Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) v. R.C. Sinha

HI6H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILAPUR (Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P, Shanna^_J) Contempt Case (Civil) No.441/12 Applicant Amitabh Mishra Contemnors Vs

R.C. Sinha 2. Dr. Pradeep Kumar Joshi ^ Present: Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate for the resppndent No.l. Mr. B.D. 6uru, Advocate for the respondents No.2. OROER (03.10.2013) 1. By this petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for initiation of contempt proceedings against the contemnors for willful disobedience of the order dated 29.3.2012 passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No.4164/09, decided along with bunch matters leading case of which was W.P. (S) No.2711/09.

Heardlearned counsel for the parties and perused the petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Para Nos.39, 40, 41, 42 & 43 of the order dated Z9.3.2012, the respondents were under obligation to consider case of age relaxation of the applicant and to permit him to appear in the interview. In case of any denial, the respondents we.re. further under obligation to inform the applicant regarding such denial that even after providing age relaxation akin to Shiksha Karmis the applicant is not eligible for interview. However, the respondents have failed to inform their decision to the applicant and thereby committed contempt of the order of the Court.

By filing reply, respondent No.l has submitted that in compliance of the order of this Court, the respondent No.l has taken conscious decision and communicated the same to the respondent No.2. The matter was confidential. Contempt Case (C) No.441/12

By filing reply, respondent No.2 has submitted that as per decision taken by the respondent No.l, the petitioner was entitled for age relaxation of 1 year <& 8 months but since he was required relaxation of 2 years i5i 5 months, therefore, he was noteligible for interview.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondents were bound to intimate reasons of consideration but they failed to intimate the same to the petitioner and thereby wilifully violated the orderof •^ this Court.

Para 41<& 43 of the order dated 29.3.2012 reads thus;- "41. Therefore, we are of the opinion that at this juncture it would ^ be just and proper to direct the, respondents i.e. State Sovernment and Public Service Commission to take interview the petitioners granting them age relaxation, akin to Shiksha Karmis and then to comolete the selection and appointment process.

Accordingly, we direct that the case of the petitioners only would be considered for relaxation of age.in the light of the observations made by the State (Sovernment and the State Sovernment would inform the Public Service Commission about the decision taken by it. In turn, the Public Service Commission would take necessary steps in that regard after receiving the intimation from the State Government and thereafter, the Public Service Commission would be free to declare and publish the result of the selection, in accordance ., with law. "

As per Para-41 <& 43, the respondents were required to consider the case of the applicant for age relaxation akin to the Shikhsa Karmis. Respondent No.l was required to consider case of the applicant for relaxation of age and was also required to intimate respondent No.2 about its decision and in turn, the respondent No.2 was required to take necessary steps in that regard after receiving information from Contempt Case (C) No.441/12 ^ the respondent No.l. Replies of the respondents clearly revealed that the respondent No.l has taken conscious decision on the subject and intimated the same to the respondent No.2 and the respondent No.2 did not find the applicant eligible for' interview even after providing age relaxation of 1 year <& 8 months because the applicant required age relaxation of 2 years & 5 months.

So far as the submission of the applicant that the respondents were under obligation to intimate the dpplicant about their decision is concerned, specific order has been passed relating to consideration by respondent No.l and communication of its decision to the respondent No.2. However, in absence of any specific direction for intimation to the present applicant and the fact that matter is of confidential nature, I do not find any willful disobedience of the order by the respondents.

Consequently, the petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. The respondents are discharged. Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge '*li .wy'v»f£wiS'y S s. ^