Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 298 (MP)

ARPANA DIXIT v. M M UPADHYAY

2009-03-04

DIPAK MISRA, R.K.GUPTA

body2009
Judgment ( 1. ) THE present application for contempt has been moved by the petitioners alleging disobedience of the order passed by this Honble Court in W. P. No. 7793/06 (s) and other connected matters decided on 17. 07. 2007 whereby the division Bench of this Court has held as under:- " (a) The factual matrix does not make out a case for cancellation of selection process. (b) The Scrutiny Committee which had found certain irregularities they really do not vitiate the selection process, more so, when the selection process in all streams has not been challenged. (c) Though a statement was made at the earliest point of time to cancel the selection and selection was cancelled in respect of four streams and nobody was appointed, yet no steps were taken for a period of five years in respect of 17 streams and the employees have already rendered 8 years service and in the mean time most of them might have become overage, also weighs against cancellation. (d) There has been no fraudulent practice, and no such irregularities have been committed which would warrant cancellation of appointments at this juncture as the irregularities do not go the root of the matter. (e) The main ground for cancellation is allotment of extra marks for experience to some who did not deserve. The doctrine of weeding out should not be taken recourse to at this juncture regard being had to the irregularities that has been noticed above. (f) The principle of parity can be evolved to solve the entire issue by granting 35 (thirty five)marks to the candidates who are before this court challenging the selection. Be it clarified, the said marks would include the marks already granted. After such addition of the marks, if the candidates get equal to that of the last selected candidate in the same stream, they would be conferred the benefit of appointment. (g) In view of the aforesaid show cause notices issued for cancellation of selection stand quashed. (h) No candidate who had not approached the Court earlier in quite promptitude, would not entitled to the said benefit as we have so held in W. A. No. 135/2006. To elaborate the benefits that have been extended would stand restricted and constricted to the petitioners who are parties to the present set of litigations. " ( 2. (h) No candidate who had not approached the Court earlier in quite promptitude, would not entitled to the said benefit as we have so held in W. A. No. 135/2006. To elaborate the benefits that have been extended would stand restricted and constricted to the petitioners who are parties to the present set of litigations. " ( 2. ) IN para 32 of the said order, this Court had also considered that out of 21 streams, four streams namely steno-typing, Office Management, Garment Marketing and computer Application are not to be considered as that controversy has been put to rest by the tribunal and by the writ petitions arising out of the order of the tribunal. The court also considered in para 32 that selection in respect of the said trade was already cancelled and no one had been appointed. According to the order passed by this Court, the same controversy need not to be reverted to as it could not be allowed to rise like a phoenix. ( 3. ) THE present applicants those who are alleging for non compliance of the order passed by this Court for not giving the appointment are belonging to the category of 21 streams such as Steno-typing, Office Management, Garment marketing and Computer Application. This Court has held that the tribunal has already recorded a finding that their selection was cancelled and no one has been appointed. ( 4. ) ON the basis of the same, it is clear that whole of the order passed by this Court of which the disobedience is complained of relates to other 17 streams but does not relates to 21 streams of which the present applicants belong. Para 32 of the aforesaid order reads as under:- "the present factual matrix has to be tested on the anvil and touchstone of the aforesaid enunciations of law. It is apposite to state here that out of 21 streams, four streams namely Steno-typing, Office Management, garment Marketing and Computer Application are not to be considered as that controversy has been put to rest by the tribunal and by the writ petitions arising out of the order of the tribunal. Quite apart from the above, selection in respect of the same trade was already cancelled and no one had been appointed. The same controversy need not to be reverted to as it could not be allowed to rise like a phoenix. Quite apart from the above, selection in respect of the same trade was already cancelled and no one had been appointed. The same controversy need not to be reverted to as it could not be allowed to rise like a phoenix. " ( 5. ) IT is contended that some other persons have been given the benefit of the order. It is true that in para 33 of the said order, 17 streams were considered but not the other streams. Para 32 and 33 of the order itself speaks of the circumstances as explained hereinabove. ( 6. ) SINCE the present applicants belong to 21 streams covered by para 32 of the order passed, therefore, we find no case to proceed with the matter under the contempt and accordingly the present application for contempt stands dismissed.