Smt. Mamta Sharma vs J.P. Chandeliya and Others

Narendra Kumar Jain, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

The petitioner has preferred this contempt petition for disobedience of the order of this Court dated 8th December, 2006 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1242/1997. The order dated 8th December, 2006 passed by this Court, reads thus -

The short controversy in this writ petition is that the petitioner applied for the post of Teacher Grade-III pursuant to the advertisement No. 1/96, but was not considered as the petitioner was not having the subject of Mathematics in High School.

The present controversy has already been resolved by this Court in the case of Surendra Kaur Gudwan v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in 1994 (3) WLC 534, and as per the ratio decided by this Court the petitioner is entitled to be considered for the post of Teacher Grade-III.

Since appointments are already made and this Court at the time of issuance of notice has not ordered to keep one post vacant for the petitioner, in such circumstances, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner if any post is lying vacant pursuant to the advertisement No. 1/96 and if the petitioner is otherwise found suitable, she may be given appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III. Further the petitioner be considered against the future vacancies if she applies for the same ignoring this fact that the petitioner is not having the subject of Mathematics in High School. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he has annexed a copy of list of selected candidates prepared in pursuance of the Advertisement No. 1/96 as Annexure-2 with the contempt petition, which clearly shows that the candidates shown at Serial No. 79 to 82 therein have not joined the posts, therefore, four posts were vacant and, as such, the respondents committed a contempt of the order of this Court by not giving appointment to the petitioner. A notice to show cause was given to the respondents and, in response thereto, a reply to the contempt petition has been filed wherein it has been mentioned that vacant posts of that year remained vacant up-to the end of the session and thereafter the said posts were merged in the vacancies for the next year and are to be advertised with the new posts of next year. At present no post of Teacher Gr.III is lying vacant pursuant to the Advertisement No. 1/96.

The writ petition was preferred in the year 1997 with regard to Advertisement No. 1/96 and the same remained pending till it was decided on 8th December, 2006. This Court observed that since the appointments are already made and at the time of issuance of the notice the respondents were not directed to keep one post vacant for the petitioner and in such circumstances the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner if any post is lying vacant pursuant to Advertisement No. 1/96 and the petitioner if otherwise found suitable may be given appointment to the post of Teacher Gr.III. Annexure-2, the list of candidates, was prepared in the year 1997 and four posts were lying vacant in pursuance of the Advertisement No. 1/96. The writ petition was decided in the year 2006. There is no evidence or document available on the record to show that any post was vacant in pursuance of the Advertisement No. 1/96 on the date of passing of the judgment or on the date of filing of the contempt petition or even today. In these circumstances, I find that the reply given by the respondents that at present no post of Teacher Gr.III in pursuance of the Advertisement No. 1/96 is lying vacant, is to be accepted and if it is accepted then no contempt is made out against the respondents.

So far as other part of the order regarding consideration of candidature of the petitioner for the future vacancies is concerned, the learned Counsel for the petitioner frankly admits that thereafter the posts have not been advertised therefore the petitioner could not file the application for appointment. In these circumstances, no cause of action arose for filing the contempt petition. The petitioner will be at liberty to move a fresh contempt petition in respect of other part of order dated 8th December, 2006, if not complied with.

In view of the above discussions, no case is made out for disobedience of the order of this Court and the contempt petition is dismissed. The notice of contempt stands discharged.