Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 300 (JK)

Sumeet Sharma v. S. S. Kapoor

2010-05-19

J.P.SINGH

body2010
1. Complaining disobedience of the directions issued in Writ Petition OWP No. 421/1998, whereby judgment delivered in LPA No. 63/1998 was ordered to govern the dispute raised in the Writ Petition with regard to the selection of Junior Engineers (Civil) Grade-II and SRO 180 of 1997 dated 26.05.1997, by Mr. Vijay Bakaya, the then Chief Secretary of the State, Dr. R.K.Jerath, the then Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Public Works Department and Mr. K.M.Wani, the then Chairman Subordinate Services Recruitment Board, the petitioner filed Contempt (LPA) No.25/2005 seeking initiation of proceedings in Contempt against the functionaries aforementioned of the State Government. 2. During the pendency of the Motion, he filed yet another Petition Contempt (LPA) No.01/2007 seeking initiation of proceedings against Mr. C.Phunsog and Mr. Atul Dullu, who, by then had taken over as Chief Secretary and Commissioner/ Secretary to Government in the Public Works Department of the State respectively. 3. During the pendency of the above mentioned two Motions, those functionaries of the State Government, who succeeded the above named persons, were impleaded as party respondents to the Motion, on the ground that they too had disobeyed the directions of the Court. 4. The petitioners Complaint, in the above two Motions, in a nut-shell, is that the State functionaries had failed to draw the Merit List of candidates who had participated in the selection process for the post of Junior Engineers (Civil) Grade-II, in terms of the directions of the Court applying the provisions of SRO 180 of 1997 minus Note 3 appended thereto, which stood quashed by the Court. 5. After going through the Statement of facts filed by the official respondents, it was, prima facie, found that M/s B.L.Nimesh and Shalinder Kumar, the Commissioners/ Secretaries to Government in the R&B Department had failed to take requisite steps to ensure compliance of the judgment passed by the Court. 6. They were accordingly called upon to show cause as to why proceedings be not initiated against them for disobedience of the directions of the Court issued in the petitioners Writ Petition. 7. A copy of the order passed in this respect on 06.07.2009 was sent to the Chief Secretary of the State to see that requisite steps were taken by the State Government and its functionaries ensuring meaningful compliance of the directions of the Court. 8. 7. A copy of the order passed in this respect on 06.07.2009 was sent to the Chief Secretary of the State to see that requisite steps were taken by the State Government and its functionaries ensuring meaningful compliance of the directions of the Court. 8. M/s B.L.Nimesh and Shalinder Kumar have denied disobedience of the directions saying that being responsible Government Servants, they have highest regards for the judiciary and had always taken the directions of the Court in right earnest for compliance. The Chief Secretary of the State has filed the Compliance Report. 9. His Report gives a detailed account of the efforts made by him to get the Merit List re-drawn by the Services Selection Board in terms of the directions issued in the petitioners case, on the basis of the law laid-down by the Court in LPA No. 63/1998. 10. It is indicated in the Report that on re-drawal of the Merit List ignoring the ratio of 1:3 as indicated in Note 3 to SRO 180 of 1997, which stood quashed by the Court, the last candidate selected in the Open Merit Category would secure 61.06 points whereas the petitioner had obtained 61.00 points. The petitioner accordingly figured at Serial No. 03 of the Waiting List of the Degree Holders. The last selected candidate in the Open Merit Category amongst the Degree Holders obtained 61.22 points whereas the last selected candidate amongst the Diploma Holders would secure 60.74 points. 11. In view of the petitioners merit position, as indicated in the Compliance Report, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that two out of the three Degree Holders who were found possessing merit higher than the petitioner in the re-drawn Merit List, were not entitled to be appointed as Junior Engineers for their ineligibility and in the absence of any specific Court order directing their appointment as such. By perpetuating their appointment, the respondents had committed Contempt of the Court for which they were required to be punished, says the learned counsel. 12. I have considered the submissions of Mr. By perpetuating their appointment, the respondents had committed Contempt of the Court for which they were required to be punished, says the learned counsel. 12. I have considered the submissions of Mr. Sethi and find that the issue sought to be projected by the petitioner questioning the appointment of two persons who, according to him, were ineligible for such appointment, is foreign to the scope of these proceedings where the limited question that falls for consideration is as to whether the respondents had committed any willful disobedience of the directions issued in the petitioners Writ Petition. 13. The Merit List of those, who had participated in the selection process, having been re-drawn, in terms of SRO 180 of 1997, without taking into consideration Note 3, which stood quashed by the Court, the directions issued in the petitioners Writ Petition stands complied with. 14. The Chief Secretary of the State has thus ensured meaningful compliance of the directions issued in the petitioners Writ Petition, which he was required so to do vide this Courts Order dated 06.07.2009. 15. In view of the steps taken by the Chief Secretary in reporting compliance of the judgment delivered in the petitioners Writ Petition, the initial lapse of the functionaries of the State in not complying with the directions of the Court with promptitude needs to be pardoned, in the circumstances of the case. 16. These Contempt Petitions do not, therefore, survive for further proceedings and are, accordingly, dismissed. Rule issued is withdrawn.