Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1490 (JHR)

Madhulika Bakhla v. Managing Committee, St. Margaret Girl's High School, Church Road, Ranchi & Ors.

2009-11-23

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2009
Order This application has. been filed by the petitioner for initiation 0& a proceeding for contempt against the opposite parties for deliberate disobedience of the Order dated 20th August, 2008., passed by Jharkhand Education Tribunal in Case No. 37/2008 (JET). 2. As it appears that the petitioner approached the Jharkhand Education Tribunal, Ranchi for quashing the Order contained in Memo No. 42/08 dated 11.2.2008 of the Managing Committee of St. Margaret Girl's High School, Church. Road, Ranchi awarding certain punishment to her. 3. The Tribunal, ,by its order dated 20.8.2008, contained in Annexure-5 to this writ petition, quashed the aforesaid impugned order dated 11.2.2008, passed by the Managing Committee, St. Margaret Girl's High School, Church Road, Ranchi and directed the opposite parties to reappoint the petitioner on her original post within a period of two months. 4. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an Execution Case No. 13/2008 before the aforesaid Tribunal "for execution and implementation of order dated 20.8.2008 but as it appears from Annexure-1 i.e. the order dated 11.7.2009, that the petitioner, withdrew the said Execution Case with a liberty to file Contempt Application before Court and, thereafter, filed this application for initiating a proceeding for contempt of court against the Managing Committee of the School for not implementing the order passed by the Education Tribunal. 5. Jharkhand Education Tribunal has come into being under the Jharkhand Education Tribunal Act, 2005 for looking into the grievances of the teachers of aided, affiliated and Private Educational Institutions and that of the parents/guardians of the students studying therein. 6. Section 22 of the Jharkhand Education Tribunal Act speaks about execution of Orders/Judgment. For ready reference, the same is quoted hereinbelow:- "22. Execution of Orders/Judgments.-(a) The tribunal shall, be deemed to be a Court within the meaning of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. (b) have all the powers under Civil Procedure Code for executing any of its orders/direction and judgments." 7. In view of Sec. 22 of the Act, the Education Tribunal is a Court within the meaning of Contempt of Courts Act and it has got all powers under the Code of Civil Procedure for executing any of its orders/directions and/or Judgments. Section 15 of the aforesaid Act provides appeal against the orders/directions/judgments passed by the Tribunal before this Court. 8. Section 15 of the aforesaid Act provides appeal against the orders/directions/judgments passed by the Tribunal before this Court. 8. The Orders/Judgments passed by the Jharkhand Education Tribunal has a force of Decree and the Tribunal enjoys all the powers under the Code of Civil Procedure for executing any of its orders/directions/judgments as envisaged under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure. 9. For executing a Decree of a Civil Court, the remedy lies under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure and not under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. There. fore this application for initiating a proceeding for contempt of court is nothing but a shortcut method adopted by the petitioner for execution of the decree, passed by the Tribunal. When specific statutory remedy is available to the petitioner for redressal of her grievance then, in my view, this application filed by the petitioner for initiating proceedings for Contempt of Court against the opposite parties is held to be not maintainable. If for executing a decree of any court, any such application like the present one is entertained then it would make the provision of Order XXI C.P.C. to be redundant and meaningless. Apart from it, when Jharkhand Education Tribunal has been deemed to be a Court within a meaning of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 then for any willful disobedience and violation of any order/direction of it, the Tribunal, is competent enough to deal with the prayer of the' petitioner in accordance with law. 10. Accordingly, this application is hereby dismissed. However, the petitioner, if so advised, may approach appropriate forum for appropriate relief.