Disposed

Sri. Anil Annigeri v. Sri. Manohar Bevinamar

Karnataka HC14 Jun 2021CCC/245/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka held that delay in appointing a disabled person to a reserved post, despite a prior order mandating the appointment within two months, amounted to defiance warranting exemplary costs.

What did the court decide?

Exemplary costs of Rs. 50,000 awarded; notice discharged subject to payment; application for revival permitted if appointment not confirmed within two months.

Sri. Anil Annigeri Vs Sri. Manohar… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶8

C.C.C. NO. 245 OF 2021 (CIVIL)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI ANIL ANNIGERI S/O MALLIKARJUN AGED 35 YEARS RESIDING AT KATAGERI TALUKA BADAMI DISTRICT BAGALKOT PIN-587 205

¶11

... COMPLAINANT

¶12

(BY SMT.SARITHA A.L, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI MANOHAR BEVINAMAR MANAGING DIRECTOR CHAMUNDESHARI ELECTRICITY SUPPLY CORPORATION LIMITED NO.29, VIJAYANAGAR 2^ND STAE, HINAKAL MYSURU-570 017.

¶15

... ACCUSED (BY SHRI S.SRIRANGA. ADVOCATE FOR M/s JUSTLAW ) ---

¶16

THIS C.C.C. IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971 PRAYING TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT

¶17

¶18

AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR HAVING DISOBEYED THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS COURT DATED 27.11.2020 IN W.P. NO.43708/2018 AT ANNEXURE-A, AND ETC.

¶19

THIS C.C.C. COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The complainant who was the writ petitioner in W.P. No.43708 of 2018 has filed this contempt petition pointing out the breach of the directions contained in paragraph 8 of the order dated 27^th November, 2020 passed in the writ petition.

¶22

The complainant applied to Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Corporation Limited (for short, "CESCOM") for appointment as an Assistant under the quota reserved for the persons with disability. What was challenged in the writ petition was an endorsement issued on 14^th September, 2018 in which it was stated that the medical certificate produced by the complainant shows that if the complainant undergoes a surgery to the left eye, the disability could be set right. In paragraph 7 of

¶23

¶24

the judgment, this Court observed that at the instance of the Court, Minto Hospital, Bengaluru, submitted a report clearly opining that the complainant is suffering from 60% category III(c) of low vision disability. It is also noted in the order passed by this Court that in the aptitude test, the complainant scored 97.7% whereas the other two candidates who had applied under the quota reserved for the persons with disability had scored 70.54% and 67.56% respectively.

¶25

The order of which breach is committed reads thus:

¶26

"Having regard to the findings arrived at hereinabove, this Court is of the opinion that the second respondent could not have denied the petitioner, appointment to the post of Assistant. Consequently, the petition stands allowed. The impugned endorsement dated 14.09.2018 is hereby quashed and set aside. The second respondent shall consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Assistant, without any further delay and at any rate within a period

¶27

¶28

of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."

¶29

It is ordered accordingly." (underline supplied)

¶30

Thus, there is a categorical finding that the respondents in the writ petition could not have denied appointment to the complainant to the post of Assistant under the quota of the persons with disability. A copy of the said order was forwarded by the complainant along with a letter dated 18^th December, 2020 to the accused who is the Managing Director of the second respondentCESCOM.

¶31

The present contempt petition is filed on 8^th March, 2021. Notice of this petition was issued on 15^th March, 2021. On 19^th April, 2021, the learned counsel for the accused appeared and stated that the appeal preferred by the accused against the judgment and order dated 27^th November, 2020 has been dismissed on 16^th April, 2021. An affidavit

¶32

¶33

was tendered on that day stating that the recruitment committee has resolved on 17^th April, 2021 to comply with the order of the learned Single Judge of which the breach is alleged.

¶34

An affidavit dated 7^th June, 2021 has been filed by the accused in which it is stated that an appointment order has been issued to the complainant on 7^th June, 2021 subject to verification of the documents. The submission of the learned counsel for the accused is that the order of which breach is alleged was not complied with as an appeal against the said order was

¶35

pending. He stated that after the appeal was dismissed, the process for making compliance was started. He also pointed out that before a confirmed letter of appointment is issued, verification of the documents is required to be done. He submitted that there is no intention on the part of the accused to defy the orders of the

¶36

¶37

Court and if permitted by the Court, the accused will tender an apology.

