Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 237 (MAD)

V. Fancy Selvarani v. K. Nagarajan

2015-01-19

K.RAVICHANDRA BAABU

body2015
Judgment 1. This contempt petition is filed complaining that the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.3315 of 2010 dated 11.12.2013 has been disobeyed. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that this Court while disposing of the above writ petition, directed the District Elementary Educational Officer, Tuticorin District, Tuticorin, to consider the petitioner's representation in the light of the documents produced by her and in the light of the procedure laid down in Rule 49(A)(2) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Services Rules and however, the third respondent has passed the order on 18.12.2014 rejecting the claim of the petitioner seeking for alteration of the date of birth by stating that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief, as Rule 49(A)(2) is not applicable to her case. Thus, he submitted that such reasoning stated in the order dated 18.12.2014 is against the direction issued by this Court and therefore, the third respondent has committed an act of contempt of Court. 3. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent/contemnor submitted that the order of this Court has been complied with by passing the order, dated 18.12.2014, and if the petitioner is having any grievance against such order, she has to challenge the same in a manner known to law and therefore, no contempt is committed as contended by the petitioner. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court. 5. It is true that this Court, while disposing of the above writ petition, directed the contemnor herein to consider the petitioner's representation dated 03.03.2010 and 07.03.2010 in the light of the documents produced by her and in the light of the Rule 49(A)(2) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules. Further perusal of the order would show that this Court has also specifically directed the contemnor to decide the issue relating to the alteration of date of birth of the petitioner, in accordance with law and to sanction appropriate relief, if any, to the petitioner. 6. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when this Court has directed to consider the representation of the petitioner in the light of Rule 49(A)(2) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, the respondent is not entitled to contend that such Rule is not applicable to the petitioner. 7. 6. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when this Court has directed to consider the representation of the petitioner in the light of Rule 49(A)(2) of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, the respondent is not entitled to contend that such Rule is not applicable to the petitioner. 7. I am unable to appreciate the said submissions for the simple reason that this Court has only directed the respondent to consider the representation in the light of Rule 49(A)(2) of the said Rule and further observed that the respondent has to decide the issue in accordance with law. While considering the representation of the petitioner in the light of Rule 49(A)(2) of the said Rules, the respondent has found that the said Rule is not applicable to the case of the petitioner by considering the facts and circumstances of the present case. Whether the such reason is correct or not is a matter for fresh consideration as this Court has not specifically directed the respondent to apply the said Rule and pass the orders on the representations of the petitioner. Even otherwise, as the order passed by this Court is having a possibility of interpretation in two ways, this Court is of the view that no contempt is made out and if at all the petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated 18.12.2014 it is for her to challenge the same in a manner known to law. 8. Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the said proceedings in a manner known to law. No costs.