In a S.B. Civil Contempt Petition, the court dismissed the allegation of contempt against respondents for not appointing the petitioner. The court held that verifying the petitioner's experience certificate was a reasonable act and rejecting a suspected forged document was not malafide.
Contempt petition dismissed; notices discharged.
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.289/2011
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR
O R D E R
S.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.289/2011 IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8816/2008 (Pushpendra Singh Vs. Ms. Beenu Gupta & Ors.)
Date of Order : 03.09.2014
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA
None present for the petitioner. Mr. Kedar Nath, ALR, Legal with Mr. Gauri Shankar, Addl. BEEO, for the respondents. BY THE COURT
Non-compliance with the order dated 07.01.2009, passed by this Court in the leading case of Zamir Ahmed Vs. State & Ors., decided along with 1066 matters, has been alleged in this contempt petition. In para 21 thereof, this Court had directed the respondents to verify the experience certificate submitted by the petitioners from the record of the concerned school. If the experience certificate pertained to a recognized institution and were found to be correct, it was to be considered for appointment of the petitioner as a Prabodhak.
Reply to the contempt petition has been filed. It has been stated that in compliance with the order dated 07.01.2009, passed by this Court, the petitioner's experience certificate was sought to be verified from the records of the concerned school. However, no reliable record was found in the concerned school. Only the name of the petitioner did exist in the attendance registered but no other corroborative evidence (such as proof of payment of salary) existed to establish to the satisfaction of the respondents that the petitioner had the requisite five years continuous teaching experience in a recognized school. Further even the certificate submitted by the petitioner mismatched the
S.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.289/2011
2
record of the school on the issue of duration of the petitioner's employment and also did not contain any date or dispatch number. In the circumstances, the competent authority took a considered view that the experience certificate submitted by the petitioner appeared to be forged and fabricated.
I have perused the contempt petition, reply thereto and heard Mr. Kedar Nath, ALR, Legal and Mr. Gauri Shankar, Addl. BEEO, appearing for the respondents.
From the facts on record, it transpires that in compliance with the order dated 07.01.2009, passed by this Court, the case of the petitioner was indeed considered and it was found that the experience certificate produced by the petitioner did not inspire confidence as to its genuineness. That conclusion of the respondents on the representation received from the petitioner is not germane to finding any contempt by the respondents. This Court is only required to see as to whether consideration in terms of the directions of this Court is reasonable and fair and not mala fide. In my considered opinion, in the facts obtaining on record of the petition, it cannot be conceivably argued that the petitioner's representation was malafidely rejected.
Consequently, the contempt petition is without force. Dismissed. Notices discharged.
(ALOK SHARMA), J
MS/-
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.- Manoj Solanki, P.A.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondents' consideration of the petitioner's representation was done reasonably and fairly, or was it malafide?
Whether the non-complaint with the specific court order dated 07.01.2009 constitutes contempt of court.
Whether rejecting a forged or fabricated experience certificate without considering it malafide violates the court's earlier directions.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Zamir Ahmed Vs. State & Ors.Referred¶9
Pushpendra Singh
Ms. Beenu Gupta
Alol Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
