Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 452 (HP)

Chetan Verma v. Manisha Nanda

2014-04-24

SANJAY KAROL

body2014
Judgment : Sanjay Karol, J (oral) Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, I am of the considered view that it is not a case of willful and deliberate disobedience of the judgment dated 28.07.2011 passed by this Court. 2. Petitioner filed CWP No.3460 of 2011, titled as Chetan Verma Versus State of H.P. & others, which was disposed of by this Court with the following directions:- “2. Petitioner has worked as a Section Officer. No departmental proceedings/inquiry is pending against him. It appears that he has been discharging his duties to the satisfaction of the employer. For the post of Under Secretary, being the next higher promotional post, his case was not considered by the DPC for the reason that he did not qualify the departmental examination in the subject of Hindi. From Annexure P-3, it is evident that his case for promotion was processed initially but was subsequently withdrawn by the Section Officer and not the higher authorities. Further, the Himachal Pradesh Departmental Examination Rules, 1997 clearly provide that an officer who has qualified the departmental examination in whole or in part, prescribed under any other rules shall not be required to qualify the whole or in part of the examination, as the case may be. In the instant case, DPC was to be held on 23.12.2010. From Annexure P-3, it is also apparent that prior to the said date, the department was fully aware that officers, including the petitioner, had qualified the departmental examination and as such his case ought to have been considered by the Committee in its meeting to be held on 23.12.2010. An officer at a junior level could not have over ruled the decision taken by a superior officer and withdrawn the proposal. 3. In this view of the matter, petition needs to be allowed. Respondent No.2 is directed to conduct a review DPC for consideration of the petitioner’s case for promotion to the post of Under Secretary in accordance with law. The review DPC shall take into account that fact that person(s) junior to the petitioner stands promoted. Necessary and consequential action shall be taken within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.” 3. On 24.09.2011, respondents convened a review DPC, considered the petitioner’s case for the vacancies which arose on different dates. Necessary and consequential action shall be taken within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.” 3. On 24.09.2011, respondents convened a review DPC, considered the petitioner’s case for the vacancies which arose on different dates. Petitioner was not found eligible for promotion. Quite apparently there was error with the same. Hence, on 03.07.2012, another meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee was convened and on the basis of comparative assessment of merit, appropriate action taken, in accordance with law. Thus respondents have fully complied with the judgment passed by this Court. 4. Mr. Bipin C. Negi, learned counsel for the petitioner, invites my attention to the fact that cases of similarly situated persons, who were otherwise ineligible, were considered and orders of promotion issued, whereas petitioner was deliberately left out. Noticeably respondents rectified such mistake. 5. Still, petitioner seeks parity with respect to such persons whose cases now stand recommended. In support, learned counsel refers to and relies upon the decisions rendered by the apex Court in Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla and another Versus Hind Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd., (1997) 3 SCC 443 and Prithawi Nath Ram Versus State of Jharkhand and others, (2004) 7 SCC 261 . 6. There is no doubt that none can be allowed to flout orders passed by the Court. Dignity, majesty and authority of the Court cannot be allowed to be subverted under any circumstances as has been held by the apex Court. But then the question is as to whether there is willful non-compliance or violation of the order passed by this Court. 7. Significantly, the apex Court in Sudhir Vasudeva, Chairman and Managing Director, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited and others Versus M. George Ravishekaran and others, (2014) 3 SCC 373 , has held as under:- “19. The power vested in the High Courts as well as this Court to punish for contempt is a special and rare power available both under the Constitution as well as the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is a drastic power which, if misdirected, could even curb the liberty of the individual charged with commission of contempt. The very nature of the power casts a sacred duty in the Courts to exercise the same with the greatest of care and caution. It is a drastic power which, if misdirected, could even curb the liberty of the individual charged with commission of contempt. The very nature of the power casts a sacred duty in the Courts to exercise the same with the greatest of care and caution. This is also necessary as, more often than not, adjudication of a contempt plea involves a process of self-determination of the sweep, meaning and effect of the order in respect of which disobedience is alleged. The Courts must not, therefore, travel beyond the four corners of the order which is alleged to have been flouted or enter into questions that have not been dealt with or decided in the judgment or the order violation of which is alleged. Only such directions which are explicit in a judgment or order or are plainly self-evident ought to be taken into account for the purpose of consideration as to whether there has been any disobedience or willful violation of the same. Decided issues cannot be reopened; nor can the plea of equities be considered. The Courts must also ensure that while considering a contempt plea the power available to the Court in other corrective jurisdictions like review of appeal is not trenched upon. No order or direction supplemental to what has been already expressed should be issued by the Court while exercising jurisdiction in the domain of the contempt law; such an exercise is more appropriate in other jurisdictions vested in the Court, as noticed above. The above principles would appear to be cumulative outcome of the precedents cited at the Bar, namely, Jhareswar Prasad Paul Versus Tarak Nath Ganguly, (2002) 5 SCC 352 , V.M. Manohar Prasad Versus N. Ratnamo Raju, (2004) 13 SCC 610 , Bihar Finance Service House Construction Coop. Society Ltd. Versus Gautam Goswami, (2008) 5 SCC 339 and Union of India Versus Subedar Devassy PV, (2006) 1 SCC 613 . 8. In the instant fact situation, what is significant is that petitioner was ineligible for being considered for the vacancy which was considered by the Committee, in its meeting held on 24.09.2011. Petitioner could not have been considered for promotion, considering the fact that another person senior to him was in queue whose case required consideration first. 9. As such no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing the present proceedings. Notice stands discharged. Petition is disposed of accordingly. Petitioner could not have been considered for promotion, considering the fact that another person senior to him was in queue whose case required consideration first. 9. As such no fruitful purpose would be served by continuing the present proceedings. Notice stands discharged. Petition is disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s) if any, also stand disposed of.