Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1348 (MP)

VIVEK VALENKAR v. ARVIND JOSHI

2009-12-04

DIPAK MISRA, R.C.MISHRA

body2009
Judgment R.C.Mishra, J. ( 1. ) This is the successive petition, under Article 215 of the " Constitution of India read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, committing the respondents for contempt of Court due to non-compliance with the relevant directions contained in a common order-dated 02/02/2006 (hereinafter referred to as the main order) passed by a Division Bench of this Court comprising one of us (Dipak Misra, J) to decide various interlinked Writ Petitions including the one filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh and numbered as W.P. No.7176/ 02. The previous one, registered as Contempt Petition No.2078/2006, was dismissed vide order-dated 15/5/2007 in the light of the finding that whatever was required to be done at the instance of respondent nos.1 and 2 had already been done. ( 2. ) The relevant directions contained in sub-para(v) and (vi) of paragraph 8 of the main order may be reproduced as under - (v) As th direction given by the Tribunal to draw a different kind of merit list has been quashed by us, the select list prepared by the PSC on 10.7.1984 would prevail and seniority list of these candidates shall be drawn accordingly treating them as valid appointees" (vi) Any candidate selected by the PSC by virtue of the select list prepared on 10.7.84 cannot be deprived of the benefit because there was a further order regularizing his services as the matter was subject to final order passed in the controversy in question. ( 3. ) Admittedly, the SLP preferred by Dashrath Singh against the main order and the order-dated 04.08.2006 passed in MCC No.883/2006 (supra) has been dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order-dated 27.11.2006 passed in SLP (Civil) No.8869/ 2006. ( 4. ) The grievance of the petitioner, in substance, is that even though he has been declared as one of the valid appointees selected by the Public Service Commission yet, in the seniority list published by the respondent no. 3 on the website, he has been shown as an ad hoc appointee despite the fact that he is a regular appointee, whose name was reflected at Serial No.331 in the select list prepared by the Commission on 10/07/1984. According to him, the respondent nos.3 and 4 have not been able to finalize the seniority list of the employees allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh. ( 5. According to him, the respondent nos.3 and 4 have not been able to finalize the seniority list of the employees allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh. ( 5. ) In reply, the respondent no.3 has submitted that in pursuance of the main order, a seniority list of Assistant Engineers (Civil) working as on 31.10.2000 in the Chhattisgarh Water Resources Department has been published on 23.01.2008. He has further pointed out that at Serial No.286 in the list, the petitioner has been shown as an ad hoc employee in accordance with the corresponding entry of seniority list of Assistant Engineers (Civil) as on 31.10.2000 issued by State of -M.P. on 08/05/2007. ( 6. ) The respondent nos.1 and 2, while asserting that the main order has not been violated in any manner whatsoever, have adopted; the reply filed on their behalf in connected Contempt Petition No. 1278/2007 moved by Pramod Kumar Barun. ( 7. ) Not being satisfied with the explanations furnished by the respondents, the petitioner has submitted a rejoinder wherein he has emphasized that by virtue of the direction contained in sub-para (vi) [above], he is entitled to get his services regularized and also to the consequential benefits. ( 8. ) As observed by Rankin C. J., in Anantalal Singh v. Alfred Henry Watson. AIR 1931 Cal 257, the jurisdiction in contempt is not to be invoked unless there is real prejudice which, can be regarded as a substantial interference with the due course of justice and that Hie purpose of the Courts actios is a practical purpose and it is reasonably clear on the authorities that the Court will not exercise its jurisdiction upon a mere question of propriety. Accordingly, even if it is assumed that the respective actions attributed to the respondents suffer from any inadvertence or impropriety, it would not be possible to hold anyone of them guilty of contempt of the Court. ( 9. ) In this view of the matter, the petition stands dismissed with the observation that the petitioner shall be at liberty to challenge the legality and propriety of the action of respondent nos.1 and 2 of treating him as an ad hoc appointee by filing a Writ Petition before this Court. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.