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
16 paragraphs · 305 wordsManoj Kumar Tiwari, J
Petitioner had questioned the condition of registration with Employment Exchange within State of Uttarakhand for purposes of employment under
the State. The said writ petition filed by her was allowed by Writ Court vide order dated 13.02.2017 and the following order was passed:
“4. In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds. A mandamus is issued to the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner according to her
marks obtained in the selection. It is, however, made clear that in case any candidate has already been given appointment in a particular district and a
particular school, this order will not affect his or her candidature and the posting of the petitioner be made elsewhere.â€
Alleging disobedience of the said order, petitioners have filed this Contempt Petition.
Learned Deputy Advocate General submits that State of Uttarakhand had challenged the judgment rendered by Writ Court by filing Special Appeal
No. 547 of 2017 and the said Special Appeal of the State was allowed by Division Bench of this Court and the order passed by Writ Court was
modified and it was provided that the case of the writ petitioner shall be considered by the authorities, in accordance with her merit, without insisting
on compliance with the condition that she should have a valid registration with the employment exchange. The order dated 14.05.2019 passed by
Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 547 of 2017 is produced in Court today, which is taken on record.
Since the order passed by Writ Court was modified in Special Appeal, therefore, in the humble opinion of this Court, this is not a case of willful
disobedience of the order passed by Writ Court.
Accordingly, the Contempt Petition is closed.
Contempt notices issued to the respondents are hereby discharged.
