Dismissed

Shiv Kumar Singh v. Mrs Veenu Gupta and Others

Rajasthan HC5 Oct 2015CCP/115/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the court examined if respondents willfully disobeyed an order mandating appointment of overage candidates. The court held that appointing a physically handicapped candidate under the Disabilities Act and candidates within the age limit to exhausted vacancies constituted good faith compliance, thus dismissing the petition

What did the court decide?

The rule issued against the respondents was discharged and the contempt petition stands dismissed.

Shiv Kumar Singh Vs Mrs Veenu Gupta and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

O R D E R

¶4

S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.115/2013 (Shiv Kumar Singh v. Veenu Gupta & Ors.)

¶5

Date of Order: 05/10/2015

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶8

Mr. Ashok Yadav, for the petitioner. Mr. J.M. Saxena, AAG, for the respondents.

¶9

Present contempt petition has been filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 praying that the respondents be punished for willful disobedience of the order dated 22.11.2012 passed by this court. On 22.11.2012, a bunch of writ petitions including the petition filed by the present petitioner was decided by the learned Single Judge by passing the following order:-

¶10

“It is stated that subsequent the selection to the post of Prabodhak, a decision has been taken by the Government to fill up vacant posts from and amongst those successful candidates who were not given appointment for being overage. The vacancy exists in the Districts where petitioners made an application for their appointment. The respondents have not taken action pursuant to the circular issued by the Government and reminders dated 16.9.2011 and 26.12.2011. An information sought by the petitioners under the Right to Information Act, 2005 indicates vacancies in those districts. In view of the aforesaid, respondents be directed to fill up the vacant posts in the light of the circular referred in the reminders dated 16.9.2011 and 26.12.2011.

¶11

I have considered the submissions made above and find that before approaching this Court, a notice for demand of justice was given. This was to see compliance of the decision taken by the Government itself and reminders for which were issued on 16.9.2011 and 26.12.2011. In the light of the aforesaid, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners in the light of the decision of the Government and reminders sent to the District concerned.

¶12

¶13

This is more so when information sought by the petitioners indicates vacancy in those districts. If the circular/reminders have not given effect to, the respondents will take a proper decision to implement the same at the earliest. In any case, action pursuant to the aforesaid may be taken in accordance with the circular and same may be conveyed to the petitioners within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”

¶14

This contempt petition was filed in the year 2013. In last two years various orders passed by the coordinate Bench reveal that it has a chequered history.

¶15

Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner being overage, being more meritorious was entitled to be given appointment as Prabodhak. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the coordinate Bench on 12^th November, 2013 has held that the ground taken in the order dated 19.3.2013 that the petitioner is not to be given appointment being overage is misplaced and had given a direction to the respondents to comply with the order passed by this court. Subsequently the contempt petition filed by the petitioner on the statement made by Shri J.M. Saxena learned Additional Advocate General, was dismissed on 22.1.2014. Subsequently the petitioner filed an application for recall. The order dated 22.1.2014 was recalled. In the order dated September 10, 2014 contention of the petitioner was noted that the statement made by Shri J.M. Saxena before the court was incorrect and petitioner had obtained information under the Right to Information Act and on the date i.e. 22.11.2012 when consideration accrued to the petitioner, seven posts were vacant.

¶16

¶17

Admittedly, after 22.11.2012 respondents have given appointment to seven persons who were less meritorious than the petitioner. Therefore, this court has to examine whether by giving appointment to seven persons who were less meritorious than the petitioner, respondents have committed any willful disobedience of the order dated 22.11.2012 or not.

¶18

Shri Ashok Yadav learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that out of seven persons one person belong to the category of physical handicapped person and was overage. Learned counsel submitted that there is no provision in the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008 to give relaxation of age to the physically handicapped person. He has further submitted that once directions have been issued by this court on 22.11.2012, respondents were bound by the two circulars issued on 16.9.2011 and 26.12.2011 and vacant posts were to be given to the candidates who were overage.

¶19

Shri J.M. Saxena learned Additional Advocate General to counter the arguments raised by Shri Ashok Yadav has submitted that physically handicapped candidate was given appointment under the directions issued by the Commissioner duly appointed under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. Shri Saxena submits that the petitioner can challenge the order passed by the Commissioner and appointment given to the physically handicapped person being wrong and untenable relying upon the provisions of the Act, but it cannot be

¶20

¶21

said that while complying with the directions issued by a statutory authority the respondents have willfully disobeyed the orders of this court. Shri Saxena submits that the respondents genuinely believed the interpretation given by the Commissioner duly appointed under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and gave appointment to the overage person in the category of physically handicapped person.

¶22

Shri Saxena has submitted that so far remaining six persons are concerned, even though they had obtained less marks than the petitioner, they were given appointment as they were not overage and had qualified being within age prescribed. Shri Saxena by referring to two circulars dated 16.9.2011 and 26.12.2011 has contended that in case of candidates who were within age and have obtained marks more than the cut off marks they were to be given appointment. However if all the vacancies were exhausted while giving the same to the candidates who were within the qualified age and had obtained marks more than the cut off marks, the appointment was not to be given to the overage candidate. It is contended that after giving appointment to all candidates who were within age if vacancies were left and they were vacant then only the same were to be consumed by the candidates who were overage and in the merit list. Thus, counsel for the respondents has submitted that there is no willful default as from a bare perusal of two circulars, respondents are bound to offer vacant seat to an overage

¶23

¶24

candidate after the candidates who are within age have been given appointment. Shri Saxena in other words submits that since after giving appointment to the candidates within age no vacancy was available for giving appointment to overage candidate under OBC category, therefore, appointment was not given to the petitioner.

¶25

The explanation given by Shri Saxena is justifiable and is in consonance with the two circulars dated 16.9.2011 and 26.12.2011. Shri Saxena has been able to demonstrate the correctness of the stand taken by the respondents. I find merit in the submissions advanced by learned Additional Advocate General which have been noted above. Hence, it cannot be said that the respondents willfully intended to flout the orders of this court. As such, no contempt is made out and rule issued against the respondents is discharged. The contempt petition stands dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to assail the action of the respondents by availing lawful remedy.

¶26

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J.

¶27

Govind/-

¶28

All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.

¶29

Govind Sharma, Sr.PA

Shiv Kumar Singh v. Mrs Veenu Gupta and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Kumar Singh 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

Vijendra Singh Rawat Vs State Forest Departmentors

Ugrasen Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Dev Pal Bairwa and Ors. Vs Purshottam Agarwal and Others

Kailash Chaudhary @ Sethilal Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Life Insurance Corpor of India Vs Central Industrial Tribunal andA

Harish Kumar Meghwal andORS Vs R P S C Ajmer and Anr.