Disposed

Jitendra Kumar v. Ashwani Kumar Awasthi, Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Jul 2020CAPL/1720/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant sought to initiate contempt proceedings against the opposite parties for wilful disobedience of a writ order. The Court found a prima facie case but granted one more opportunity to comply within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

The opposite parties were granted one more opportunity to comply with the previous writ order within six weeks.

Jitendra Kumar Vs Ashwani Kumar Awasthi, Principal… — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1720 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar Opposite Party :- Ashwani Kumar Awasthi, Principal Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hira Lal Yadav,Sunil Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

¶6

The applicant is before this Court for a direction to initiate contempt proceeding against the opposite parties for wilful disobedience of the order dated 9.7.2019 passed in Writ-A No.6297 of 2019 (Jitendra Kumar v. State of U.P. & Anr.), which for ready reference is quoted as under:-

¶7

"Petitioner had applied for appointment to the post of Constable in U.P. Police, pursuant to recruitment exercise initiated on 29th December, 2015. He has scored 394.66 marks while the cut-off in respect of scheduled caste (male) category is 377.07. Petitioner although was called upon to appear for physical standard test and document verification but has not been sent for medical examination. It is stated that once the petitioner scored marks above the cut-off, there would be no justification for the respondents not to consider his claim.

¶8

Taking cognizance of such grievance, this Court on 23rd April, 2019, called upon the learned Standing Counsel to obtain instructions. Subsequent orders were passed in the matter on 17.5.2019 and 5.7.2019. Learned Standing Counsel has obtained instructions, copy of which is taken on record. According to learned Standing Counsel petitioner has been treated in the unreserved category, as at the time of document verification, he has produced a caste certificate distinct from what had been specified in his application form.

¶9

Petitioner alongwith the writ petition has brought on record a caste certificate issued by the competent authority bearing Caste Certificate No. 612134000168. It appears that petitioner has also obtained another Caste Certificate No. 612164003548, dated 30th April, 2016, which has been produced at the time of document verification, according to the respondents, but the same has been ignored. It is, however, not disputed on behalf of the respondents that petitioner does belong to scheduled caste category and a valid certificate in that regard has been issued to him.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, has placed reliance upon a judgment of Apex Court in Ram Kumar Gijoroya Vs. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board and another 2016(4) SCC 754. Reliance is placed upon para 16 of the judgment, which reads as under:

¶11

"16. In the case of Pushpa (supra), relevant paragraphs from the case of Tej Pal Singh (supra) have also been extracted, which read thus :-

¶12

"11......

¶13

17. The matter can be looked into from another angle also. As per the advertisement dated 11th June, 1999 issued by the Board, vacancies are reserved for various categories including 'SC' category. Thus in order to be considered for the post reserved for 'SC' category, the requirement is that a person should belong to 'SC' category. If a person is SC his is so by birth and not by acquisition of this category because of any other event happening at a later stage. A certificate issued by competent authority to this effect is only an affirmation of fact which is already in existence. The purpose of such certificate is to enable the authorities to believe in the assertion of the candidate that he belongs to 'SC' category and act thereon by giving the benefit to such candidate for his belonging to

¶14

'SC' category. It is not that petitioners did not belong to 'SC' category prior to 30th June, 1998 or that acquired the status of being 'SC' only on the date of issuance of the certificate. In view of this position, necessitating upon a certificate dated prior to 30th June, 1998 would be clearly arbitrary and it has no rationale objective sought to be achieved.

¶15

18. While taking a particular view in such matters one has to keep in mind the objectives behind the post of SC and ST categories as per constitutional mandate prescribed in Articles 15(4) and 16(4) which are enabling provisions authorising the Government to make special provisions for the persons of SC and ST categories. Articles 14(4) and 16(4), therefore, intend to remove social and economic inequality to make equal opportunities available in reality. Social and economic justice is a right enshrined for protection of society. The right in social and economic justice envisaged in the Preamble and elongated in the Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles of the Constitution, in particular Arts. 14, 15, 16, 21, 38, 39 and 46 are to make the quality of the life of the poor, disadvantaged and disabled citizens of the society meaningful."

¶16

Petitioner states that he had produced both the certificates at the time of document verification but the authorities have merely referred to one. In the opinion of the Court, once it is admitted that petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste Category and certificate in that regard has been issued by the competent authority, merely because petitioner has produced certificate of a different date, would not be a sufficient ground to discard consideration to petitioner's claim. Both the certificates otherwise are as per the Presidential Order (Scheduled Caste) Order, 1950, as modified in 1967 and the authorities would not be justified in treating the petitioner to be unreserved candidate.

¶17

In that view of the matter, this writ petition stands disposed of with a direction upon the authority concerned to treat petitioner's claim for appointment as a scheduled caste category candidate and in case he is found to have scored the marks above the cut off, his candidature would be processed further in accordance with law. The verification of caste certificate would otherwise remain open for the respondents."

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a certified copy of the aforesaid order was submitted for compliance before the opposite parties but the opposite parties have wilfully not complied with the order and, thus, have 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 parties to comply with the aforesaid order of the Court within six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order.

¶20

The applicant shall supply a duly stamped registered envelope addressed to the opposite parties 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 stamped envelope of the applicant with a copy of contempt application to the opposite parties within one week, thereafter and keep a record thereof. The opposite party shall comply with the directions of the writ Court and intimate the applicant of the order through the self-addressed envelop within a week, thereafter.

¶21

With the aforesaid observations, this application is disposed of

¶22

at this stage with liberty to the applicant to move a fresh application, if the order is not complied with by the opposite parties within the stipulated time as aforementioned.

¶23

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioners alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶24

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶25

Order Date :- 13.7.2020 SP/

Jitendra Kumar v. Ashwani Kumar Awasthi, Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Kumar v. Ashwani Kumar Awasthi, Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of U.P. and Another

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

Gaurav Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Chandra Bhartiya Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Km. Renu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Committee of Management Sriram Janki Sanskrit Uttar Madhyama Vidyalay and Another Vs Pramod Kumar, Deputy Director Education (Sanskrit) Directorate and Another

Smt. Vandana Thakur Vs Shri Rahul Kumar, Ist Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate

Rishipal Singh Vs Parthsarthi Sen Sharma, the Commissioner, Gram Vikas