Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 394 (MP)

Sanjay Kumar Khare v. Rewa Ram Gangarekar

2000-04-11

S.K.KULSHRESTHA

body2000
1. This Contempt Petition has been filed on the ground that the Respondents have disobeyed the direction contained in the order dated 22.04.1999, Ajay Tiwari and Others vs. State of M.P. and Others and the connected petitions. The petitioner was one of the petitioners in the said case whose selection and appointment as Shiksha Karmi Grade III had been set aside by the Collector and the Prescribed Authority, Panna in an appeal filed against the same under Rule 12 of the M.P. Panchayats Shiksha Karmis (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1997. The said appellate order of the Collector was challenged in various Writ Petitions and by order dated 22.4.1999 passed in W.P. No. 4761 of 1998 while dismissing the petitions challenging the appellate order passed by the Collector, the following directions were issued in view of the claim in the connected petition W.P. No. 5305/1998, Vikramadiva Singh and Another vs. State of M.P. and Others:- "19. In the result, while dismissing petitions, other than petition W.P. No. 5305/1998, it is directed that the Respondent No. 3 shall now expeditiously proceed to make selection of the candidates in accordance with the rules, on the basis of the applications received against the posts advertised and pending such selection, the petitioners, who have continued on their posts under the stay order passed by this Court, shall continue if otherwise not disentitled and the services of such of them as are not selected in the fresh process of selection, shall stand terminated from the date the list of selected candidates is prepared as per rule 5(9)(ii) of the Shiksha Karmis Rules. The petitioners shall be entitled to salary for the period for which they have worked before and after the date of the impugned order. The petition W.P. No. 5305/1998 is allowed and the Respondent No. 3 is directed to make selection as aforesaid as expeditiously as possible. There shall be no order as to costs." 2. The crux of the grievance of the petitioner is that although the direction was clear that the respondents were required to proceed with the selection afresh on the basis of the applications already received, the respondents published Advertisement Annexure A-2 inviting applications against the very posts in patent disobedience of the said direction and they have, therefore, committed contempt of this Court and for which they should be punished. 3. 3. The respondent No. 4 has filed reply in which he has pointed out that in the Writ Petition No. 4715/1999, Kunj Bihari Garg vs. State of M.P. and Others challenging the said advertisement on the same grounds, a detailed reply has been filed in which it has duly been pointed out that the direction if read in its proper perspective, required the respondents to initiate the process afresh. It has specifically been pointed out that since the appellate order passed by the Collector had been confirmed, the direction for proceeding with the recruitment afresh clearly meant that the posts should be advertised and applications called for filling up the vacancies. It has also been pointed out that it was duly clarified that the applications received already in response to the earlier advertisement shall also be considered along with the fresh applications. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 has pointed out that since it was stated in the direction that the selection was to be made on the basis of the applications received against posts advertised, it was understood as meaning that posts were required to be advertised to receive such applications. Learned counsel has pointed out that advertisement Annexure A-2 was issued on the basis of the understanding of the respondents with regard to the action required to be taken by them in obedience of the order passed by this Court and even if it is held that the respondents had proceeded on a wrong notion, since the respondent No. 4 who has issued the advertisement has tendered unconditional apology, the same deserves to be accepted in the interest of justice. 5. While it is true that the direction of this Court in Ajay Tiwari's case (supra) did not leave any room for speculation as to the action required to be taken and it has further been clarified now in order delivered today in W.P. No. 4715/1999, Kunj Bihari Garg vs. State of M.P. and Others, still it does not appear, that there was any wilful disobedience on the part of the respondents. It appears more a case where in some confusion the respondents harboured erroneous impression that they were required to call the applications afresh. It appears more a case where in some confusion the respondents harboured erroneous impression that they were required to call the applications afresh. Since the disobedience alleged by the petitioner has not been shown to be wilful and the respondent No. 4 has duly explained as to why the said advertisement was issued, the respondents cannot be held guilty of committing contempt of this Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed and the notice issued against the respondents is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.