Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1044 (CAL)

Hafizur Rahaman Shaikh v. Jiban Krishna Bairagi

2016-12-20

C.S.KARNAN

body2016
C. S. Karnan, J.: The short facts of the case are as follows:- 1. The petitioners had filed a Writ Petition bearing W.P.No.8852 (W) of 2011 against the respondents herein claiming employment to the post of Primary School Teacher on the basis of the written test held on 20.12.2009 and to regulate the appointment on the basis of the written test held on 20.12.2009, the appointment on the basis of the merit list as in the said panel without making any discrimination among the exempted category of candidates. 2. The same was resisted by the respondents. After contest, this Court directed the Chairman of the District Primary School Council to consider the matter upon providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners within six (6) weeks from the date of communication of this Court order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition was disposed of on 19.01.2015. 3. The same was not considered by the Chairman of the District Primary School Council within a specified period. Hence, the petitioners namely Hafizur Rahaman Shaikh and others and Apurba Chakraborty and others have filed contempt applications viz W.P.C.R.C. 98 (W) of 2016 and others and W.P.C.R.C. 99(W) of 2016 respectively against Jiban Krishna Bairagi and others. This Court had issued notices to the respondents/contemnors, the same was duly served on them. On behalf of the contemnors, the learned counsel appeared and argued the case without filing any affidavit in opposition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the respondents wilfully and deliberately violated this Court’s order dated 19.01.2015 passed in W.P.No.8852 (W) of 2011. The learned counsel further submitted that as per the direction of this Court the respondents have not decided the issue/matter, as such the respondents have disobeyed this Court order, consequently creating disrespect, as such they have jointly committed contempt of Court. Hence, the learned Counsel requests this Court to convict the contemnors through imprisonment. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the District Counsel submits that the Chairman of the District Counsel had already submitted papers for approval by the Commissioner of School Education and the matter is pending before the Commissioner. 6. Hence, the learned Counsel requests this Court to convict the contemnors through imprisonment. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the District Counsel submits that the Chairman of the District Counsel had already submitted papers for approval by the Commissioner of School Education and the matter is pending before the Commissioner. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, this Court is of the view that this Hon’ble Court had disposed of the above writ petition on 19.01.2015 with a direction to the Chairman to consider the petitioners’ matter upon providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners within six (6) week time from the date of receiving communication of this Court order, thereafter communicate the respondents order to the petitioners within two (2) weeks’ time. The same has not been complied with. As such both the respondents namely the Commissioner of Education and the Chairman of the District Primary School Council have committed contempt of Court. Therefore, this Court commits the contemnors to the prison for a period of one (1) week with simple imprisonment (SI) forthwith. The Registry is to take necessary steps to execute the order, after observing necessary formalities. Accordingly the above two (2) contempt applications are disposed of. 7. Urgent Xerox certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the learned advocates appearing for the parties.