Dismissed

Ram Kesh Meena v. Har Sahay Meena and Others

Rajasthan HC2 Sept 2014CCP/725/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court heard a civil contempt petition alleging non-compliance with an earlier order concerning a petitioner's appointment as Prabodhak. The respondent contended that the petitioner was ineligible due to lower marks than the category cutoff. Finding no contempt, the petition was dismissed and notices discharged.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; notices discharged.

Ram Kesh Meena Vs Har Sahay Meena and Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

S.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.725/2012

¶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.725/2012 IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13334/2011 (Ram Kesh Meena Vs. Shri Har Sahay Meena & Ors.)

¶5

Date of Order : 02.09.2014

¶6

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA

¶7

None present for the petitioner.

¶8

Mr. Gauri Shankar, Addl. DEEO, OIC for the respondentscontemnors.

¶9

BY THE COURT

¶10

Non-compliance with the order dated 22.11.2011, passed by this Court, has been alleged in this petition.

¶11

Reply to the contempt petition has been filed. Mr. Gauri Shankar, Addl. DEEO, OIC appearing for the respondentscontemnors submits that in terms of the order dated 22.11.2011, passed by this Court, the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Prabodhak was considered with reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Suraj Mal Jat & Ors, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.05019/2011 and 20 other connected matters, decided on 01.08.2011. It is submitted that the petitioner had applied for the post of Prabodhak as a Scheduled Tribe category candidate and secured 41% marks in the aggregate whereas the cut off marks in Scheduled Tribe category in Tonk District where the petitioner had applied was 44%. Hence, he was not found eligible for

¶12

S.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.725/2012

¶13

(2)

¶14

appointment on the post of Prabodhak. Accordingly the petitioner's representation has been rejected by a speaking order dated 01.10.2012. A copy of the order dated 01.10.2012 is annexed to the reply to the contempt petition as Annexure-R/1. Substantial compliance with the order dated 22.11.2011, passed by this Court having been made, no contempt as alleged in this petition is made out.

¶15

For reasons of the reply to the petition, it is manifest that no contempt of court as alleged is made out.

¶16

The petition is accordingly dismissed. Notices stand discharged.

¶17

(ALOK SHARMA), J

¶18

MS/-

¶19

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

Ram Kesh Meena v. Har Sahay Meena and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Kesh Meena v. Har Sahay Meena and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Phoolwati Devi Vs Shri Shrimat Pandey and Ors.

Madan Mohan Sharma Vs Akhil Kumar Jain

Smt Suresh Kumari Sharma Vs Ashok Sampat Ram and Others

Safeeq Ahmed Vs Aprana Arora and Others

Smt Pushpa Devi Sharma Vs Shri C S Rajan and Others

Mahesh Chand Bareth Vs Mrs Aprana Arora and Others