Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 39 (UTT)

SAMBHAV SINGH ADHIKARI v. S. K. MAHESHWARI

2015-01-16

ALOK SINGH

body2015
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral) 1. Contempt Applicants preferred Writ Petition Nos. 3331 of 1997, 2584 of 1997 and 60 of 1997 before the Allahabad High Court which were transferred to this Court and re-numbered as Writ Petition No. 517 (S/S) of 2003, Writ Petition No. 2599 (S/S) of 2001 and Writ Petition No. 3956 (S/S) of 2001 respectively. Learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 29.05.2004, was pleased to dispose of all the three writ petitions, operative portion of which reads as under :- “Accordingly, I direct Joint Director of Education, Garhwal Mandal Pauri to look into the matter and in case any person, who has got less quality points than the petitioners and passed B.Ed./L.T. examination in the subsequent years then the petitioners, has been given appointment, the case of the petitioners shall also be considered by the respondents for providing them appointment on the post of Assistant Teachers in Junior Basic School in the District Pauri Garhwal. In view of the findings recorded above, writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.” 2. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 29.05.2004, passed by the learned Single Judge, State Government, preferred Special Appeal No. 86 of 2005, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 17.12.2005. Judgment dated 17.12.2005 reads as under:- “Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and having perused the impugned judgment and the materials placed on record, we do not find any valid reason to entertain this appeal. First of all, the appellants did not file any counter affidavit in the writ petition in spite of the several opportunities given by the court. Moreover, we do not find any illegality or injustice in the direction given by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment. There is no direction to appoint the petitioners as Assistant Teachers in Basic Schools. The only direction is that if any person who has got less quality points than the petitioners and has passed B. ED. /L.T. course in the subsequent years than the petitioners, has been appointed, the petitioners also should be considered by the respondents for providing them appointment as Assistant Teachers in Junior Basic Schools in the district Pauri Garhwal. If such person as mentioned by the learned Single Judge has been appointed, there is no justification for denying appointment to the writ petitioners also. If such person as mentioned by the learned Single Judge has been appointed, there is no justification for denying appointment to the writ petitioners also. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that all the writ petitioners belong to the general category and, therefore, their claim can be considered only with reference to the appointment given to persons in general category. There is no dispute about it and the impugned judgment does not direct the respondents to compare the qualifications or the quality points of the petitioners with those of persons belonging to reserved category.’ 2. Hence, the Special Appeal is dismissed.” 3. Thereafter, in compliance of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated 29.05.2004, State Government considered the case of the contempt applicants and vide order dated 4/5th March, 2005, Regional Joint Director of Education Garwal Mandal was pleased to terminate the services of 27 candidates who could secure lesser quality marks than the contempt applicants and did their B.Ed./L.T. after the contempt applicants saying their appointments were illegal. Order dated 4/5th March, 2005, passed by the Regional Joint Director of Education Garhwal was challenged by those 27 candidates, whose services were terminated, in Writ Petition No. 57 of 2007 (S/S). Writ Petition No. 57 of 2007 (S/S) was allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment and order dated 25.06.2010 and their termination order dated 4/5th March, 2005 was set aside. Judgment passed by the learned Single Judge dated 25.06.2010 was challenged by the State Government in Special Appeal No. 272 of 2012. Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 15.04.2013, was pleased to dismiss the Special Appeal No. 272 of 2012. Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 15.04.2013 has specifically mentioned that petitioners of Writ Petition No. 517 (S/S) of 2003 were to be accommodated within the available posts. 4. Learned counsel for the contempt applicants submitted that judgment passed in Writ Petition No. 517 (S/S) 2003 and connected writ petitions should be construed to mean that petitioners shall be given appointment in view of the fact that candidates securing less quality point marks were given appointment. 5. 4. Learned counsel for the contempt applicants submitted that judgment passed in Writ Petition No. 517 (S/S) 2003 and connected writ petitions should be construed to mean that petitioners shall be given appointment in view of the fact that candidates securing less quality point marks were given appointment. 5. Careful reading of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 17.12.2005 in Special Appeal No. 86 of 2005 would reveal that Division Bench of this Court has held that learned Single Judge never issued any direction to give appointment to the contempt applicants. The only direction of the learned Single Judge was to consider their cases for the appointment in view of the fact that candidates securing lesser quality points marks have already been given appointment. 6. Another Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 272 of 2012 decided on 15.04.2013 again interpreted the judgment dated 29.05.2004, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition filed by the contempt applicants that their cases should be considered only against the available post. 7. First of all, it is not pointed out by the contempt applicants that posts are still vacant against which applicants can be accommodated. Moreover, there was no direction in the judgment dated 29.05.2004 to give appointment to the contempt applicants and only direction was to consider their cases for the appointment. 8. In compliance of judgment dated 29.05.2004, their cases were considered and with object to accommodate them, services of 27 candidates securing lesser quality points were terminated. However, their termination was set aside in Writ Petition No. 57 of 2007 (S/S). Since, case of the applicants has already been considered and there was no direction to give appointment positively, no contempt seems to have been made out. 9. This is settled position of law that contempt Court cannot go behind the judgment nor can modify the judgment nor can omit and add something in the judgment. 10. In view of the discussion made hereinbefore, contempt notices issues earlier are liable to be discharged. Both the contempt applications are dismissed. Contempt notices issued earlier also stand discharged.