This court dismissed a contempt petition alleging non-compliance of an earlier order regarding a government teacher's appointment. The court held that the respondents acted in lawful discretion and did not show arbitrariness.
The contempt petition is dismissed; notices are 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.767/2011
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR
O R D E R
S.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.767/2011 IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2664/2007 (Vijendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Mr. C.S. Rajan & Ors.)
Date of Order : 05.09.2014
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 of the order dated 04.02.2011, passed by this Court has been alleged in this contempt petition. Thereunder this Court had directed the respondents to primarily consider the petitioner's case in the light of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 46 in the case of Kailash Chand Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan [2002 (6) SCC 562] and the Full Bench judgment of this court in the case of Deepak Kumar Suthar Vs. State & Ors. [2000 Lab IC 1] and thereupon appoint the petitioner to the post of Teacher Grade-III if found to be entitled. Consequential benefits of seniority and fixation but without actual benefits on account of arrears were to follow if so warranted.
Reply to the contempt petition has been filed. It has been submitted that in compliance with the order dated 04.02.2011, passed by this Court, the case of the petitioner was
S.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.767/2011
2
considered in terms of the judgments referred to above and the petitioner was not found entitled to be appointed as Teacher Grade-III. A reasoned and speaking order in regard thereto was passed on 16.12.2011.
In the facts obtaining, to my mind the respondents have complied with the order of this Court and decided the representation of the petitioner in their lawful discretion under order dated 16.12.2011 which does not appear to be ex-facie, arbitrary or malafide.
The contempt petition is without force. Dismissed. Notices discharged.
The petitioner however would be free to lay a challenge to the order dated 16.12.2011, passed by the respondents on his representation, if advised, by way of a fresh writ petition.
(ALOK SHARMA), J
MS/-
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.- Manoj Solanki, P.A.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondents have failed to comply with the order dated 04.02.2011 by not appointing the petitioner as Teacher Grade-III.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kailash Chand Sharma Vs. State of RajasthanReferred¶9
Kailash Chand Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan [2002 (6) SCC 562] · Who else cites this
Deepak Kumar Suthar Vs. State & Ors.Referred¶9
Deepak Kumar Suthar Vs. State & Ors. [2000 Lab IC 1]
Vijendra Kumar Sharma
Mr. C.S. Rajan & Ors.
Alok Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
