Mohd. Anwer vs Seema Jaunsari And Another

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J

The learned Single Judge of this Court had allowed the writ petition of the petitioner being Writ Petition No. 2324 (S/S) of 2016, Mohd. Anwer Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others on 24.04.2018, and the appointment of private respondent Nos. 4, 6 to 17 was quashed and set aside by the learned Single Judge. The relevant part of the said order dated 24.04.2018 is quoted hereunder:-

"Learned counsel for the private respondents has also argued that for promotion, the candidates should be Graduate with Urdu as the main subject or equivalent recognized by the State Government. We are not dealing with the aspect of promotion at this stage.

The private respondents did not possess essential educational qualification as prescribed under the Rules quoted hereinabove.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The appointment of private respondent Nos. 4, 6 to 17 is quashed and set aside. It shall be open for the respondent-State to fill up the post(s) by issuing fresh advertisement in accordance with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules."

It was left open for the respondent-State to issue a fresh advertisement in accordance with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules. The said judgement of the learned Single Judge dated 24.04.2018 was put to challenge in Special Appeal being Special Appeal No. 331 of 2018, Mohd. Anwer Vs. Uttarakhand State and others and other connected two Special Appeal being Special Appeal No. 336 of 2018, Smt. Asma Siddiqui and others Vs. Mohd. Anwer and others, and Special Appeal No. 402 of 2018, Smt. Meenakshi Sah Vs. Mohd. Anwer and others. The Special Appeal was taken up before the Division Bench of this Court on 16.07.2018 and was rejected by the judgement dated 16.07.2018 with the following directions:-

"Special Appeal No. 331 of 2018 will stand partly allowed. We modify the judgment of the learned Single Judge and delete the direction that "It shall be open for the respondent-State to fill up the post(s) by issuing fresh advertisement in accordance with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules." Instead, we direct that respondent no. 3 will proceed to process the applications in accordance with the law. In this regard, we direct that respondent No. 3 will consider, whether the claim of the writ petitioner that he had done graduation in the year 2006 before he obtained B.Ed. is correct and borne out by the documents. Respondent No. 3 will thereafter process the matter strictly in accordance with law and on the basis of the findings as to qualifications, which have been made by the learned Single Judge, which we have upheld. This process will be completed by the 3rd respondent within two months from the date of the receipt of the judgment.

No order as to costs."

As a matter of fact, the Division Bench, in its judgement had rather restrained the respondents from issuing fresh advertisement in accordance with the Recruitment and Promotion Rules as directed by the learned Single Judge in its judgement dated 24.04.2018. Instead, a direction was issued by the Division Bench that respondent No. 3 will proceed to process the application of the petitioner in accordance with law considering his candidature whether from the view point as to whether the claim of the petitioner, that whether he had done is graduation in the year 2006 before he obtained B.Ed is correct and borne out as per the documents of respondent No. 3.

Alleging non compliance of the judgement of Division Bench dated 16.07.2018 despite of due services of the said judgement on 31.07.2018, the petitioner preferred a contempt petition on 13.11.2018 alleging non-compliance of the judgement dated 16.07.2018 as rendered by the Division Bench. This Court has issued notice to the respondent on 10.12.2018. In compliance thereto, the respondent No. 3 of the writ petition, who have been impleaded as respondent No. 2 in the present contempt petition has filed his affidavit annexing therein a copy of the order dated 20.08.2018. In terms of the order dated 20.08.2018, the candidature of the petitioner was considered and a decision was taken by respondent No. 2 of the contempt petition (respondent No. 3 of the writ petition), and an order has been passed on 20.08.2018 with the following directions:-

"वर्तमान में अन्य पिछड़ा वर्ग में विज्ञप्ति के सापेक्ष कोई पद रिक्त नहीं है, जबकि मा0 न्यायालय द्वारा पारित आदेश दिनांक 16.07.2018 में पूर्व में पारित एकल पीठ के आदेश को संशोधित करते हुये प्रतिवादी संख्या 03 (अपर निदेशक, राज्य शैक्षिक अनुसंधान एवं प्रशिक्षण परिषद उत्त्राखण्ड) को प्रकरण में अग्रेत्तर कार्यवाही करने हेतु अधिकृत किया गया है। याची के सम्बन्ध में अवगत कराना है कि याची ने उत्तराखण्ड मुक्त विश्वविधालय हल्द्वानी नैनीताल से दूरस्थ शिक्षा के माध्यम से एक ही सत्र 2013-14 Summer में बी0ए0 उर्दू एक विषय की परीक्षा उत्तीर्ण की है। (उक्त प्रमाण पत्र की वेधता की जांच हेतु उत्तराखण्ड मुक्त विश्वविधालय हल्द्वानी नैनीताल से पत्राचार किया गया है) वर्तमान में याची के प्रकरण के विधि सम्मत निस्तारण की समयबद्धता है। साथ ही यह भी सूच्य है कि ततसमय विज्ञापित 28 पदों के सापेक्ष 14 पदों पर चयन किया गया जा चुका था, जिसमें अन्य पिछड़ा वर्ग के दोनों पदों पर क्रमशः फरमान अली एवं असमा सिद्दकी का चयन किया जा चुका था। अतः कृप्या प्रकरण के निस्तारण हेतु मा0 उच्च न्यायालय के निर्णय के सापेक्ष शैक्षिक योग्यता के संबंध में नीतिगत निर्णय लेते हुए प्रकरण निस्तारित किया जाना है। अतः प्रकरण आवेदन पत्र की छायाप्रति सहित आवश्यक कार्यवाही हेतु प्रेषित की जा रही है।"

In furtherance thereof to the judgement dated 16.07.2018, the respondent No. 3, in fact, had taken a decision as directed by writ Court pertaining to the candidature of the petitioner. So far this contempt Court is concerned, the contempt Court was only to ensure that the directions as given by the Court are complied with or not. The direction as given by the Division Bench of this Court on 16.07.2018 was to consider whether the claim of the petitioner pertaining to his graduation being done by him in 2006, could be treated to be as per law, and documents for his candidature could be processed or not. The decision taken by respondent No. 2 to the present contempt petition on 20.08.2018 shows that respondent No. 1 had considered the claim of the petitioner and had taken a decision thereto as quoted above.

Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that the judgment as rendered by the Division Bench of this Court on 16.07.2018 stands complied with, and the claim of the petitioner was considered by respondent No. 2 by its order dated 20.08.2018.

In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 16.07.2018 passed by the Division Bench stands complied with. As such, this contempt petition is closed. The notice issued to the respondents is discharged. It will be open for the petitioner to challenge the order passed by respondent No. 2 dated 20.08.2018, if at all, he is aggrieved by the decision making process or by the decision itself dated 20.08.2018 before an appropriate forum available to him.