in the writ appeal) to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P16 revision petition filed by the petitioner herein, strictly in accordance with law, with notice to both sides, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of that judgment.

6. In this contempt case, the case of the petitioner is that Annexure A2 order dated 15.03.2026 of the respondent herein, who is holding the post of Director of General Education, is not in accordance with law, as ordered by this Court in Annexure A1 judgment. Instead of considering the grievance of the petitioner, the respondent herein passed Annexure A2 order after considering the contention of the appellant in W.A.No.2118 of 2025 (who is the rival claimant for the post of Headmistress of Thillenkeri U.P. School, Kannur District). In the contempt case, it is alleged that the respondent herein issued Annexure A2 order as per the dictation of somebody else and not in accordance with law, as directed by this Court in Annexure A1 judgment. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the conduct of the respondent amounts to civil contempt, punishable under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

7. In Ground C of the memorandum of contempt case, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Ram Niranjan Roy v. State of Bihar [(2014) 12 SCC 11], it is contended that the High Court being a Court of record under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, the power of this Court to deal with the contempt of itself is an inherent power, and the jurisdiction vested in this Court is a special one and not derived from any other statute, but derived only from Article 215 of the Constitution.

8. As per Article 215 of the Constitution of India, every High Court shall be a Court of record and shall have all the powers of such a Court including the power to punish for contempt of itself. Clause (a) of Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Act No.70 of 1971) defines ‘contempt of court’ to mean civil contempt or criminal contempt. Clause (b) of Section 2 defines ‘civil contempt’ to mean wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court.

9. Section 11 of Act No.70 of 1971 deals with the power of High Court to try offences committed or offenders found outside jurisdiction. As per Section 11, a High Court shall have jurisdiction to enquire into or try a contempt of itself or of any court subordinate to it, whether the contempt is alleged to have been committed within or outside the local limits of its jurisdiction, and whether the person alleged to be guilty of contempt is within or outside such limits.

10. Section 12 of Act No.70 of 1971 deals with punishment for contempt of court. As per sub-section (1) of Section 12, same as otherwise expressly provided in the Act or in any other law, a contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both. As per the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 12, the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the court. As per the Explanation, an apology shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional, if the accused makes it bona fide. Sub- sections (2) to (5) of Section 12 are not relevant for considering the legal issue involved in this contempt case and, therefore, we are not referring to those provisions in this judgment.

11. A reading of the provisions under Article 215 of the Constitution of India and the provisions contained in Act 70 of 1971 would make it explicitly clear that for invoking the provisions under Section 11 of the said Act, for proceeding against a person on the ground that he has committed ‘civil contempt’ punishable under Section 12 of the Act, the petitioner has to make out a case of wilful disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court.

12. In Ram Niranjan Roy [(2014) 12 SCC 11], a decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the scope of the powers of the Supreme Court and the High Court under Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution of India, to deal with the contempt of itself, the Apex Court held that it is an inherent power under which the Supreme Court and the High Court can deal with contempt of itself. The jurisdiction vested is a special one not derived from any other statute but derived only from Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution. The constitutionally vested right cannot be either abridged, abrogated or cut down by legislation, including the Contempt of Courts Act.

13. In the case at hand, as already noticed hereinbefore, the only direction contained in Annexure A1 judgment of this Court dated 14.01.2026, while dismissing W.A.No.2118 of 2025 filed by the 5th respondent in W.P.(C)No.23529 of 2025, is an order directing the respondent herein (3rd respondent in the writ appeal) to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P16 revision petition filed by the petitioner herein, strictly in accordance with law, with notice to both sides, within the time limit stipulated in that judgment.

14. A reading of Annexure A1 judgment would make it explicitly clear that, while dismissing that writ appeal, declining interference on the judgment dated 27.06.2025 of the learned Single Judge in that writ petition, this Court had no occasion to consider the rival contentions on the legal and factual issues involved in Ext.P16 revision petition. The only issue raised before this Court was on the maintainability of Ext.P16 revision petition, i.e., whether such a revision filed against the order declining approval of appointment is revisable under Rule 8A of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules (KER). After considering the rival contentions on that legal issue, this Court found that the order declining approval of appointment issued by the Assistant Education Officer or the District Educational Officer, as the case may be, are revisable under Rule 8A.

15. In Annexure A1 judgment dated 14.01.2026, this Court directed the respondent herein, who is holding the post of Director of General Education, to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P16 revision petition filed by the petitioner herein, strictly in accordance with law. Once the respondent has passed Annexure A2 order dated 15.03.2026, with notice to both sides, the petitioner cannot invoke the provisions under Section 11 of Act 70 of 1971, for proceeding against the respondent on the ground that he has committed ‘civil contempt’ punishable under Section 12 of the Act, by contending that the said order passed by the respondent is not in accordance with law, as ordered by this Court in Annexure A1 judgment. As already noticed hereinbefore, the case of the petitioner is that instead of considering her grievance, the respondent passed Annexure A2 order after considering the contention of the appellant in W.A.No.2118 of 2025, who is the rival claimant for the post of Headmistress of Thillenkeri U.P. School, Kannur District. In case the petitioner is feeling aggrieved by the rejection of Ext.P16 revision petition, vide Annexure A2 order dated 15.03.2026 of the respondent, the remedy open to her is to challenge that order before the proper forum, raising appropriate legal and factual contentions, instead of filing this contempt case, invoking the provisions under Act 70 of 1971.

16. In Lalith Mathur v. L. Maheswara Rao [(2000) 10 SCC 285] the Apex Court was dealing with a case in which Writ Petition No.22230 of 1997 filed by the respondent before the Apex Court was disposed of by the High Court, along with connected matters, with a direction for consideration of the representation by the State Government. That direction was carried out by the State Government, which had considered and, thereafter, rejected the representation on merits. Instead of challenging that order in a fresh writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the respondent took recourse to contempt proceedings. The Apex Court held that the recourse to contempt proceedings will not lie as the order has already been complied with by the State Government, which had considered the representation and rejected it on merits. The Apex Court allowed the Civil Appeal, by setting aside the judgment of the High Court in the contempt petition filed by the respondent and that contempt petition was dismissed; however, without prejudice to the right of the respondent to challenge the order passed by the State Government rejecting the representation on merits, in such proceedings as he may be advised.

17. In the above circumstances, if the petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure A2 order dated 15.03.2026 of the respondent, whereby Ext.P16 revision petition stands rejected, the remedy open to her is to challenge that order before the proper forum, raising appropriate legal and factual contentions, instead of filing a contempt case, invoking the provisions under Act 70 of 1971. Therefore, conclusion is irresistible that this contempt case, which is a clear abuse of the process of court, is liable to be closed.

In the result, this contempt case is closed for the reasons stated hereinbefore; however, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge Annexure A2 order dated 15.03.2026 of the respondent, before the proper forum, raising appropriate legal and factual contentions.