Disposed

Ruchi Pandey W/O Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, D/O Shri Vinod Kumar Pandey, v. Miss. Nidhi Pandey, Secretary/Commissioner

Rajasthan HC29 Aug 2023CCP/370/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A contempt petition alleging non-compliance with a prior order directing appointment as Primary Teacher was disposed of. The court noted the Supreme Court directed appointment be issued within one month, pending a Special Leave Petition, making separate revival of the petition unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition stands disposed of; other pending applications also disposed of.

Ruchi Pandey W/O Mr. Ashok Kumar… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:19936-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 370/2023

¶4

¶5

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5662/2019

¶6

Ruchi Pandey W/o Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, D/o Shri Vinod Kumar Pandey, Aged About 45 Years, R/o 80/359, Patel Marg, Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶7

----Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

Miss. Nidhi Pandey, Secretary/Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan 18, Institutional Area, Shaheed Jeet Singh Marg, New Delhi-110016.

¶10

----Respondent-Contemnor

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devendra Kumar Bhardwaj For Respondent(s) : Mr. Krishna Verma

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶13

Order

¶14

29/08/2023

¶15

This contempt petition has been filed alleging willful obedience of the order dated 11.01.2023 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of petitioner’s claim for appointment on the post of Primary Teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent is not complying with the order passed by the Court.

¶17

It appears that the respondent had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court and vide order dated 11.08.2023, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed that in order to maintain parity, subject to final outcome of the Special Leave Petition, the order of

¶18

(2 of 2) [CCP-370/2023]

¶19

[2023:RJ-JP:19936-DB]

¶20

appointment be issued, if not already issued. It is also been ordered that such appointment shall be subject to the final outcome of the Special Leave Petition.

¶21

As the Hon’ble Supreme Court has now directed the respondent to issue the appointment order of the petitioner, the respondent is obliged under the law to issue the same.

¶22

If the appointment order is not issued within a period of one month, the petitioner may approach this Court for revival.

¶23

Accordingly, the contempt petition stands disposed of. The other pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶24

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

¶25

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J

¶26

AARZOO ARORA /38

Ruchi Pandey W/O Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, D/O Shri Vinod Kumar Pandey, v. Miss. Nidhi Pandey, Secretary/Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ruchi Pandey W/O Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, D/O Shri Vinod Kumar Pandey, v. Miss. Nidhi Pandey, Secretary/Commissioner

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

Birbal S/O Motilal Meena Vs Ravindra Goswami

Om Prakash S/O Shri Badan Singh Vs Shri Alok Ranjan

Bajrangsingh Son of Late Bhagwanaram Vs Smt. Usha Sharma, Chief Secretary

Moti Lal Meena S/O Shri Laxminarayan Meena Vs Shri Anand Kumar

Dwarka Prasad Gupta S/O Shri Moolchand Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan

Chiranjee Lal S/O Shri Duli Chand Ahir Vs State of Rajasthan