Disposed

Jagriti Yadav v. Shri Jagdish, Secretary, U.P. Public Service Commission

Allahabad HC16 Mar 2020CAPL/1703/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court addressed a contempt application regarding the U.P. Public Service Commission's failure to comply with a prior writ order concerning an applicant's selection. The court found a prima facie case of contempt but instead of punishing the respondent, it granted a final chance to comply with the original order within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondent granted three weeks to comply with the prior writ order; liberty to apply if not complied.

Jagriti Yadav Vs Shri Jagdish, Secretary, U.P… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1703 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Jagriti Yadav Opposite Party :- Shri Jagdish, Secretary, U.P. Public Service Commission

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Kashi Nath Singh Yadav,Harendra Prasad Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶6

Advocates are abstaining from judicial work.

¶7

By order dated 24.10.2019 passed in Writ A No. 16933 of 2019 filed by the applicant, this Court directed as under:

¶8

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kartikey Saran, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶9

Learned counsel for the parties submit that the controversy raised in this petition has already been examined by this Court in Writ Petition No. 14273 of 2019 and has been disposed of by following orders passed on 20.9.2019:-

¶10

"The petitioner has raised a grievance that her name does not find place in the merit list issued for interview for selection on the post of Lecturer, State Educational Research and Training Council.

¶11

Respondent No. 1 issued an advertisement on 07.02.2014 inviting application online for selection on the post of Lecturer, State Educational Research and Training Council in various subjects including Home Science. The petitioner claims to have submitted online application on 28.02.2014 mentioning in the application that she is Post Graduate in Home Science. The written tests were held and the petitioner was declared successful in the said test, but her name does not find place in the list of candidates who were called for interview.

¶12

Sri M.N. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the U.P. Public Service Commission upon instruction submits that the petitioner does not possess the requisite qualification of Post Graduate Degree in Home Science, therefore, her name does not find place in the list of candidates who were called for interview.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on the other hand submits that the petitioner is Graduate in Home Science in Ist Class and Post Graduate in Nutritional Science which is part and parcel of Home Science and, therefore, her claim has wrongly been rejected.

¶14

I have heard submissions of learned counsel for the parties. From the advertisement, it is clearly born out that for Lecturer (Home Science) the candidate must possess Post Graduate in Home Science. Whether Post Graduate Degree in Home Science and the Post Graduate in Nutritional

¶15

Science is one and the same, this Court is not competent to dwell into this aspect.

¶16

This writ petition is disposed of with the observation that in case the petitioner does possess the requisite essential qualification, her claim be considered and appropriate orders be passed in accordance with law, as far as possible within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is presented before the Secretary, U.P. Public Service Commission."

¶17

Controversy being identical, this petition is also disposed of on same terms. "

¶18

It appears from the record that a certified copy of the aforesaid order was submitted for compliance before the opposite party but the opposite party has wilfully not complied with the order and, thus, has committed civil contempt liable for punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

¶19

Prima facie a case of contempt has been made out. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, one more opportunity is afforded to the opposite party to comply with the aforesaid order of the writ Court within three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶20

The applicant shall supply a duly stamped registered envelope addressed to the opposite party and another self-addressed stamped envelope to the office within two weeks from today. The office shall send a copy of this order along with the selfaddressed envelope of the applicant with a copy of contempt application to the opposite party within one week thereafter and keep a record thereof.

¶21

The opposite party shall comply with the directions of the writ court and intimate the order to the applicant through the selfaddressed envelope within a week thereafter.

¶22

With the aforesaid observations, this application is disposed of at this stage with liberty to the applicant to move a fresh application, if the order is not complied with by the opposite party within the stipulated time as aforementioned.

¶23

Order Date :- 16.3.2020 A.K.Srivastava

Jagriti Yadav v. Shri Jagdish, Secretary, U.P. Public Service Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagriti Yadav v. Shri Jagdish, Secretary, U.P. Public Service Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Kumar Vs Arvind Kumar Dixit, Vice Chancellor, Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University and 2 Others

Vijay Pandit Vs Anil Kumar Pandey, Executive Engineer

Sonu @ Javed Vs Dr. Rajkumar, Chief Medical Officer

Committee of Management Anglo Sanskrit Inter College and Another Vs Mrs. Anuradha Shukla, Secretary of Education (Secondary)

Virendra Singh Yadav Vs Om Prakash Arya, D.M.

Om Prakash Sharma Vs Mr. Om Prakash Arya, D.M.