Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 892 (JHR)

Diwakar Prasad Mahto v. State of Jharkhand

2007-12-03

M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM

body2007
JUDGMENT M. Karpaga Vinayagam, J. 1. Diwakar Prasad Mahto has filed this contempt application for initiation of contempt proceedings against the opp. parties for non-compliance of the order dated 5.1.2000 passed in CWJC No. 7106/1998. 2. The petitioner and others, challenging the termination order from the post of case III and, IV, filed writ petition, being CWJC No. 7106/1998, on the ground that holding of their appointment to be illegal is not valid under law. Though the learned Single Judge in the writ petition observed that no relief could be granted, he gave liberty to the petitioners to produce their documents to show that they were issued interview letter, they attended interview and consequently their names were included in the panel and in that event, the authority concerned will recall the order of termination. The relevant portion of the order passed by the learned Single Judge is as follows: In the circumstances, while no relief can be granted at this stage, in the interest of justice, I give liberty to the petitioners to produce their relevant interview letters, if any before the District Education Officer, Sahibganj. If any such interview letter like memo No. 610 dated 23.07.1990 is produced before the D.E.O. Sahibganj, he will enquire from the office of Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj, as to whether such petitioners actually appeared in interview on the date fixed and whether names of such petitioners were recommanded for appointment against class-Ill & posts or not. On enquiry, if it is found that name of one or other petitioner was included in the panel and recommended for appointment against the post against which such petitioner was functioning made, in that case the D.E.O., Sahibganj, will recall the order of termination dated 27.07.1993 in respect of such petitioner. However, on such reinstatement said petitioner will not be entitled for arrears of salary though will get other benefits on such continuity. On the other hand, if it is found that one or other petitioner was not provided with interview letter, not appeared in the interview or his name was not empanelled or not recommended, then he will reject the claim and communicate the same to such petitioner. 3. Since this order is not complied with, the petitioner has filed this contempt application before this Court. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and for the opp. 3. Since this order is not complied with, the petitioner has filed this contempt application before this Court. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and for the opp. parties and also have gone through the show cause filed by the opp. parties. 5. According to the opp. parties, in compliance of the order dated 5.1.2000, he District Education Officer has already passed an order on 10.7.2002 rejecting the claim of the petitioners as they have not shown that their names were included in the panel and as such no contempt is made out. 6. However, the perusal of the order dated 10.7.2002 referred to above does not show that the order has been fully complied with in its true letter and spirit. The English translation of the relevant portion of the order dated 10.7.2002 is as follows: ...In view of the judgment, the then District Education Officer, palled the petitioners with the records on different dates. In course of enquiry, out of 11(eleven) petitioners 8(eight) petitioners submitted their joint representation before the then District Education Officer, in which it was stated that they preferred L.P.A No. 286/2000 against the order dated 5.1.2000 passed in CWJC No. 7106/1998 and therefore till the decision of the such LP.A the hearing of the said matter be stayed. In view of such representation for taking further steps, the then District Education Officer sought for necessary guidelines from the Director (Secondary Education), Bihar, Patna, by his letter No. 194 dated 5th May, 2000, which was not received as yet. Therefore, today i. e. 10.7.2002, this matter is being disposed of in the light of the order passed by the Hon'ble Court. The records concerning this matter was put up before the undersigned on 6.7.2000. By letter No. 410 dated 6.6.2002 issued by this Office, the petitioners were noticed to participate in the hearing. Out of 11 petitioners only 7 made their presence on 9.7.2002, the date fixed Except the two petitioner, namely, Shri Baijnath Tanti and Diwakar prasad Mahto, the other present petitioners stated that neither they received the interview letter, nor they participated in the interview. Therefore, there is no question of their name appearing in the panel and recommendation by the Selection Committee for their appointment. Therefore, there is no question of their name appearing in the panel and recommendation by the Selection Committee for their appointment. The rest two petitioners, Shri Tanti and Mahto, claimed of receiving the interview letter and participation in the interview, but they admitted that their name could not be included in the panel for appointment and their recommendation in this respect by the Collectorate to remain posted on the previous post were not based on the interview letter. In view of these facts, it is clear that the claim of Shir Tanti and Shri Mahto cannot be accepted on the basis of order of the Hon'ble High Court. On the admission by the other petitioners that they did not receive any interview letter, their claim of ' reinstatement is not acceptable. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, the claim of the petitioner of CWJC No. 7106/1998, Diwakar Prasad Mahto and Ors. v. State Government and Ors., for reinstatement in service is rejected.... 7. The above order would show that only on the basis of the statements made by some persons who appeared before the authority, conclusion has been arrived at that the name of the petitioner has not been included in the panel. Though in the firs show cause, it is stated that the petitioner did not appear, in the second show cause dated 27.11.2007, it is mentioned that the petitioner appeared before the authority and informed that though he received the interview letter, his name was not included in the panel. So the finding was given by the authority only on the basis of the alleged statement of the petitioner. The order dated 5.1.2000 passed by this Court would indicate that the District Education Officer, Sahibganj, was directed to enquire from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj, as to whether the petitioner actually appeared in the interview on the date fixed and whether his name was recommended for class - III post. 8. Admittedly this was not done; on the other hand, the order dated 10.7.2002 would indicate that there was no enquiry from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj, but the order is merely passed on the basis of the alleged statements given by some of the petitioners of the writ petition, as indicated above. 8. Admittedly this was not done; on the other hand, the order dated 10.7.2002 would indicate that there was no enquiry from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj, but the order is merely passed on the basis of the alleged statements given by some of the petitioners of the writ petition, as indicated above. In the order dated 10.7.2002, it is mentioned that "Out of 11 petitioners only 7 made their presence on 9.7.2002, the date fixed. Except the two petitioner, namely, Shri Baijnath Tanti and Diwakar Prasad Mahto, the other present petitioners stated that neither they received the interview letter, nor they participated in the interview". So there is no reference as to the other persons, i.e. Shri Baijnath Tanti and Diwakar Prasad Mahto, the present petitioner. When such is the case, there is no reason as to why the opp. parties have mentioned in the show cause that the petitioner himself admitted that his name was not included in the panel. Therefore, it is clear that opp. parties have not taken clear stand. 9. Under those circumstances, instead of taking action for contempt, it would be appropriate to direct the opp. party No. 3, District Education Officer, Sahibganj, to conduct enquiry again and make a verification of the records available in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj, and pass a fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner also, as directed by this Court in the order dated 5.1.2000. This exercise must be completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With this direction, this contempt application is disposed of.