Arun Kumar Jain vs V.P. Aggarwal

Indermeet Kaur, J.—The Petitioner is aggrieved by the conduct of the Respondent his contention is that the directions contained in the order of the Single Bench dated 31.08.2010 have not been complied with by the Respondent.

Record shows that the two writ petitions had been filed by Petitioners were allowed contempt petition has been preferred by one Petitioner, namely Arun Kumar Jain. The Petitioner had been selected for the post of Manager (Electronics) he was however not appointed contention of the Respondent was that there were less number of vacancies.

Facts emanating are as follows:

In December, 2007, an advertisement had been given for filling up 68 posts of Manager (ATC) and 171 posts of Manager (Electronics). Out of the 171 posts of Manager (Electronics) 88 posts were in the general category, 46 posts in the OBC category, and 25 posts in the SC category and 12 posts in the ST category which included 5 posts for the physically challenged. This is clear from the advertisement which had been effected in December, 2007 and forms a part of Para No. 3 of the judgment dated 31.08.2010. Result was declared in January, 2009 the Petitioner was not included in the said list aggrieved, the Petitioner had filed the affronted writ petition.

The Respondent had contested the petition. Various defences had been raised by the Respondent. It was never the defence of the Respondent that the Petitioner was not qualified. In para 22 of the judgment dated 31.08.2010, the submission of the Respondent was noted that the Petitioner has no vested right to be appointed merely because his name has been shown in the selection list. Respondent No. 1 however did not dispute this factum that the Petitioner did not have the requisite qualifications in terms of the advertisement issued by them. All the contentions raised by the Respondents had, in fact, been repelled. This has been noted in para 34 of the judgment. In paras 35 & 37 learned Single Judge had noted that the case of the Petitioner is not different from those persons who had already been issued a letter of appointment mandamus was accordingly issued to the Respondent to offer letter of appointment to the Petitioner.

Letter of appointment has admittedly not been issued till date. The contention of the Respondent is that although the Petitioner had the requisite qualification for the post of Manager (Electronics), but since his name appears at serial No. 90, he had not come into the consideration zone contention being that there were 171 vacancies of which 87 already stood filled 84 posts were to be filled in and appointment letters for 88 persons, in fact, have already been given i.e. the total of 171 vacancies now stands filled the Petitioner falls at serial No. 90 he cannot be considered. The combined merit list of Manager (Electronics) has been placed on record along with the reply affidavit of the Respondent. The counsel for the Respondent has pointed out that candidate at serial No. 5 Kamalini Pradhan has been taken in the ST category candidate at serial No. 41 Adarsh Kumar Srivastava did not produce his NOC and as such he has not been appointed the person at serial No. 88 Laxmi Chauhan also did not produce her ''No objection Certificate'' she has also not been appointed three candidates have thus gone out of this list but in view of the fact that five posts have to be kept for physically challenged, two persons have been appointed in that category 88 appointment letters have already been issued the case of the Petitioner falling at serial. No. 90 could not be considered for this reason and that is why the appointment letter has not been issued to him.

In the rejoinder affidavit which has been filed by the Petitioner, this stand has been disputed. It is contended that the combined merit list (now relied upon) had not seen the light of the day in the writ petition in the writ petition Annexure P-3 which was the merit list of the general candidates for the post of Manager (Electronics) had only been filed where the name of the Petitioner Anil Kumar Jain was shown at serial No. 87. Record shows that this has specifically been stated by the Petitioner in para 10 of the writ petition. In the corresponding para of the reply affidavit filed by the Respondent there is no dispute about this factum.

It has thus been established from the record that the only merit list which had been filed before the writ court was the merit list of the general candidates for the post of Manager (Electronics) where the name of the Petitioner Anil Kumar Jain was shown at serial No. 87. There was no separate list of the OBC, SC or ST category.

The court sitting in contempt jurisdiction does not have to see the rightness or the wrongness of an order it has only to see that the directions contained in the order have or have not been complied with. The directions contained in the order of the Single Bench dated 31.08.2010 are clear and unequivocal a mandamus had been issued to the Respondent to give appointment letter to the Petitioner. The stand of the Respondent in not complying with the directions is misconceived the Respondent cannot now raise an argument and furnish a combined merit list of all categories of candidates which was not the submission before the writ court admittedly before the writ court there was only one merit list of general category where the Petitioner figured at serial No. 87. Admittedly as per the reply, offer of appointment has been made to 88 candidates the Petitioner had originally been placed at serial No. 87 in not issuing the Petitioner the appointment letter, the Respondent is clearly guilty of contempt of Court. Respondent has willfully and intentionally not complied with the specific mandamus issued to him which amounts to nothing short of but interfering in the administration of justice Mr. V.P. Aggarwal, Chairman of the Respondent is held guilty of contempt of Court he is accordingly convicted under Sections 11 & 12 of the Contempt of Court Act.

For order on sentence, to come up on 23.08.2011.