Lal Rosangi vs P.K. Handique

P.C. Phukan, J.—I have heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Counsel assisted by Mr. A.R. Malhotra for the Petitioner as well as Mr. T. Vaiphei, learned Assistant Advocate General, Mizoram appearing for the Respondent. I have also considered the records.

This Court vide an Order dated 8.5.98 passed in C.R. No. 17/97 directed that the case of the Petitioner Ms Lalrosangi, who has been serving in the Sericulture Department of Mizoram Government for about 15(fifteen years) as Muster Roll employee, shall be considered for regular appointment in a post of L.D.C. (Lower Division Clerk) in the said Department in the next available vacancy. It was clarified in the said Order that the appointment to the said post should be as per relevant law except that age shall be no bar and due weightage shall be given for her past service.

In the contempt petition it is alleged that in utter dis-regard to the aforesaid order, Respondent instead of considering the Petitioner''s case for regular appointment in the said post of L.D.C., initiated a proposal(vide Annexure-II dated 18.5.98) for convening D.P.C. for regularisation of Ms Laltanpuii in the post of L.D.C. to which she was appointed on adhoc basis. This post of L.D.C. till filled-up by regular appointment remains vacant. Adhoc appointment to this post is only a stopgap arrangement and not regular filling up of the said vacancy. Since this vacancy was there on 8.5.98 (date of this Court''s Order), and is still there even after 8.5.98, it is the next available vacancy referred to in this Court''s Order dated 8.5.98. Any attempt to fill up this vacancy by regular appointment without considering the case of the Petitioner amount to an attempt to disobey this Court''s Order dated 8.5.98.

Now, disobedience of Order of Court, in order to constitute contempt punishable under the Contempt of Court''s Act, 1971 must be wilful. In his affidavit in opposition the Respondent states that to his under-standing "the post currently held by Ms Laltanpuii on Adhoc basis in respect of a vacancy prior to the Hon''ble Court''s Order is not within the meaning of the next available vacancy". None implementation of Court''s Order occurring due to bona-fide wrong interpretation of the order by the authority concerned does not amount to contempt. Since in the instant case it appears to me that the Respondent was labouring under a bona-fide impression that the vacancy of the post of LDC to which Ms Laltanpuii was appointed on Adhoc basis was not the next available vacancy and in view of the fact that subsequently the Respondent actually took some steps to comply with this Court''s Order dated 8.5.98, I am of the opinion that there was no wilful disobedience to the said order on the part of the Respondent within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Court''s Act, 1971 and hence the Respondent need not be punished under the said Act.

Subsequently after certain developments and correspondences with the Government, the Respondent, his affidavit-in-opposition reveals by his letter dated 26.10.99 (Annexure B/VII) sought approval of the Government to convene D.P.C. "where the cases of both Pi Lalrosangi and Pi Laltanpuii will be considered and the DPC will choose one of these found fit". Obviously the DPC can not consider the cases of Pi Lalrosangi and Pi Laltanpuii only, and cannot choose only one of them, but shall have to consider their cases alongwith all other eligible candidates and make recommendation as per relevant Rules, since this Court by Order dated 8.5.98 clarified that the appointment to the post of LDC shall be as per relevant law.

In view of the above, the Respondent is hereby directed to take immediate steps to convene a DPC for regular appointment to the post of LDC currently held by Ms Laltanpuii on adhoc basis after notifying the same through the Employment Exchange with intimation to the Petitioner Ms. Lalrosangi for inclusion of her name, and her case shall be considered alongwith all other eligible candidates following the relevant rules except that in her case age shall not be bar and due weightage shall be given for her past service as directed.

With the above direction, this contempt matter is dropped.

This contempt petition stands disposed of.