Dismissed

Anil Shukla v. Prof Mohd Akhtar Siddiqui

Rajasthan HC5 May 2016CCP/53/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a contempt petition filed against respondents for issuing a show-cause notice to the petitioner. The court held that issuing the notice did not constitute contempt as the previous division bench order remained intact and the petitioner was free to defend his experience.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition was dismissed as no contempt of court was made out; the petitioner was directed to reply to the show-cause notice by asserting the correctness of his experience certificate.

Anil Shukla Vs Prof Mohd Akhtar Siddiqui — Contempt of Court | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶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.53/2011 (Dr. Anil Shukla

¶5

¶6

Professor Mr. Mohammed Akhtar Siddiqui)

¶7

Date of Order: 05/05/2016

¶8

PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶9

Mr. Saransh Saini, for the petitioner. Mr. Shantanu Sharma, for the respondent.

¶10

Present contempt petition has been filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India praying that the respondents be punished for willful disobedience of the order dated 31.5.2001 passed by a coordinate Bench of this court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1465/99, titled Anil Shukla v. NCTE & Arn. The heading of the contempt petition is misleading. The order dated 31.5.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge had merged in an order dated 2.11.2001 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.430/2001. The Division Bench in the appeal filed against the order of Single Judge held as under:-

¶11

“Mr. GK Garg, learned counsel for the contesting respondents submits that the permission to fill up the post of Regional Director, NRC, NCTE, Jaipur may be granted to the appellant without prejudice to his rights and contentions of the respondent in continuing on the post of Deputy Secretary at New Delhi, where the respondent is presently working. Shri Garg again submitted that since the respondent has already been posted on the post of Dy. Secretary at New Delhi, his appointment may not be disturbed. The statement made by Shri Garg is placed on record. The respondent is permitted to discharge his functions on the post of Dy. Secretary at New Delhi and

¶12

¶13

the appellant is shall also be at liberty to fill up the post of Regional Director, NRC, NCTE, Jaipur in accordance with law. The other directions passed by the learned Single Judge vide its judgment dated 31.05.2001 shall be complied with.

¶14

The appeal and the application are disposed of accordingly.”

¶15

During the course of arguments, Shri Saransh Saini learned counsel for the petitioners has improved the prayer made in the contempt petition and has submitted that he is aggrieved of issuance of memorandum dated 23^rd July, 2010 to the petitioner calling upon him as to why departmental proceedings be not initiated against the petitioner as he had made wrong claim that he had worked as Principal of College at Chhatarpur.

¶16

Neither the learned Single Judge had adjudicated nor given any direction so far education experience of the petitioner is concerned. The learned Single Judge only adjudicated the question raised i.e. whether petitioner was direct recruit or was on deputation with the respondent? The learned Single Judge answered the above question as under:-

¶17

“For the above-said discussion and reasons, in my opinion, there is force in the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that for all purposes the recruitment as per advertisement Annexure-2 was for direct recruitment so far petitioner was concerned and was neither for a short period and nor on deputation but in no case it could be on 'deputation' as the rules of deputation were not applicable viz a vis petitioner neither the petitioner could be sent on deputation nor could have been accepted on deputation. Had the respondent mentioned in the advertisement that the vacancy is for a short period, in that situation, the petitioner would have given a second thought before applying. Even in the appointment letter the respondent had mentioned that the appointment is for one year with the likelihood of extension. Definitely an impression was given to the petitioner by the respondent that he was recruited

¶18

¶19

permanently. The petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer on both counts i.e. at the instance of respondent no. 1 as well as respondent No. 2. He has already lost the job of Principal of private institution and if there is non to accept him on repatriation, he can go nowhere as there is no place where he could be repatriated to.”

¶20

Only order passed by the Division Bench is that the petitioner shall continue to hold the post of Deputy Secretary at New Delhi. This was also due to concession given by the learned counsel for the respondents before the Division Bench. Liberty was granted to the respondents to fill-up the post of Regional Director, NRC, NCTE, Jaipur in accordance with law.

¶21

If any memorandum/show cause notice (Annx.4) has been issued, the petitioner may reply to the same by saying that experience certificate furnished by the petitioner is correct and respondents after nine years of the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this court cannot question qualification/ experience of the petitioner to circumvent order of this court. Suffice it to say that the order of the Division Bench was that the petitioner shall continue to hold the post of Deputy Secretary at New Delhi. If the petitioner is to be removed from the post of Deputy Secretary at New Delhi ipso-facto, respondents may seek review of the order dated 2.11.2001 passed in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.430/2001. However, there is no bar for the respondents not to continue with the departmental enquiry or disciplinary proceedings. However, in case as a result of show cause notice/memorandum (Annx.4) issued any adverse order is passed against

¶22

¶23

the petitioner he is always at liberty to take recourse to lawful remedy available to him, in accordance with the provisions of law.

¶24

In view of above, no contempt of this court is made out and the present petition is dismissed.

¶25

Govind/-

Anil Shukla v. Prof Mohd Akhtar Siddiqui

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Shukla v. Prof Mohd Akhtar Siddiqui

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

M/S Gangaram Chaturbhuj Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others

Mohan Lal Vs Ram Swaroop through Lr

Raj Kumar Alias Raju Vs Jai Ram and Others

Himanshu Mathur and Ors. Vs U O R and Ors.

Hariram Vs State Excise Departmentanr

UOI and Ors. Vs State and Ors.