Deepak Bahuguna vs Utpal Kumar Singh & Others

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

WPSB No. 171 of 2015 filed by the petitioner was disposed by Division Bench of this Court in terms of judgment dated 09.04.2018 rendered in WPSB No. 113 of 2015. The direction issued in WPSB No. 113 of 2015 is reproduced below:-

“6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by directing that the Commission will consider the matter and take a decision in the matter in relation to the three posts of Commercial Tax Officer in the light of the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 67 of 2011 and do the needful as per law. A decision will be taken in this regard at the earliest and every effort will be made to conclude the process within a period of 10 weeks from today.”

Alleging non-compliance of the order passed by Division Bench of this Court, this contempt petition has been filed.

Compliance affidavit has been filed by Maj. Gen. (Retd.) Anand Singh Rawat, Chairman, Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, Haridwar. In para 10 of the said affidavit, it has been stated that pursuant to direction issued by this Court, a decision has been taken to carry forward three vacancies, which were earlier reserved for Uttarakhand Rajya Andolankaries. The copy of the decision so taken by the Commission is brought on record as Annexure CA4 to the said affidavit.

Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that petitioner was the next candidate, after the last candidate who was appointed. Thus, in view of judgment rendered by Full Bench of this Court in WPPIL No. 67 of 2011, whereby reservation of posts in favour of ‘Uttarakhand Rajya Andolankari’ was held to be unconstitutional, petitioner had a right to be appointed against the vacancies, which were earlier reserved for ‘Uttarakhand Rajya Andolankari’.

Since the only direction issued was to consider the matter in the light of judgment rendered in WPPIL No. 67 of 2011 and State Public Service Commission has now taken a decision to carry forward these vacancies, which were earlier reserved, therefore, while exercising contempt jurisdiction, this Court cannot go into the question of validity of a decision taken by the Commission/Selecting Body.

In such view of the matter, this Court is satisfied that this is not a case of willful disobedience for which opposite parties may be proceeded agaomst under Contempt of Courts Act.

Accordingly, the contempt petition is closed. Notices issued to the opposite parties are hereby discharged. However, petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance, if any.