Disposed

Harijinder Singh v. Smt. R. Bhagya Devi, Director

Telangana HC14 Dec 2012CC/1057/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court found that while the allegation of deliberate flouting of an interim order against earmarking a post could not be accepted, the substantive issue regarding the petitioner's degree recognition is left for the main writ petition. The contempt case conclusion directs the respondent to record a statement regarding future vacancy earmarking.

What did the court decide?

Continuation of contempt proceedings dismissed and the case closed. The matter regarding future vacancy earmarking is recorded but no further relief granted in this order.

Harijinder Singh Vs Smt. R. Bhagya Devi, Director — Education and Admissions | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶2

CONTEMPT CASE No. 1057 OF 2010

¶3

Date: 14.12.2012

¶4

Between: Harjinder Singh

¶5

… Petitioner

¶6

And

¶7

Smt. R.Bhagya Devi and 2 others

¶8

… Respondents

¶9

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶10

CONTEMPT CASE No. 1057 OF 2010

¶11

ORDER :

¶12

The petitioner herein filed W.P.No.9817 of 2009 aggrieved by the

¶13

action of the respondents in cancelling the candidature of the petitioner for recruitment to the post of Inspector, Central Excise on the ground that the B.A. Degree granted by the University of Delhi did not have the recognition/approval of the Distance Education Council of the IGNOU. Along with the writ petition, the petitioner filed W.P.M.P.No.12752 of 2009 seeking an interim order to keep one post of Inspector, Central Excise vacant pending the writ petition. This Court on 08.10.2009 passed the following order:

¶14

“As could be seen from the proceedings

¶15

of the 3^rd respondent dated 02.09.2008, the 2^nd respondent-University was granted Post-facto recognition as a provisional measure. Hence, there shall be interim direction as prayed for.”

¶16

Alleging that the said interim order passed by this Court on 08.10.2009 has not been complied with and that the vacancies pertaining to the recruitment of the year 2006 have been filled up and moreover, the respondents are proceeding to fill up the vacancies pertaining to 2008 also, the present contempt case is filed.

¶17

In response to the notice ordered by this Court, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1^st respondent i.e., the Staff Selection Commission (Southern Region), Government of India, Chennai stating that by the date of the interim order passed by this Court on 08.10.2009, the result was already declared by the Commission and the 1^st respondent has no role in determination of vacancies in the user departments for which the Staff Selection Commission makes recruitment on communication of the vacancy position. However, it is further stated in para 10 of the counter affidavit as under:

¶18

“Arising and filling of vacancies in different posts in various user departments is a continuous process and, therefore, earmarking of a vacancy of Inspector (Central Excise) for the applicant may not be necessary. However, if the Hon’ble Court is of the considered view that a vacancy should be formally

¶19

earmarked for the applicant, the Commission will earmark one vacancy out of those reported for the Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2012 the second stage of which is in contemplation. Matter of seniority of the petitioner will be taken up with the Central Board of Excise and Customs as may be decided by the Hon’ble Court in its final order in the petition.”

¶20

I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

¶21

It is also brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the respondents that on behalf of the respondents, a detailed counter affidavit has been filed in the main writ petition along with a vacate petition and the said vacate petition is yet to be heard by this Court. It is to be noticed that whether the action of the respondents in rejecting the candidature of the writ petitioner on the ground that the B.A.Degree possessed by him from the University of Delhi has been recognized by the 3^rd respondent–University and whether the same can be taken into consideration for recruitment of the petitioner against the posts notified in December, 2006 is the question that requires consideration in the main writ petition. So far as the interim order is concerned, admittedly the direction is only to keep one post vacant during the pendency of the writ petition.

¶22

Having regard to the stand taken by the 1^st respondent in the counter affidavit that it has nothing to do with the determination of the vacancies in the user departments, though it appears to me that the allegation that the 1^st respondent has deliberately flouted the order passed by this Court cannot be accepted, in the light of the statement in para 10 of the counter affidavit that a vacancy would be formally earmarked for the writ petitioner out of the vacancies reported for the Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2012 and the matter of seniority would be taken up with the Central Board of Excise and Customs in case the petitioner succeeds in the main writ petition, the said statement is hereby placed on record.

¶23

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the question whether the 1^st respondent is justified in rejecting the candidature of the writ petition for recruitment to the post of the Inspector, Central Excise and it is left open to both the parties to pursue their claims in the main writ petition.

¶24

The Contempt Case is accordingly closed. No costs.

¶25

__________ G.ROHINI, J

¶26

Date: 14.12.2012 Ivd

Harijinder Singh v. Smt. R. Bhagya Devi, Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harijinder Singh v. Smt. R. Bhagya Devi, Director

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

G.Govind Raj Goud, Vs Sri a. Ramulu

Dyawar Prakash Vs Mr. Mohd. Ghouse Mohiuddin

T Roop Singh, since died , rep by LRs, Parvati Bai Vs Sri Krishna Mohan, The Commissioner

Smt. K.Varalakshmi Vs D.Peddi Raju

K.Sreenivasulu S/o Chenchu Rathnam Setty Vs S.Chandrasekhar

Erla Nambaiah Vs Sri Ch. Narasimha Reddy