Dismissed

Barom Sikam and Anr. v. Niharika Rai (Ias)

Gauhati HC15 Dec 2021Cont.Cas(C)/30/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court found a contempt petition maintainable dismissed. The Court held there was no specific restraint order and no material showing the respondent's promotion violated the previous order. The petition is thus held not maintainable.

What did the court decide?

The petition is held to be not maintainable and is dismissed. Petitioner to assail promotion order in appropriate proceeding.

Barom Sikam and Anr. Vs Niharika Rai (Ias) — Contempt of Court | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC040012292021

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)

¶4

Case No. : Cont.Cas(C) 30/2021

¶5

1:Barom Sikam and Anr. S/o Late Nyokar Siram, District Adult Education Officer (DAEO), Namsai District, Namsai, Arunachal Pradesh.

¶6

Mob. No. 8794452967

¶7

2: Murtem Mami (Gollo) R/o Yupia

¶8

PO/PS Doimukh Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh Mob. No 943605166

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

1:Niharika Rai (IAS) Secretary, (Education), Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : Nalo Pada

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent :

¶13

BEFORE

¶14

HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Date : 15-12-2021

¶17

Page No.# 2/3

¶18

Heard Mr. N. Pada, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶19

This petition has been filed alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 20-012021 passed by this Court in I.A.(C) No. 145(AP)/2020 arising out of W.P.(C) No. 509(AP)/2019.

¶20

It appears that the applicants had filed I.A.(C) No. 145(AP)/2020 with a prayer to restrain the department from confirming the services of the private respondents including the present respondent No. 5.

¶21

After hearing the submission of learned departmental counsel, the learned Single Judge had disposed of the I.A. by making the following observation:

¶22

“Mr. Jamoh, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no plan for holding a DPC for confirmation of the service of the private respondents in the near future and there is also no possibility of promoting them to the higher post since they are not in the zone of consideration. In view of the submission of the learned counsel, this Court is of the view that the fear of the writ petitioners expressed in the I.A. is unfounded. Therefore, the I.A. stands disposed.”

¶23

According to the applicants, subsequent to the order dated 20-01-2021 the department had passed order of confirmation and also promoted several candidates including the respondent No. 5. Contending that before confirmation of services, the respondent No. 5 could not have been promoted and to that extent, it is apparent that the services of the said respondent has been confirmed in violation of the Court’s order, Mr. Pada has prayed for drawing up contempt proceeding against the departmental official.

¶24

After going through the materials available on record, I am unable to agree with the

¶25

Page No.# 3/3

¶26

aforesaid submission of Mr. Pada. Firstly, there is no restraint order passed by this Court. Only oral submission of the departmental counsel was recorded. Such submission was relevant at that point of time but there is no undertaking for the future. Even assuming that the order of promotion was issued in an illegal manner and in violation of the service rules, the same itself would not amount to violation of Court’s order, unless it is shown that the services of respondent No. 5 was confirmed by holding a DPC in violation of the order of this Court. There is no such material on record to that effect. Therefore, this petition is held to be not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed.

¶27

The applicants would, however, be at liberty to assail the order of promotion of the respondent No. 5 in an appropriate proceeding and by relying upon the order dated 2001-2021 passed in I.A.(C) No. 145(AP)/2020, if so advised.

¶28

This contempt case stands disposed of accordingly.

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

¶31

Comparing Assistant

Barom Sikam and Anr. v. Niharika Rai (Ias)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Barom Sikam and Anr. v. Niharika Rai (Ias)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhanu Priya Chetia Vs N Rajathandan, IPS

Muminul Hasan Laskar Vs Mishbahul Hassan Ansari

Padum Borah and 3 Ors. Vs Rakesh Kumar

Sabibor Rahman Vs Rima Trishna Haloi, Acs

Nazrul Ali Vs Jolly Das Brahma and Anr.

Dr. Gopal Chetri Vs Samir Kumar Sinha, IAS and Ors.

Ex Ct/Gd Phukan Deori Vs Ajay Kumar Bhalla and 4 Ors.

Smti. Lalita Tewari Vs Preetom Saikia

Manomaya Sarma Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Muminul Hasan Laskar Vs Mishbahul Hassan Ansari

Smt. Siroja Begum and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Debashis Dey Vs The Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission and 3 Ors.

Joram Nagu Vs the State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Bate Koyu Vs The Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (Appsc) and 3 Ors.