In a civil contempt petition, the Court found no infringement as the respondents had already considered and dismissed the petitioners' representations via order dated 13.12.2012, citing external grounds and Supreme Court precedents on the subject matter.
Notices discharged; petition dismissed as no contempt is made out.
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.
S.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.10/2013
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR
O R D E R IN S.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.10/2013
IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8463/2009 (Jagdish Chand & Anr. Vs. Shri Ravi Kumar Surpur)
Date of Order : 08.09.2014
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA
Mr. Jagdish Dhand, petitioner No.1 in person. Mr. Kedar Nath ] Mr. Gauri Shankar ] Mr. Gumani Khan ] OICs for the respondents-contemnors. BY THE COURT
Non-compliance of the order dated 26.07.2012, passed by this Court, has been alleged in this petition. Thereunder this Court had directed the respondents to decide the petitioners' representations by a speaking order within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. This Court had directed that the petitioners' representations be considered in accordance with the judgment of this Court in the case of Neeraj Saxena Vs. State of Rajasthan, SBCWP No.6829/2006, pronounced on 23.1.2009.
Reply to the contempt petition has been filed. It has been submitted that in terms of the order dated 26.07.2012, passed by this Court, the petitioners' representations were considered. Referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kailash Chandra Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [(2002) 6 SCC 562] , which covers the issue agitated in the writ petition and required the respondents' consideration on representation made, it has been stated that the representations of the petitioners were dismissed vide
S.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.10/2013
(2)
order dated 13.12.2012 on the ground of delay alone without anything more in view of the fact that the petitioners had approached this Court in the year 2009 and were not entitled to be considered for appointment to the post of Teacher Grade III even in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kailash Chandra Sharma (Supra). The said judgment had effectively set out a cut off date of 18.11.1999 for consideration of expectant candidates for the post of Teacher Grade-III aggrieved of grant of bonus marks which the Hon'ble Supreme Court did indeed find unsustainable, arbitrary and illegal but applied the doctrine of prospective overruling. The petitioners had not challenged the grant of bonus marks on or before 18.11.1999 and hence could not be considered. It has been further submitted that in any event recruitment to the post of Teacher Grade III in pursuance to the advertisement No.1/98 has been completed and there are no vacancies. The copy of the order dated 13.12.2012 rejecting the petitioners' representations is annexed to the contempt petition as Annexure-3. Hence, compliance with the order dated 26.07.2012, passed by this Court has been made.
For reasons of the reply to the petition, it is manifest that no contempt of court as alleged is made out.
The petition is accordingly dismissed. Notices stand discharged.
Be as it may, if the petitioners are aggrieved of the decision / order dated 13.12.2012 on their representations, they would be free to avail, if advised, their remedy as available in law.
MS/-All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.- Manoj Solanki, P.A.
(ALOK SHARMA), J
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there is non-compliance with the order dated 26.07.2012 directing consideration of petitioners' representations regarding appointment as Teacher Grade III.
Whether the order dated 13.12.2012 dismissing the representations amounts to contempt of court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kailash Chandra Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.Referred¶10
(2002) 6 SCC 562 · Who else cites this
Neeraj Saxena Vs. State of RajasthanReferred¶9
Neeraj Saxena Vs. State of Rajasthan, SBCWP No.6829/2006
Jagdish Chand & Anr.
Shri Ravi Kumar Surpur
Allok Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
