Ashu Bala and Others Vs Kamal Kishore Yadav and Another — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Ashu Bala and Others Vs Kamal Kishore Yadav and Another — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition dismissed as not pressed and rule discharged; petitioners reserved liberty to seek revival of the contempt petition if the respondents fail to implement the re-casted merit list and issue appointment letters within four weeks, in which event the erring/concerned officer is to pay an additional Rs.50,000/- as costs from his/her own pocket towards the petitioners' litigation expenses on the first date of listing of the revival application.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents have implemented the re-casted merit list and issued appointment letters to the meritorious candidates, being the subject matter of the contempt petition.

Court's answer

In view of the respondents' stated position that the re-casted merit list will be implemented and appointment letters issued within four weeks, learned counsel for the petitioners did not press the present petition, which was accordingly dismissed as not pressed and rule discharged.

Ratio / Principle

In case the needful (implementation of the re-casted merit list and issuance of appointment letters) is not done within the aforementioned period of four weeks, as per the undertaking, the petitioners would be at liberty to seek revival of the contempt petition.

Key takeaways

In that eventuality (revival sought for non-compliance within the stipulated period), the erring/concerned Officer would be liable to pay an additional sum of Rs.50,000/- as costs from his/her own pocket in favour of the petitioners towards litigation expenses, immediately, i.e. on the first date of listing of the revival application.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Contempt Petition (COCP-183-2025), High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (Harkesh Manuja, J., oral), decided 07.02.2025 — Ashu Bala and others v. Kamal Kishore Yadav and another. Respondent No.1, Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of School Education, filed a short reply by way of affidavit, which was taken on record. On instructions, learned counsel for respondents informed the court that the re-casted merit list shall be implemented and appointment letters issued in favour of the meritorious candidates within a period of 4 weeks. In view thereof, the petition was dismissed as not pressed and rule discharged. The petitioners were, however, given liberty to seek revival of the contempt petition if the needful was not done within the stipulated period, in which eventuality the erring/concerned officer would be liable to pay an additional sum of Rs.50,000/- as costs from his/her own pocket towards the petitioners' litigation expenses, immediately on the first date of listing of the revival application. No statute or precedent case was cited in the order.

173

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

COCP-183-2025

Date of Decision: February 07, 2025

ASHU BALA AND OTHERS ........Petitioners

Versus KAMAL KISHORE YADAV AND ANOTHER ........Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

Present: M r. H.C. Arora, Advocate and M s. Sunaina, Advocate for the petitioners. M r. Saurav Verma, Addl. A.G. Punjab. ****

HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)

S hort reply by way of an affida v it of Mr. Kamal Kishor Yadav, Secretary to Government of Punjab, Dep a rtment of School Education , Chandigarh h as been filed on behalf of r e spondent No.1, the same i s taken on rec o rd.

L earned counsel for respond e nts on instructions from Mr . Kamal Kisho r e Yadav, Secretary to Gove r nment of Punjab, Departmen t of School E ducation informs that the r e-casted merit list shall b e implemented and appointment letters sh a ll be issued in favour of th e meritorious c a ndidates within a period of 4 w eeks.

I n view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner s

does not pre s s the present petition. D ismissed as not pressed. R ule discharged. H owever, in case the nee d ful is not done within th e aforementioned period, as per the undert a king, the petitioners would b e at liberty to s eek revival of the contempt p etition and in that eventuality , the erring/concerned Officer would be liable to pay additional sum o f Rs.50,000/- a s costs from his/her own pocket in favour of the petitioner s towards litig a tion expenses, immediately, i.e. on the first date of listing o f revival applic a tion.

07.02.2025

Tejwinder

	(HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned	Yes/No
Whether Reportable	Yes/No

TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.02.10 10:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document