Disposed

Man Singh Yadav v. Shri Ashim Khurana Chairman S S C

Rajasthan HC7 May 2018CCP/73/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition, the High Court held that mere rejection of a representation filed under a court order does not constitute willful disobedience unless decided malafide or recklessly. The court directed the respondent to decide the pending representation within three weeks and discharged notices pending the final decision.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to pass an order on petitioner's representation within three weeks of receipt of the order.

Man Singh Yadav Vs Shri Ashim Khurana… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 73 / 2018 Man Singh Yadav S/o Shri Karan Singh B/c Gurjar, Category OBC, Aged About 26 Years, Village Reenjwas, Teh. Hindon City Distt. Kauroli, Rajasthan

¶3

----Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

Shri Ashim Khurana Chairman Cum Secretary Staff Selection Commission, Northern Region Block No 12 CGO Complex Lodhi Road New Delhi-1100003 India

¶6

----Respondent _____________________________________________________

¶7

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.R.B. Sharma,

¶8

Mr.Rajveer Gurjar.

¶9

For Respondent(s) : Mr.R.D. Rastogi, ASG with Mr.Ashish Kumar.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA

¶11

Order

¶12

07/05/2018

¶13

Vide order dated 09.08.2017, the court disposed of the petition on the basis of its earlier order dated 17.05.2017 in S.B.C.W.P. No.2867/2017 wherein the following directions were issued:-

¶14

(a) That all petitioners shall appear before Secretary, Staff Selection Commission and they shall submit comprehensive detailed representation giving details of the candidates who being less meritorious have been appointed.

¶15

(b) That the petitioners in the representation to be filed shall be at liberty to demolish the arguments raised by the respondents that less meritorious persons because of belonging to border area or of being more in age or for any other reasons have been given appointment,

(2 of 6)

[CCP-1427/2017]

arguments that wrongly candidates from the State of Rajasthan were diverted to other States even they were less meritorious or qua meritorious persons route of diversion to the other state was not followed. Petitioners shall be also at liberty to ventilate any other grievance they have regarding the recruitment process undertaken by Regional Director, Staff Selection Commission, Northern Region. The Secretary, Staff Selection Commission, shall hold a fact finding inquiry into the allegations leveled against the officials who at the relevant time were posted in the Regional Directorate of Staff Selection Commission, Northern Region.

¶20

(d) Secretary, Staff Selection Commission, before decision of the representation shall publish a list of all candidates who appeared in the State of Rajasthan for the recruitment to the post of Constable(General Duty) in paramilitary forces in pursuance to impugned advertisement qua all the categories be it General, OBC, SC or ST. In the list so published marks secured by each candidate shall be depicted along with cut off marks, of the category to which candidate belong.

¶21

(e) In the list, so published, in pursuance of above directions the reasons shall be assigned as to why a particular candidate has been appointed even though he has secured less marks.

¶22

(f) After publication of the list Secretary, Staff Selection Commission shall afford hearing to the petitioners and shall pass a detailed reasoned speaking order within one month after the conclusion of the hearing.

¶23

The aforesaid directions were to apply mutatis mutandis to

¶24

the petitioner. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the petitioner filed a representation. Several other similarly placed also filed representations as allowed by the court. The representations of several of those similarly placed have been rejected by the COE of the Staff Selection Commission. That of the petitioner has not been formally rejected but as submitted by Mr.R.D. Rastogi, ASG

¶25

(3 of 6)

¶26

[CCP-1427/2017]

¶27

likely to be similarly rejected as it agitates the same/similar grounds.

