Petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging disobedience to an order status quoing appointment in a writ petition regarding a librarian post. The respondent withdrew the initial approval granted, leading the court to close the contempt proceedings.
The contempt petition is closed.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Date:- 08.02.2016
Coram
The Honourable Mr.Justice R.SUBBIAH
Contempt Petition No.1563 of 2015
R.Vimala ... Petitioner
..vs..
1. Mr.MU.DEVADHAS
THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION
COLLEGE ROAD, CHENNAI
2. Mr.K.HEMNATH
THE SECRETARY
PACHAIYAPPAS TRUST BOARD
PACHAIYAPPAS COLLEGE CAMPUS, CHENNAI.
... Respondents
The Contempt Petition is filed under Section 11 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 70/71, to punish the Respondents
for their deliberate and wilful disobedience to the orders
of this Court dated 26.02.2014 made in W.P.No.5659 of 2014.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Renganathan For Respondent-1 : Mrs.P.Rajalakshmi Government Advocate For Respondent-2 : Mr.M.Devendran
O R D E R
The petitioner herein filed a Writ Petition for
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ certiorarified mandamus calling for the records from the
2
second respondent, viz., The Secretary, Pachaiyappa's Trust Board, Chennai, in Advertisement No.03/2013, dated 12.12.2013, in respect of the filling up the vacancy of Librarian Post in Pachaiyappa's college, Chennai, and quash the same in respect of the Librarian Post alone and further
directing the second respondent to appoint the petitioner as Librarian in Pachaiyappa's College, Chennai.
seeking an order of injunction restraining the first respondent – Director of Collegiate Education, Chennai, from granting approval to the appointment of the third respondent – Tmt.S.Meena, pending disposal of the above
Writ Petition. When the matter came up for admission on 26.02.2015, this Court has passed an order of status quo with regard to the approval of appointment of third respondent. But inspite of the order passed by this Court, approval was granted by the Joint Director of the
Collegiate Education. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the present Contempt Petition.
3.Today when the matter is taken up for consideration,
learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the
first respondent submits that the *approval of appointment
of third respondent in W.P.No.5659/2014 was withdrawn and
she has also produced an order dated 03.02.2016 withdrawing https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
the approval of appointment of third respondent in
3
W.P.No.5659/2014.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the contempt petition should be closed upon withdrawal of the approval for appointment of the third respondent.
Whether the wilful disobedience order passed by the first respondent justifies punishment under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
R.Vimala
Mr.MU.DEVADHAS
Mr.K.HEMNATH
R.Subbiah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
