AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanjay Misra, J.—Heard Sri S.K. Shukla learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri K.R. Singh learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party. Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties.
Sri. S.K. Shukla has submitted that a Full Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 13.8.2010 in Jitendra Kumar Soni and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. had issued directions regarding consideration of the claim of certain person for admission in BTC Courses 2004-07-08. The Petitioner alleges to have already filed a Writ Petition No. 27212 of 2004 prior to decision of the Full Bench and his writ petition had already been disposed on 12.12.2008 which is prior to the judgment of the Full Bench.
According to learned Counsel against the order dated 12.12.2008 passed in his writ petition the applicant preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 4090 of 2011 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 11.3.2011 by the Apex Court. Learned Counsel states that in view of the aforesaid circumstances the candidature of the Petitioner was required to be considered and when it was not considered by the opposite party Director, S.C.E.R.T. this contempt petition was filed and notices were issued to the Director.
Sri K.R. Singh refers to his compliance affidavit/reply affidavit and submits that by an order dated 20.7.2011 the Director, S.C.E.R.T. has considered the claim of the Petitioner which has been filed as annexure to the compliance affidavit of opposite party No. 1. According to Sri K.R. Singh when consideration was directed and the matter has been considered it cannot be held that the Director has disobeyed the directions issued by the writ court.
From a perusal of the aforesaid decision dated 20.7.2011 it appears that the claim of the applicant has been rejected on the ground that on the date when the Full Bench decision was given on 13.8.2010 in Jitendra Kumar Soni and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. no writ petition of the Petitioner was pending since his writ petition had already been dismissed on 12.12.2008 and therefore the Director has recorded that the Petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the Full Bench decision. In case the applicant is aggrieved by such order it is always open for him to assail the same however in contempt proceedings the legality or illegality of such order cannot be seen but in so far as the facts recited in the order are concerned it is not denied that the Petitioner''s writ petition was decided on 12.12.2008 and it was not pending on 13.8.2010 when the Full Bench had taken the decision.
The second aspect of the matter as has been pointed out by learned Standing Counsel is that in the Special Leave to Appeal filed by the Petitioner before the Apex Court the Apex Court by the order dated 11.3.2011 had clearly recorded that the Petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the petition and make appropriate application to the State Government in view of the order dated 13.8.2010 passed by the Full Bench.
According to learned Standing Counsel under such order of the Apex Court the applicant ought to have been made an application before the State Government and having not made such application before the State Government it cannot be held that the opposite party who is Director, S.C.E.R.T. has disobeyed any directions issued by the writ court. Learned Standing Counsel states that this contempt petition therefore requires to be dismissed.
The applicant has filed an impleadment application to implead the State Authority as a party in the contempt petition for the reason that in view of the directions issued by the Supreme Court the State is required to decide the issue of the Petitioner since the Director in the order dated 20.7.2011 has clearly stated that he has referred the matter to the State Government.
Learned Standing Counsel in reply has submitted that the requirement under the order of the Supreme Court was that the applicant has to approach the State Government with an appropriate application and that having not been done the State cannot be impleaded as a party in the contempt petition since there is no application made by the Petitioner before the State Government and therefore there is no occasion for non compliance of the directions. He further submits that in case there is an application of the applicant and it was not being decided by the State the disobedience would be of the order passed by the Supreme Court and not by the High Court.
The submission of learned Standing Counsel appears to have substance inasmuch as no application has been made by the Petitioner before the State Government as required under the order of the Supreme Court. The reference made by the Director, S.C.E.R.T. to the State Government can be decided only by the State Government and not by the opposite party herein. Consequently, the applicant could have had a cause of action in case the State did not decide the application of the applicant, if made in view of the directions issued by the Apex Court.
For the aforesaid reasons the impleadment application stands rejected since the State Authority cannot be impleaded in this contempt petition. The contempt petition is also dismissed against the Director, S.C.E.R.T. since the Director has already passed an order dated 20.7.2011 which is full compliance of the directions issued by the Full Bench. However, passing of this order shall not prevent the Petitioner to avail the remedy against the order of Director, S.C.E.R.T. or for the purpose of making application before the State Government as required under the order of the Supreme Court.
The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed.
No order is passed as to costs.