Dismissed

Sanjay Kumar Meena v. Shri P K Goyal and Others

Rajasthan HC25 Feb 2015CCP/1266/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the rejection of his representation for a Lab Assistant post in Jodhpur. The Court held that addressing the merit of the department's decision in a contempt petition was inappropriate. The petitioner was advised to file a fresh writ petition, and the contempt petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition dismissed. Notices discharged. Petitioner free to file a fresh writ petition.

Sanjay Kumar Meena Vs Shri P K Goyal… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

S.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.1266/2014

¶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.1266/2014

¶5

IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7358/2014 (Sanjay Kumar Meena Vs. Shri P.K. Goyal & Ors.)

¶6

Date of Order : 25.02.2015

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA

¶8

Mr. Mohar Pal Meena, for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Gupta, AAG for the respondents-contemnors.

¶9

BY THE COURT

¶10

In the course of hearing of this contempt petition, it transpires that consequent to the representation made by the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 04.07.2014, passed by this Court in SBCWP No.7358/2014 on consideration thereof, the Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner vide order dated 30.01.2015 has found that the petitioner was not entitled to be appointed on the post of Lab Assistant in Jodhpur District. The petitioner's representation has therefore been rejected.

¶11

Mr. Mohar Pal Meena, appearing for the petitioner submits that the decision on the petitioner's representation made by the Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner on 30.01.2015 is no decision in the eye of law as it purports to deny the petitioner's right to appointment to the post of Lab Assistant despite being number one in the waiting list in Jodhpur District and despite the admitted fact that one of the selected candidate did not joint on the post of Lab Assistant in Jodhpur District.

¶12

S.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.1266/2014

¶13

(2)

¶14

Counsel submits that it was incumbent in the circumstances for the respondents to operate the waiting list against the vacancy thus obtaining. And to first deny the petitioner's right and thereafter at the time of consideration of the representation to circumvent the petitioner's right to appointment on the ground of the waiting list in the meantime ceased to be operative as on 31.03.2014 is wholly unjust and this Court should not countenance such a situation.

¶15

Mr. S.K. Gupta, AAG appearing for the respondentscontemnors submits that the jurisdiction of this Court in a contempt petition is fairly narrow confined to ensuring that the orders of the Court are complied with. That has been done in the present case with the consideration and dismissal of the petitioner's representation. Mr. Gupta submits that the petitioner even otherwise has no case on merit, but in any event the petitioner's case on merit and his purported right to appointment to the vacant post of Lab Assistant in Jodhpur District where he was number one in the waiting list would be a matter more appropriately addressed in a fresh writ petition.

¶16

Having heard the counsel for the parties and taking note of their respective contentions, in my considered opinion, it is not for this Court in contempt jurisdiction to address the merit of the decision dated 30.01.2015 made by the Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner pursuant to the consideration of the petitioner's representation on the basis of the order dated 04.07.2014 passed by this Court.

¶17

S.B. CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.1266/2014

¶18

(3)

¶19

The contempt petition is therefore dismissed. Notices discharged.

¶20

It is however made clear that the petitioner shall be free to challenge the order dated 30.01.2015, passed by the Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner by way of a fresh writ petition, if so advised.

¶21

(ALOK SHARMA), J

¶22

MS/-79

¶23

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

Sanjay Kumar Meena v. Shri P K Goyal and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar Meena v. Shri P K Goyal and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Shiv Charan Vs R S Sharma and Another

Omprakash and Ors. Vs Syan Swaroop andORS

Balram Meena Vs Raj University of Health Sci Ors.

Mamkori Vs State

Pawan Kumar Parnami Vs Narayan Das

Umesh Jain and Anr. Vs Rajmal Jain