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
17 paragraphs · 368 wordsL. Narasimha Reddy, J
The applicant took part in the selection for the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) (Natural Science) (Female) with Post Code No.113/12. It
is stated that the applicant was in the wait-list and several vacancies arose in September, 2017 on account of failure of the selected candidates to join
the duty. She filed OA No. 935/2018 claiming various reliefs. That OA was disposed of on 08.01.2019 directing that in case, there existed any
vacancy in the OBC category in the said post, the case of the applicant shall be considered as per her own merit and to pass a reasoned and speaking
order, within ninety days. This contempt case is filed alleging that the respondents did not comply with the directions issued in the OA.
On behalf of the respondents, reply is filed. It is stated that the selection process for the post code No. 113/12 came to an end and in the subsequent
year, a written test was conducted on 27.09.2018. The respondents have also stated through a separate affidavit that the applicant had taken part in
the subsequent examination but was not successful.
We heard Shri M.K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Esha Mazumdar, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and Shri
Sameer Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.
The direction issued in the OA was that the case of the applicant be considered if there existed a vacancy. The selection process commenced way
back in the year 2012 and for some reason or the other, it continued till the year 2017. It is no doubt true that some selected candidates did not join and
the user department has addressed letters in September, 2017with a request to send the dossiers of the other candidates in the merit. The fact,
however, remains that much before any tangible steps were taken, vacancies were carried forward to the next year and the examination was held on
27.09.2018. It is also stated that the applicant had taken part in the examination, but was not successful.
We do not find any contempt of court on the part of the respondents and the contempt case is accordingly closed.