Ram Ratan Yadav vs Shri K.K. Pathak

Bela M. Trivedi, J.—The present petition has been filed u/s 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India for the alleged non-compliance of the order dated 25.4.12 passed by the learned Single Judge in SBCWP No. 5776/12. The learned counsel Mr. Vigyan Shah for the petitioner has submitted an application for seeking permission to place on record certain documents as prayed for, which has been granted by the court. It is pertinent to note that the court while disposing the writ petition had passed the following order on 25.4.12:--

I am of the view that before approaching this Court, petitioner should have given representation to the respondents indicating that two questions are having wrong answers and to support the aforesaid, produce relevant material because issue aforesaid can be decided by the expert committee and it is only when there is inaction or contradiction in the opinion, this Court can exercise jurisdiction. However, subject matter of expert should not be taken up by the Court at the initial stage.

It is stated by learned counsel for petitioner that a representation has already been made. If that is so, then the Rajasthan Public Service Commission is directed to consider the same at the earliest and if petitioner has not made representation earlier, then he is given liberty to do so with support of material and if any representation is now made, the same may be considered and decided by the respondents within a period of one month from the date of submission of representation as well as certified copy of this order.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Vigyan Shah for the petitioner that after passing of the order, the respondents have informed the petitioner vide the letter dated 9.5.13 rejecting his representation. According to Mr. Shah, not only that the said decision was taken after a long time, the respondents have not given the reasons as to how he was not fulfilling the criteria of ''cut of marks''. He has submitted that the said order passed by the respondents is a non-speaking order and the respondents be called upon to produce the record of the expert committee. The court does not find any substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. If the directions given by the learned Single Judge as contained in the order dated 25.4.12 are perused, the only direction appears to be that if the petitioner gives the representation, then RPSC shall consider the same at the earliest and if the petitioner has not made representation then he would be at liberty to do so with the support of material and the same may be considered and decided by the respondents within a period of one month from the date of submission of the representation as well as certified copy of this order. As such there was no specific direction given by the court directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner positively nor was any direction to show the record of the expert committee to the petitioner, as sought to be submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Now since the respondents have passed the order, it could not be said that there was any non-compliance or deliberate disobedience on the part of the respondents of the order dated 25.4.12. As such, the learned Single Judge had already observed that if anything goes adverse to the petitioner, he would be at liberty to take legal recourse. Under the circumstances, if the petitioner finds the said order adverse to him, he is at liberty to take the legal recourse as may be permissible to him. However, no case for contempt having been made, the petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.