¶28

Mr.R.B. Sharma counsel for the petitioner submitted that the representation of those similarly situate has been mechanically addressed and rejected without due application of mind. The petitioner is likely to suffer the same fate. He submitted that spirit of the court’s order dated 17.05.2017 as followed in its order dated 09.08.2017 was to ensure that there was no discrimination vis-a-vis the other appointments to the post of Constable (GD) with the Para Military Forces pursuant to the advertisement in issue. He submitted that has not been ensured inasmuch as candidates belonging to the category, to which the petitioner belongs, having lesser marks than the petitioner in the examination have been appointed. It was submitted that this fact

¶29

by itself indicates that there has been bungling in the appointments to the post of Constable (GD) pursuant to the advertisement dated 05.02.2011. The rejection of the petitioner’s representation mechanically despite the court’s order on 17.05.2017 to consider it fairly to ensure non-discrimination constitutes contempt. The non-address to the petitioner’s

¶30

(4 of 6)

¶31

[CCP-1427/2017]

¶32

representation is also contempt. For which the respondents be punished.

¶33

Mr.R.D. Rastogi, ASG counsel for the respondents submitted that admittedly the representation of others similarly placed pursuant to the court’s order dated 17.05.2017 was considered. That it was then rejected cannot be contempt in as much the court’s order did not entail the representation being necessarily accepted and appointments made. The delay in passing of formal orders on the petitioner’s representation is for reasons of sheer work load not unusual in government offices catering to a huge number of issues. However the representation shall be soon decided and decision communicated. Even if the decision on consideration of representation were to be erroneous it cannot constitute contempt of the order of this court. In support of the contention reliance was placed on the judgment of the Apex court in the case of J. S. Parihar Vs. Ganpat Duggar and Others reported in (1996) 6 SCC 291 where it was held that the seniority list having been drawn after considering the representation submitted following court’s order it would not entail contempt for reason of the petitioner’s allegations of it not being as per the court’s order. For the petitioner, if yet aggrieved, it constituted a fresh cause of

¶34

(5 of 6)

¶35

[CCP-1427/2017]

¶36

action for which redressal before the appropriate forum was to be

¶37

sought. Mr.R.D. Rastogi, ASG submitted that representation of the petitioner will be shortly decided formally as a view of such matters has already been taken by the competent authority.

¶38

Considered.

¶39

Mr.R.D. Rastogi, ASG is quite correct in submitting that the scope of the contempt jurisdiction of this court is confined to evaluating as to whether willful disobedience of the court’s order has been made out or not. Willful disobedience alleged has to be apparent, it cannot be culled out from evaluation of an order passed on a representation made on liberty granted or even on a direction issued by the court. To so do would entail the contempt court acting as if the appellate authority. That cannot be done. When the court orders an authority to consider a representation, it does not take away the concerned authority’s jurisdiction to apply its own mind to the issue before it. Only a ministerial act is not to be performed. The conclusions of the concerned authority may or may not be correct or even legally not sustainable. But that is not contempt unless it is alleged and established that the decision on

¶40

the representation made pursuant to the court’s order was malafide or so reckless that the intent to defeat the court’s order

¶41

(6 of 6)

¶42

CCP-1427/2017]

¶43

was deliberate and ex facie apparent. Be as it may, as the petitioner’s representation has to yet be formally decided and the decision communicated to the petitioner, I would be inclined to dispose of this petition directing the respondent/s to pass an order

¶44

on the petitioner’s representation within three weeks of the receipt of this order.

¶45

The contempt petition is therefore disposed of accordingly. Notices of contempt to the respondent are discharged. The petitioner shall be at liberty to file a contempt petition afresh if so advised on the receipt of a formal decision on his representation made pursuant to the court’s order dated 09.08.2017 in S.B.C.W.P. No.13234/2017.

¶46

(ALOK SHARMA),J

¶47

Karan/82

Man Singh Yadav v. Shri Ashim Khurana Chairman S S C

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Man Singh Yadav v. Shri Ashim Khurana Chairman S S C

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bimlesh Kumari Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Duli Chand Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Mubarik Ali Vs Sushil Kumar Poddar

Anoop Singh Vs State of Raj and Ors.

R R B Mantri Vs Pankaj Kumar Jain

Smt Vinod Kumari Vs State of Raj and Ors.