AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
10 paragraphs · 176 wordsL. Narasimha Reddy, J
This contempt case is filed alleging that the respondents have violated the interim order dated 13.07.2018 passed in the OA. In the said order, it was
directed not to carry forward the vacancies vis-a-vis the Advertisement No.01/14. We issued notice and the respondents have filed a detailed reply.
We also heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
The selection process was continued till September, 2018, whereas the interim order was passed on 13.07.2018. It is only thereafter that the
subsequent notification was issued. Naturally, the vacancies available as on that date need to be taken into account. Further, if the applicants are able
to convince this Tribunal about their rights to be appointed, the relief can certainly be granted. The pendency of the OA or the interim order could not
have been a factor to defer the subsequent selection process. We do not find any deliberate or wilful contempt on the part of the respondents. This
contempt case is closed.
There shall be no orders as to costs.