Dismissed

Kishori Lal Joshi v. Yugal Kishor Pant and Another

Uttarakhand HC3 Jul 2019CLCON/370/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt petition, the petitioner alleged willful disobedience of a writ court order directing promotion. The court found that the petitioner failed to qualify for promotion due to insufficient typing speed. Consequently, there was no willful disobedience, and the petition was dismissed with discharge of notices.

What did the court decide?

Contempt petition dismissed; notices issued to opposite parties discharged.

Kishori Lal Joshi Vs Yugal Kishor Pant and Another — Contempt of Court | Uttarakhand HC (2019)

¶1

CLCON No. 370 of 2014 Hon’ble Manoj K. Tiwari, J.

¶2

Heard Mr. Pradeep Hariya, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties.

¶3

Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1752 of 2007 filed by the petitioner was disposed of by Writ Court vide order dated 27.06.2014. Operative portion of the said judgment is extracted below:

¶4

“In view thereof, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents State that in case the post on which the petitioner has sought promotion has not been kept reserve or a post is vacant and the petitioner is otherwise eligible for promotion on the such post, depending upon his qualification and typing on computer, then the petitioner shall be considered for this post.”

¶5

In this contempt petition, it is alleged that the opposite parties have willfully disobeyed the order passed by Writ Court.

¶6

A compliance affidavit has been filed opposite party No. 1. Para 8 & 9 of the said affidavit is extracted below:-

¶7

“8.That it is important to mention here that due to death of a Cabinet Minister of the State of Uttarakhand, 9.2.2015 was declared as State holiday, as such the computer typing test of the petitioner was taken on 10.02.2015 and as per the result of the aforesaid computer typing test sent by the offer of District National Information Centre, Tehri Garhwal, it has transpired that the typing speed of the petitioner in respect of Hindi Typing of 324 key depression per hour and in English it is 564 key depression per hour. A true copy of the result of the computer typing test is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. 3 to this affidavit.

¶8

9. That it is important to mention here that as per the government order dated 13.08.2013 it has been specifically stated that the persons having less than 4000 key depression per hour speed in Hindi typing shall not be eligible and the petitioner could not be found eligible in view of the less typing speed secured by hi in the test held on 10.02.2015, as such, the departmental promotion committee did not recommended the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant-cum-Date Entry Operator and the aforesaid information was given to the petitioner by the office of District Supply Officer vide letter dated 13.02.2015. Copy of the letter dated 13.02.2015 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No. 4 to this affidavit.”

¶9

From the stand taken by District Magistrate in the compliance affidavit, it is apparent that petitioner could not qualify in the Hindi Typing test on computer, as he could attain speed of only 324 key depressions against the required speed of 4000 key depression per hour.

¶10

In such view of the matter, it is not a case of willful disobedience of the order passed by Writ Court.

¶11

Accordingly, contempt petition is dismissed. Notices issued to the opposite parties are hereby discharged.

¶12

Aswal

Kishori Lal Joshi v. Yugal Kishor Pant and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishori Lal Joshi v. Yugal Kishor Pant and Another

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

Vedic Mohan Ashram Bhakti Pracharini Sabha Vs Yashveer Singh

Virendra Kumar Shastri and Others Vs Vedic Mohan Ashram Trust Haridwar

Omprakash Vs Manager Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd.

Union Of India Vs M/s Allied Traders

Mohd. Kamaruzzama Vs Dr. R.B.S. Rawat and Ors.

Anusuya Lal Vs Dr I a Khan