CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Mritunjay Kumar vs Sri P.C. Sharma and Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 25 February 2012 · Citation: (2012) 02 UK CK 0049

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Contempt Petition No. 176 of 2011
Original PDFDownload PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 318 words

Hon''ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.—Heard Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate present for the applicant, Mr. Sushil Vashisth, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. B.D. Pande, Advocate present for respondent No. 3.

2.

The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste community. All the same, he has not been considered under the promotional quota, which was to be filled under the reservation quota by the Scheduled Caste community. By order dated 24.5.2011 in Writ Petition No. 482 (SS) of 2011 following orders were passed, which read as under:-

Learned counsel representing the State Mr. N.P. Sah has fairly stated that no useful purpose will be solved by keeping the writ petition pending and the same be disposed of with appropriate directions to the respondent. As such, Chief Engineer (Head of Department), Irrigation Department, Uttarakhand, Dehradun is directed that in case promotional exercises for promotion from the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) are on, then the petitioner may also be considered for promotion against the reserved category, in case the records of the petitioner show that the petitioner is a member of scheduled caste community.

With the aforesaid directions, writ petition is disposed of.

No order as to costs.

3.

The representation of the petitioner was decided on 30.6.2011 by the concerned authority stating that since the petitioner is not a domicile of Uttarakhand, his candidature for the next promotion under the reserved category quota could not be considered against which the petitioner has filed contempt petition. The contempt petition is wholly misconceived inasmuch if the petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 30.6.2011, the petitioner has always a remedy before other forum.

4.

Since order dated 24.5.2011 has been complied with inasmuch as the petitioner was considered (though not effectively appointed), no contempt of the order is made out. The contempt petition is dismissed.

5.

Notices issued to the respondents are hereby discharged.