Dismissed

Santosh Salvi v. Mrs Veenu Gupta and Others

Rajasthan HC10 Sept 2014CCP/122/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil contempt petition arising from a writ case regarding appointment to the post of Prabodhak, the court examined the respondents' compliance with a previous order under Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008 and dismissed the petition for lack of force upon finding compliance.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition dismissed; notices to the respondents discharged.

Santosh Salvi Vs Mrs Veenu Gupta and Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

S.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.122/2013

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR

¶4

O R D E R IN S.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.122/2013 IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.17450/2012 (Santosh Salvi Vs. Veenu Gupta & Ors.)

¶5

Date of Order : 10.09.2014

¶6

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA

¶7

None present for the petitioner. Mr. Gauri Shankar, OIC appears for the respondents. BY THE COURT

¶8

Non-compliance .of the order dated 05.11.2012, passed by this Court has been alleged in this contempt petition. Therein the petitioner was granted liberty by this Court to make a representation to the respondents for appointment to the post of Prabodhak and on receipt of such representation it was to be addressed / considered in accordance with law.

¶9

Reply to the contempt petition has been filed. It has been submitted that in compliance with the order dated 05.11.2012, the petitioner's representation dated 23.11.2012 was duly received by the respondents. It was then considered in accordance with the provisions of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008 (hereinafter 'the Rules of 2008') and rejected by a reasoned and speaking order dated 04.01.2013 for reasons detailed therein. The petitioner's representation was primarily rejected on the ground that she did not have the requisite minimum training qualification of BSTC / B.Ed. on the

¶10

S.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.122/2013

¶11

(2)

¶12

last date of submission of the application form as per Rule 14 of the Rules of 2008. Consequently she was not found eligible for appointment to the post of Prabodhak. It is submitted that thus compliance with the order of this Court having been made no contempt as alleged can be made out. A copy of the order dated 04.01.2013 has been annexed to the reply to the contempt petition as Annexure-R/1.

¶13

For reasons stated in the reply to the contempt petition, it is manifest that compliance with the order of this Court passed on 05.11.2012 has been made.

¶14

The contempt petition is without force.

¶15

Dismissed. Notices discharged.

¶16

(ALOK SHARMA), J

¶17

MS/-

¶18

All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.- Manoj Solanki, P.A.

Santosh Salvi v. Mrs Veenu Gupta and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Salvi v. Mrs Veenu Gupta and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Darshan Bala Khatri Vs Mrs Veenu Gupta and Others

Prahlad Singh Meena Vs Shri Ashok Sampat Ram and Others

Radhey Shyam Meena Vs Mrs Veenu Gupta and Others

Om Prakash Yadav Vs Ashok Sampat Ram and Others

Smt Asha Bairwa Vs Mrs Veena Gupta and Others

Sumer Singh Meena Vs Mrs Veenu Gupta and Others