Contempt petitioner challenged an impugned order rejecting his service claim due to lack of recognizing school experience. The court found the rejection valid per advertisement requirements and dismissed the contempt petition as devoid of merit.
Contempt petition dismissed; no order of obedience found breached.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
O R D E R
S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.1381/2011 (Badan Singh Verma v. Shri C.S. Rajan & Ors.)
Date of Order: 11/05/2016
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Mr. Jeetendra Kumar Sharma, for the petitioner. Mr. J.M. Saxena, AAG, for the respondents.
A coordinate Bench on 28.1.2016 in the present contempt petition had passed the following order:-
“In terms of the direction of the court issued on 03.12.2015, Smt. Kusum Lata Verma, District Education Officer (Elementary-I) Karauli has filed her affidavit. In paragraph 2 of the affidavit, it is mentioned that the experience certificate of the petitioner was not found to be correct as there was no dispatch number on the appointment letter issued to the petitioner by the School and the name of the petitioner was also not mentioned in the examination result register. However, in paragraph 5 of the affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner as per school record worked with the said school for a continuous period of five years from 01.07.1999 to 01.07.2004. It is also stated that the school was not recognized from 01.07.1999 to 07.04.2000, therefore, the petitioner could not have work experience for a continuous period of five years.
Therefore, I direct the respondent no. 2 who is Director, Elementary Education to enquire into the entire matter regarding the validity of the experience certificate of the petitioner and submit a report to this court in the form of affidavit before the next date of hearing.
List on 03.03.2016. The respondent no. 2 shall remain present in Court on the next date of hearing.”
In terms of the order dated 28.1.2016, Director, Elementary Education has held an enquiry and the enquiry report has already been placed on record of the present case.
Shri J.M. Saxena, learned Additional Advocate General, has stated that the school from which the petitioner had obtained experience certificate was not recognized for the period 1.7.1999 to 7.4.2000 and as per advertisement (Annx.1), it was mandatory that the
candidate should furnish an experience certificate of a recognized school. Shri Saxena submits that since the petitioner was not having five years continuous experience from a recognized school, his claim has been rejected by the Director, Elementary Education during enquiry.
Since the petitioner was not having requisite experience certificate in consonance with the advertisement (Annx.1), claim of the petitioner has rightly been rejected by the respondent. Hence, there is no disobedience of the order passed by this court on behalf of the respondents and the present contempt petition being devoid of merit is hereby, dismissed.
Govind/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner was guilty of contempt for failing to comply with the court order regarding experience certificate validation.
Badan Singh Verma
Shri C.S. Rajan
Kanwalsingh Ahluwalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
