Disposed

Babu Lal Mali v. Manoj Bhatt and Another

Rajasthan HC19 Jan 2016CCP/414/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil contempt petition alleging non-compliance with a writ order regarding regularization, the court found that the order was complied with. The court held it is beyond contempt jurisdiction to examine the merits of the rejection and disposed of the petition, allowing the petitioner to challenge the rejection order through proper legal channels.

What did the court decide?

Petition stands disposed. Rule discharged.

Babu Lal Mali Vs Manoj Bhatt and Another — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

ORDER

¶4

Babu Lal Mali

¶5

Vs. Manoj Bhatt & anr.

¶6

SB CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.414/2012. IN SB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3348/2007.

¶7

Date of order 19.01.2016.

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL Mr. T.P. Sharma for the petitioner. Dr. A.S. Khangarot for the contemnor respondent.

¶9

The petitioner has alleged disobedience and noncompliance of the order dated 04.07.2011 passed by the Single Bench of this court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3348/2007 where bythe petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the notification dated 27.02.2009.

¶10

In the reply filed by the respondents, it is stated that in compliance with the direction of the court, the case of the petitioner was placed before the Screening Committee. The Screening Committee did not recommend the case of the petitioner for regularization on the post of 'Langri'. Consequently, the order dated 13.03.2014 has been passed whereby the case of the petitioner has been rejected. A copy of this order is annexed as Annexure R/1 along with the reply.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the case of the petitioner has been rejected in an illegal manner by

¶12

¶13

the respondents as he was continuously working on the post of 'Langri' since 01.09.1992. He further submits the petitioner was also working as 'Langri' on 27.02.2009.

¶14

It is apparent from the perusal of the order dated 13.03.2014 that the case of the petitioner has been considered in pursuance of the direction of the court. It is beyond the scope of contempt jurisdiction to dwell into the merits of the matter. Therefore, I am satisfied that the order of the court has been complied with. The petition stands disposed of. Rule discharged. It shall, of course, be open to the petitioner, if so advised, to challenge the order passed by the respondents in accordance with law.

¶15

(ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL),J.

¶16

bblm

¶17

All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being e-mailed. BBL Mathur Private Secretary.

Babu Lal Mali v. Manoj Bhatt and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu Lal Mali v. Manoj Bhatt and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harish Chand and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Balu Ram Barolia and Ors. Vs O P Meena

Manish and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Lakhmi Chand Dhobi Vs Smt Arti

Smt.Vishakha Devi Vs State and Anr.

Smt Sapna Jhaadchud Vs Swetambar Jain Shrimal and Ors.