AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 149 wordsThe petitioner has preferred the present contempt petition alleging willful disobedience/non-compliance of the order dated 29.08.2018.
It is alleged by the petitioner that in spite of clear order dated 29.08.2018, passed in petitioner’s writ petition (SBCWP No.9058/2018), the
respondent No.2 has passed an order dated 23.01.2019 and has rejected petitioner’s claim of counting the intervening period, during which the
interim order was operating in petitioner’s favour, yet he was not allowed to join.
During the pendency of the present contempt petition, the Principal and Controller has passed order dated 23.01.2020 and not only the intervening
period has been counted in his experience but his name has also been shown in the select list.
In this view of this matter, this Court is not inclined to continue with the present contempt petition. The notices are hereby discharged.
The present contempt petition be treated as disposed of for the statistical purposes.