Prakash Chandra Singh Danu vs R.K. Kunwar & Another

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these contempt petitions, therefore these petitions are clubbed together and are being heard & decided together. However, for the sake of convenience, facts of CLCON No. 363 of 2018 are being considered.

Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2407 of 2016 filed by the petitioner was disposed of by Writ Court vide order dated 16.02.2018 with a direction to the respondents to consider his case for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher, Government Primary School, if vacancies are available, within a period of three months.

Alleging willful disobedience of the said order, this contempt petition has been filed.

A compliance affidavit has been filed by Mr. A. K. Nauriyal, Additional Director, State Council for Educational Research & Training, Dehradun. In paragraph no. 3 of the said affidavit, it has been stated that, in terms of order passed by Writ Court, petitioner's claim for appointment was considered and rejected vide order dated 04.05.2018. The rejection order has been brought on record as Annexure No. 1 to the compliance affidavit. Perusal of the rejection order indicates that petitioner's claim has been rejected on the ground that his score of quality point marks is less than the marks secured by last selected candidate.

Learned Standing Counsel, based on written instructions dated 31.10.2018 received by him, submits that no vacancy advertised on 17.02.2016 is now left to be filled and all vacancies have been supplied.

Since the only direction was to consider petitioner's claim for appointment, which has now been considered and rejected, therefore, in the humble opinion of this Court, it is not a case of willful disobedience.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there were sufficient number of vacancies available with the respondents and if appointments were made against all available vacancies, then the fate of the petitioner's representation would have been otherwise. He further submits that Writ Court had not authorized the respondents to make comparative assessment of merit, therefore, the act of respondents of non suiting the petitioner, on the ground that his score of quality point marks is less than the marks secured by last selected candidate, is unsustainable.

The scope of contempt proceedings is very narrow and Court has to see, as to whether the order passed by Writ Court has been willfully disobeyed. As stated earlier, it does not appear to be the case of willful disobedience of the order passed by Writ Court.

Accordingly, the contempt petitions are closed. Contempt notices issued to the respondents are hereby discharged. However, petitioner shall be at liberty to approach appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance, if any.