In a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with a prior order directing selection for a Labour Officer post, the court found the direction substantially complied with. The case was closed, reserving the right to challenge the selection result in appropriate proceedings if aggrieved.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/24TH MAGHA, 1936
Con. Case (C). No. 684 of 2014 (S) IN WP(C).15467/2013
----------------------------------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 15467/2013 OF THIS COURT DATED 06-03-2014
PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:
ANNAMMA SCARIA.P., SECTION OFFICER (HIGHER GRADE), DIRECTORATE OF PLANNING, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
1. P. RAJENDRAN, (AGE & FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), VICE CHANCELLOR, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
2. E.K.MATHEW, REGISTRAR, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
R1&2 BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC,
KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19.11.2014, THE COURT ON 13-02-2015 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CON.CASE (C).N. 684 OF 2014 (S) IN WP(C). NO.15467/2013
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:-
A- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO. 15467/2013 DT.6.3.14.
B - COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 23.03.2014.
C- COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT 04.04.14.
D- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.GA/A3/30137/12 DATED 13.6.2013 ISSUED BY THE VICE CHANCELLOR DATED 28.8.2014.
E- COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE VICE CHANCELLOR DATED 28.8.2014.
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:-
R2(A):- COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.GA/A3/30137/12 DATED 17.11.2012 ISSUED BY THE KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY.
R2(B):- COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.71256/SD5/65/PD DATED 8.10.1965 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
R2(C):- COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.9.2007 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR, KANNUR UNIVERSITY.
R2(D):- COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.5.2013 ISSUED BY THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.
R2(E):- COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.6.2003 ISSUED BY THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT.
R2(F):- COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 17.4.2013 OF THE COCHIN UNIVERISTY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.
R2(G):- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.1.2011 IN W.A NO.1016/2010 OF THIS COURT.
R2(H):- COPY OF THE TABULATED STATEMENT OF APPLICATIONS RECEIVED FOR THE POST OF LABOUR OFFICER IN PURSUANCE TO ANNEXURE-R2(A) NOTIFICATION.
KRJ
/True Copy/
P.A to Judge
A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Cont. Case (C) No.684 of 2014
in
W.P(C) No.15467 of 2013
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 13th day of February, 2015
JUDGMENT
Alleging that the respondents have not so far initiated any
steps to comply with the direction issued by this Court rendering themselves liable to be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971, the petitioner in the writ petition has come up with the contempt petition.
as contemplated in the Kerala Agricultural University Act and
Statues, provisionally appointed another incumbent. The petitioner
COC684/14 -:2:-
along with some other applicants challenged the provisional selection
of the labour officer by filing the above writ petition.
COC684/14 -:3:-
true copy of the tabulated statement of applications received for the post of Labour Officer in pursuance of Annexure-R2(a) notification is produced as Annexure-R2(h) along with the counter. Therefore, the stand taken by the respondents is that the direction in the judgment has been complied with in letter and spirit and there is no scope of interference by way of contempt.
-:4:-
COC684/14
judgment, it cannot be said that there was any willful disobedience on the part of the respondents in complying with the direction in the judgment.
Therefore, this contempt case is closed, however, making it clear that it shall be open to the petitioner to challenge the present selection made by the first respondent in appropriate proceedings if
he is aggrieved by the same.
Sd/-
A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE
krj
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondents committed willful disobedience of this Court's previous direction by not conducting selection.
Annamma Scaria.P.
P. Rajendran
E.K. Mathew
A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
