Dismissed

Kailash Madharia v. R.J.Vishwakarma and Others

Chhattisgarh HC8 Nov 2011CONT/383/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, the petitioner alleged irregularities regarding vacancy reservation and promotion. The judge dismissed the petition without issuing a notice, directing the petitioner to file a better petition with evidence. The order criticizes the omission to record facts before dismissal.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of contempt petition with direction to file a better petition demonstrating facts on record.

Kailash Madharia Vs R.J.Vishwakarm… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Chhattisgarh HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

^ (D

¶3

IN THB HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH

¶4

JUDICATURB ATBILASPUR

c^^ c4^<- Jr

No. 3^3 /20JEJE

W.P, fsJNO, 2693 /2011

Kailash Madharia

PETtTIONER

S/0 Shri A.R.Verma

Aged about 45 years,

Occiupation-Incharge Execu-tive

¶15

.J^

¶16

^^^ .J^ »»•.*%» Occiupation-Incharge Engineer (Civil) 'Oatsd...-—^^ ^;^^^^^.. PiibUc Hea3.th Engineering | \ ^v nepartment Siib Diwsion

¶17

Kabirdham Dist Kabirdham

(C.G.)

VERSUS

RESPONDBNTS

R.J.Vishwaknrma (1)

Secretary ,

Department ofPiibUc Health Bngmeering ^Mantralaya, D.K.S, Bhdwan Raipur (C.G.)

¶24

T.C.Kosariya

¶25

Engineer in Chief, Department ofPublic Health Engineering ,Raipur ( C.G.)

¶26

(3) Hemant Pahare

¶27

Secretary,

¶28

PubUe Service CGmmissiGn

¶29

^-h^-

¶30

¶31

Raipur DiM-Rcdpur (C.G.)

¶32

CJVZL CONTBS^T PBT[7ION UNDBR SBC7ION 11 & 12 QF THE CONTEMPT OF

CQURTACT. 1971

^NNT

—78

7^ "lil<4|(y1'4, ??€^TH^, f®l(ni-H^<

¶39

• ^-)u ^ 3^2)^ ^T<Tp(T ssi^ljcti 200

¶40

3n^?r XPW ('(i^f3ST^r)

¶41

||3?T^T^T'f^fNT
"WT3li^l 5t)*l|ch|^nwnf^n^n^T|cr»i^f<vi<i1i'^^^f^stT^T^IT
'^3tRW3TT^T| |---|---|---|---| |^||SB:MQnsbieShriMan[ndraMo
08-11-2011|l
han Shrivastava. J.| |^||Noneforthe petitioner, ev
in the contempt petition,
order passed on 13/5/2011 dire
hearing, respondents have proc
persons.
Though it has been aile
avaiiabie, a perusal oforder dat
counsei for the petitioner that
aiiowed to fiiied upwas recorded
in the absence ofthere b
to the correctness ofthe statem
inciined to issue notice to the
reserving Jibertyto the petitioner
the actual number ofvacancies|i1
c
5H in the second round.
has been alleged that even though ihere was an
;ing one postto be keptvacanttiii the next date of
:our vacancies are avaiiable and are not being
^eded to hold DPC and granted promotion to two
^ed in the contempt petition that two posts were
^d 13/5/2011 shows ihat the contention of iearned
l
ejing any representation to demonstrate with regard
^nt made before this Court on 13./5/2011, i am not
r^spondents.
The petition is therefore dismissed
|to fiie better petition to demonstrate with regard to
i[vaiiabie.| ||Deepij||Sd/-
ManindraMohanShrivastava
Judge|

¶42

pnn

¶43

^' .t -'•A

Kailash Madharia v. R.J.Vishwakarma and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailash Madharia v. R.J.Vishwakarma and Others

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

Ramsay Sahu and Ors. Vs Vivek Dhand

Ganga Gilhare and Others Vs Sunil Kumar and Another

Bodhram Panigrahi and Ors. Vs Shri K. R. Pisda

Darshanlal Jain Vs K.K.Bansal

Mahesh Ram Gavel Vs Rajesh Pandey and Another

Ram Kumar Vs Sukhcharan Bai and Anr.