Petitioner alleged respondent's non-compliance with a prior order regarding employment promotion. Court found no averment of existing vacancies or representation made by petitioner, finding no case for contempt, and closed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010043212022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/121/2022
ANITA SINHA
D/O- LATE LAL MOHAN SINHA, VILL AND PO- DULALGRAM, DISTCACHAR, ASSAM
VERSUS
BIVASH MODI, A.C.S DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, UZAN BAZAR, GHY- 01, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. N DHAR
Advocate for the Respondent :
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
09.03.2022
Heard Mr. U.B. Barua, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the respondent has not complied with paragraph 12 of the order dated 04.03.2021 passed in WP(C) 9/2018.
Page No.# 2/2
“ 12. In view of the above, in the event there are vacancies to the 25% quota post of Supervisor, which are to be filled up by the Anganwadi Workers, the State respondents would have to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Supervisor in terms of the order dated 24.11.2015 passed in WP(C) 5175/2013 and in terms of the norms and guidelines regarding selection process provided in the Notification dated 04.06.2012. As there is no change to the norms and guidelines regarding selection process, as provided in the Notification dated 04.06.2012, the State respondents cannot be allowed to have a written test prior to exercising the norms and guidelines provided in the Notification dated 04.06.2012 for promotion to the post of Supervisor .”
3. On a perusal of the petition filed by the petitioner, it is seen that there is no averment to the effect that there are vacancies to the 25% quota post of Supervisor, which are to be filled up by the Anganwadi Workers and that the respondent has not considered the petitioner for promotion to the post of Supervisor in terms of paragraph 12 of the order dated 04.03.2021 passed in WP(C) 9/2018. Further, no representation to the above effect has been made by the petitioner.
4. In view of the above facts this Court finds that no case of contempt has been made out at this stage.
5. Accordingly the contempt petition is closed accordingly.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
ANITA SINHA
BIVASH MODI
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
As recorded by the court registry
Proceedings for wilful disobedience of a court order under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
