Dismissed

Harish M.C v. Sri Sen Kumar, IPS

Kerala HC9 Feb 2016Con.Case(C)/228/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance with a prior judgment regarding recruitment vacancies. The court held that since vacancies were reported and the PSC advised candidates, no wilful contempt was made out, dropping the case without affecting the petitioner's right to seek appointment elsewhere.

What did the court decide?

The contempt case was dropped with leave to the petitioner to take other lawful steps for appointment.

Harish M.C Vs Sri Sen Kumar, IPS — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/20TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

Con.Case(C).No. 228 of 2016 (S) IN OP(KAT).200/2014

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP(KAT) 200/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 26-08-2014

¶7

PETITIONER/IST PETITIONER IN THE O.P.(KAT):

¶8

HARISH M.C AGED 29 YEARS S/O K.N.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, MANAKKAKUDIYIL PAMBAKKUDA, NEAR PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM-686 667.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SRI.T.G.SUNIL (PRANAVAM) SRI.K.R.GANESH

¶10

RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT:

¶11

SRI SEN KUMAR, IPS AGED AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN, STATE POLICE CHIEF PLLICE HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶12

BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.S.MANILAL

¶13

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

COC NO.228/2016

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶17

ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF THE RANK LIST PUBLISHED BY THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.

¶18

ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.8.2014 IN OP(KAT) NO.200/2014 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶19

ANNEXURE A3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.6.2015 IN CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE NO.562/2015 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶20

ANNEXURE A4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.10.15 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.8536/2015 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT.

¶21

ANNEXURE A5: TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT CHART ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.

¶22

ANNEXURE A6: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2015 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶23

ANNEXURE A7: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT 16.12.15 IN SLP CC NO.21879/2015 OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.

¶24

ANNEXURE A8: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 18.1.2016 IN SLP CC NO.494-495 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.

//True Copy//

PS to Judge

ASHOK BHUSHAN, C.J. &

¶29

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶30

================

¶31

Cont.Case (C) No. 228 of 2016 =====================

¶32

Dated this, the 9^th day of February, 2016

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

Shaffique, J.

¶35

This contempt case has been filed alleging non compliance of the directions issued by the Division Bench as per judgment dated 26/8/2014 in OP(KAT) No.200/14. By virtue of the aforesaid judgment, this Court had while setting aside the order passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal further directed that the 2^nd respondent has to report vacancies in the direct recruitment quota to the Public Service Commission for advising the candidates in accordance with the recruitment rules.

¶36

The main contention urged by the petitioner is that though the 2^nd respondent has reported the vacancies and advice had been issued by the PSC, no steps had been issued by the respondent herein to issue the appointment orders to the said vacancies. Learned counsel submits that when a declaratory direction had been issued stating that 50% of the 274 posts are to

¶37

Cont.Case (C) No.228/16

¶38

-:2:-

¶39

be filled up by direct recruitment, the respondent is bound to comply with the said direction. He also relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in C.K.N.Nair v. K.M.Chandy (1976 KLT 879) to indicate that when a declaratory direction had been issued, the authorities are bound to act in accordance with the same.

¶40

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on a perusal of the records, we do not find that a case of wilful contempt has been made out. A direction has been issued by this Court to the 2^nd respondent to report the vacancies which has already been done and PSC was directed to advise the candidates. PSC has already advised the candidates. Under such circumstances, a case of wilful contempt cannot be made out.

¶41

Petitioner now appears to have a cause of action to seek appointment on the basis of the advice given by PSC. Under what circumstances the appointment order is not issued is not germane for consideration in the present case especially in a contempt case.

¶42

Under such circumstances, we do not think that this Court will be justified in proceeding with this contempt case and

¶43

Cont.Case (C) No.228/16

¶44

-:3:-

¶45

accordingly the same is dropped. However, dropping of the contempt case shall not preclude the petitioner from taking any other steps in accordance with law.

¶46

Sd/- ASHOK BHUSHAN, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶47

Sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶48

Rp9/2/2016

¶49

//True Copy//

¶50

PS to Judge

Harish M.C v. Sri Sen Kumar, IPS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harish M.C v. Sri Sen Kumar, IPS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Beena Beegum Vs v.B.Ramachandran Nair

N.T.Kesari Menon Vs Air India Limited

The Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs M.J.Watson

Sheejamol Vs Dr.W.R.Reddy

Jagasya Vs M/S. India Telecom Infra Ltd.

State of Kerala and Another Vs Praseetha and Another