In an oral order, the Division Bench dismissed this contempt petition for non-compliance of a previous writ order, holding that the requisite action had already been taken by the State, rendering the current petition unnecessary.
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 PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
COCP No.2702 of 2014 Date of decision: 08.02.2017
Bijender Kumar
..Petitioner
Versus
Vivek Atray
..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present: Mr. Jawahar Lal Goyal, Advocate for Mr. Anurag Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. D.K. Mittal, DAG, Haryana for the respondent -State.
Daya Chaudhary, J. (Oral)
The petitioner has filed the present contempt petition for noncompliance of order dated 10.09.2012 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.3990 of 2012.
Learned State counsel submits that the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous and in pursuance of direction issued on that day, the action has been taken by dispensing with the services of ineligible guest teachers. In some of the cases, the services could not be terminated as interim order was passed in their favour by this Court. Learned State counsel also submits that similarly situated persons filed COCP No.3471 of 2014, which has been disposed of as this Court was of the opinion that no action is required to be taken.
Since the action has been taken and some of the persons are
Neetu Rani 2017.02.09 12:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
COCP No.2702 of 2014
2
continuing in service because of passing of interim order, moreover, COCP No.3471 of 2014 has been disposed of as no violation was found in compliance of order dated 10.09.2012, nothing remains in this petition as necessary compliance has already been made.
Disposed of accordingly.
08.02.2017 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) neetu JUDGE √ Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No √ Whether Reportable Yes/No
Neetu Rani 2017.02.09 12:04 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
Bijender Kumar
Vivek Atray
Daya Chaudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