¶38

We have considered the submissions. The

¶39

following facts emerge which cannot be disputed:

¶40

(a) By the endorsement dated 14^th September, 2018, the prayer of the complainant for appointment to the post of Assistant in the quota of the persons with disability was rejected;

¶41

(b) Based on the medical certificate produced on record, by the judgment and order dated 27^th November, 2020, a categorical finding was recorded by this Court that the appointment to the post of Assistant could not have been denied to the complainant against the quota of the persons with disability. As per the said judgment and order, the appointment order was required to

¶42

¶43

be issued within a period of two months from the date of communication of the said order;

¶44

(c) CESCOM of which the accused is the managing director, was represented by an advocate when the judgment and order dated 27^th November, 2020 was passed by the learned Single Judge and therefore, CESCOM was fully aware of the same;

¶45

(d) Though a copy of the order was submitted to the accused by the complainant along with a letter dated 18^th December, 2020, not even a reply was issued to the said letter by the accused or CESCOM;

¶46

(e) The order of appointment of the complainant ought to have been issued on or before 18^th February, 2021. The present contempt petition was filed on 8^th March, 2021;

¶47

(f) Though an appeal was preferred by CESCOM against the said judgment and

¶48

¶49

order, admittedly at no stage, there was any order of stay granted;

¶50

(g) Though the appeal was dismissed on 16^th April, 2021, thereafter a lot of time was consumed and a provisional order of appointment was belatedly issued on 7^th June, 2021 and that too, subject to verification of documents;

¶51

(h) There is a categorical finding recorded in the judgment and order dated 27^th November, 2020 that the complainant could not have been denied the appointment to the post of Assistant reserved for the persons with disability. Even on 7^th June, 2021, instead of issuing a regular letter of appointment, the complainant has been issued a provisional letter of appointment subject to verification of the documents; and

¶52

(i) For the delay, the accused has not tendered an apology. On the contrary, he

¶53

¶54

has stated that the delay in compliance is due to the limited functioning of the offices due to the pandemic situation. To say the least, this excuse is totally unwarranted as the order was to be complied with by 18^th February, 2021 when the offices were functioning normally. In fact, from 18^th December, 2020 to 18^th February, 2021, the excuse of pandemic situation was not available.

¶55

Thus, while dealing with a case of a person with disability, a public sector undertaking has shown insensitivity. Though there is a categorical finding recorded on 27^th November, 2020 that the complainant was entitled to employment in the post

¶56

of Assistant under the quota of persons with disability, on 7^th June, 2021, a letter of appointment has been belatedly issued which is conditional. As a result of the delay on the part of the accused for

¶57

¶58

which there is no justification and there is no remorse shown, the complainant was deprived of income by way of salary for four months. As noted by he learned Single Judge while passing the order dated 27^th November, 2020, it was found that the complainant is suffering from 60% category III(c) low vision disability.

¶59

In view of the belated compliance, though no further action can be initiated under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, this is a fit case where the accused will have to be saddled with exemplary costs. Considering the act of defiance shown by the accused especially in the case of a person with disability, we quantify the costs at Rs.50,000/-. The accused has not chosen to even file an affidavit

¶60

of apology. We also make it clear that if for any reason the confirmation of the order of appointment is not issued by the accused within a period of two months from today, or if the confirmation of

¶61

¶62

appointment is refused, it will be open for the complainant to apply for revival of this contempt petition.

¶63

Hence, we dispose of this petition by passing

¶64

the following order:

¶65

ORDER

¶66

(i) The notice issued to the accused is discharged subject to the condition of either the accused or the company-CESCOM paying costs quantified at Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand) to the complainant within a period of one month from today;

¶67

(ii) It will be open for the accused to personally pay the costs amount or to cause CESCOM to pay the same. If the costs amount is paid by CESCOM, it will open for it to recover the said amount form the officers who are responsible for the delay;

¶68

¶69

(iii) In the event, a confirmed letter of appointment is not issued to the complainant within two months from today, or in the event the appointment granted to the complainant is not confirmed, it will be open for the complainant to apply for revival of this contempt petition;

¶70

(iv) Though the contempt petition is disposed of, for reporting compliance regarding payment of costs, the same shall be listed on 22^nd July, 2021.

¶71

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶72

Sd/JUDGE

¶73

vgh*

Sri. Anil Annigeri v. Sri. Manohar Bevinamar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Anil Annigeri v. Sri. Manohar Bevinamar

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

S G Anantharam Vs Smt. Lalitha Amrutesh

Sri Lalji Ladharam Patel Vs State of Karnataka

Prof.B.Jayadevappa Vs Sri.S.S.Patil

M/S Mvr Gas Vs M/S Aditya Birla Finance Limited

Sri Dinesh Kalahalli Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Suraj Naik Vs the State of Karnataka