Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 484 (JK)

Usha Devi v. C. Phunsog

2010-08-31

J.P.Singh

body2010
1. Complaining willful disobedience of the directions issued on their Writ Petition SWP No. 2956/2002, the petitioners have moved Motion for initiation of Contempt of Court Proceedings against the respondents. 2. The petitioners’ Writ Petition was allowed on 28.02.2007 directing them to appear before the respondents on July 02, 2007 for Typing Test and if found to have qualified, the respondents were required to issue them appointment letters. 3. The petitioners’ Complaint is that they had approached the respondents number of times but no test, in terms of the directions of the Court, was conducted by them. 4. The respondents have denied the allegations appearing in the Complaint saying that the petitioners had not approached them for their typing test. Referring to Paragraph No.3 of the Notice, stated to have been issued by the petitioners, it is urged that the petitioners had approached the Secretary, Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board, Jammu rather than respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and the Complaint was thus misconceived. 5. According to the respondents, the Board had responded to the petitioners’ Notice informing them that they had forfeited their claim for taking the Test, in not approaching respondent Nos. 1 & 2 on the date on which they had been directed by the Court to appear for the test. They have, however, stated that they would not be averse to arrange for a Type Test for the petitioners, if the Court so directed. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 7. The petitioners have not indicated in their Complaint that they had approached respondent Nos. 1 & 2 on the date on which they had to appear before them for the Test in terms of the directions of the Court. They appear to have misconstrued the directions of the Court in approaching the Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board rather than respondent Nos. 1 & 2 for their Test. 8. I, therefore, do not find any case to have been made out by the petitioners justifying their Complaint, for, they appear to have suffered not because of any lapse of the respondents but because of their own lapse in misconstruing the directions of the Court. 9. Thus found without merit, the petitioners’ Motion for proceeding against the respondents is rejected. 10. 9. Thus found without merit, the petitioners’ Motion for proceeding against the respondents is rejected. 10. However, in the circumstances, Commissioner/Secretary to Government, General Administration Department, Srinagar is directed to conduct the petitioners’ Typing Test and inform them accordingly the date fixed for the purpose to comply with the directions issued in the petitioners’ Writ Petition SWP No. 2956/2002.