The High Court has been told a bid may be made to jail Minister for Agriculture Simon Coveney for contempt of court.

Mr Justice John Hedigan heard papers have already been prepared to facilitate an application for the minister to be brought to court for attachment and committal to prison.

Barrister Patrick O'Reilly SC for two Department of Agriculture employees, who allege they were double-crossed in an appointments agreement, told the court he had prepared a motion of committal.

He told the judge that he firstly wanted to consider a letter from the department and to obtain more information about positions that had been filled by someone else.

The minister has denied that he breached an undertaking given to the High Court.

Technical agricultural officers Vincent Gormley from Brownsgrove, Tuam, Co Galway and James Scott from Glinsk, Ballymoe, Co Galway brought a court action earlier this year alleging they should be redeployed as assistant inspectors.

Judge Hedigan heard that on 30 July the minister had given an undertaking to the court that he would not appoint people to the inspector’s posts as advertised on 12 April or until the court challenge by Mr Gormley and Mr Scott had been determined.

Mr O'Reilly, for both men, said it seemed the positions in question had been filled following the undertaking given by Mr Coveney.

"While I have had prepared a motion for attachment and committal I want firstly to consider a letter from the department and need more information about the positions that have been filled," he said.

Minister strongly objects to claims

Mr O'Reilly asked the court to adjourn the proceedings until after a hearing by the Labour Relations Commission next month. The dispute had been subject to talks between the department and the IMPACT trade union.

Eugene Regan SC for the minister said he strongly objected to a suggestion of a breach of an undertaking.

The undertaking, he said, related to an external advertisement process while the issue before the court related to an internal advertisement process.

Mr Regan said the Labour Relations Commission process might help resolve the matter.

Mr Gormley and Mr Scott were employed by the department since 1998 and 2001 respectively but were formally told in July 2011 that they were surplus to requirements.

Both men were highly qualified for the positions in question.

Mr Gormley's case is that under the Croke Park Agreement, redeployment took precedence over recruitment, transfers and promotions unless special skills were required.

He said the Public Appointments Service should have notified that he and Mr Scott were available for redeployment.

In late 2012 the department publicly advertised for assistant agricultural inspectors and stipulated that candidates must hold a first or second class honours degree in agriculture science or an equivalent qualification.

Both men claimed to have the necessary qualifications for the higher posts and should have been redeployed to them. They had applied for the positions in both external and internal competitions.

Judge Hedigan allowed the proceedings to stand adjourned.