Mohar Singh vs Shri Tara Chand Meena and Another

Bela M. Trivedi, J.—Heard the learned counsels for the parties. Mr. Kishore Kumar, RAS, The Then Commissioner (H.Q.) Nagar Nigam Jaipur, at present ADM, Ajmer City, is personally present in the Court, pursuant to the earlier order passed by the Court. The present contempt petition has been filed u/s 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India for the alleged non-compliance of the order dated 23.07.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in SBCWP No. 3589/1997.

The petitioner, who was working as Fireman had filed the writ petition being No. 3589/1997 for consideration of his promotion. The said petition was allowed by the Court vide the order dated 23.07.2008 by issuing following direction:-

For the reasons above, I allow the writ petition with the direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Fire Officer and in case he is found eligible/suitable, then he may be promoted to the said post. The respondents are to consider the petitioner for promotion at the earliest and in no case beyond the period of two months from receipt of the certified copy of this order.

The present petition has been filed for alleged non-compliance of the said order and the same has been resisted by the respondent No. 1 by filing the reply, contending inter alia that the case of the petitioner was examined by the DPC held on 12.06.2009 and it was found that the petitioner was only Fireman and since he was not promoted to the post of Leading Fireman, he could not be further promoted to the post of Assistant Fire Officer, in view of the Rajasthan Municipality (Subordinate & Ministerial) Service Rules, 1963. The DPC, therefore, had decided to make the recommendation to the State Government to consider the case of the petitioner and to provide relaxation in the Rules for the promotion to the post of Assistant Fire Officer.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel Mr. B.M. Singh, for the petitioner that despite the specific direction given by the learned Single Judge directing the respondents to promote the petitioner on the post of Assistant Fire Officer, the respondents are deliberately not complying with the said order.

However, the learned Additional Advocate General Mr. S.N. Kumawat, for the respondent No. 1 has submitted that the case of the petitioner having been considered by the DPC and there had been specific provision in the relevant Rules, that the promotion to the post of Assistant Fire Officer could be made only from the post of Leading Fireman and not directly from the post of Fireman, the petitioner was not eligible for the said promotion.

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the documents on record as also the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it clearly transpires that only direction given by the learned Single Judge to the respondents was to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Fire Officer, in case he is found eligible/suitable. It is true that there is some delay on the part of respondents in considering the case of the petitioner for promotion, however as transpiring from the reply of the respondent No. 1, the case of the petitioner was considered for promotion, however in view of the statutory rules framed by the Government in Rajasthan Municipality (Subordinate & Ministerial) Service Rules, 1963, the petitioner was not found eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Fire Officer, without having experience of five years as a Leading Fireman. It further appears that the case of the petitioner was also recommended by respondents to the Government for relaxation in the Rules, for promotion to the post of Assistant Fire Officer. Under the circumstances, the petitioner having not been found eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Fire Officer, it could not be said that there was deliberate non-compliance of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. In that view of the matter, it is held that no case for contempt of Court against the respondents has been made out by the petitioner and the petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the contempt petition stands dismissed.