Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2494 (RAJ)

Monu Kumari v. State of Rajasthan

2019-09-17

ARUN BHANSALI

body2019
ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. 1. This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 01.10.2018 passed by this Court in SBCWP No. 15224/2018. 2. While deciding SBCWP No. 15224/2018, this Court while accepting the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties that the issue raised in the petition was covered by the judgment in the case of Heera Lal Jat v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : SBCWP No. 11070/2018, decided on 01.08.2018, directed as under:- "In view of the above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed with the similar direction as given in the case of Heera Lal Jat (supra) with the additional stipulation that the above relief would be applicable only if the vacancies are available." 3. The relevant part of judgment in the case of Heera Lal Jat (supra), which was relied on while passing the order dated 01.10.2018, reads as under:- 5. In light of the aforesaid the present writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of LDC in pursuance of advertisement of the year 2013 while treating him to be having a valid qualification of Computer Application obtained in Graduation and provide him appointment on the post of LDC if he is otherwise eligible and meritorious within a period of 60 days from today." 4. The petitioner pursuant to the order, approached the respondents, however, the respondents did not pass any order and therefore, the present contempt petition has been filed. 5. A reply to the contempt petition has been filed by the respondents, inter-alia, indicating that the petitioner had applied in the category of 'divorcee', however, neither at the time of filing of the application i.e. on 18.03.2013 nor on the date of verification of documents, the petitioner had decree of divorce in her favour, inasmuch as, the decree was passed on 09.09.2013 and therefore, the application filed by the petitioner in the category of 'divorcee' had already been rejected on 31.05.2013. The documents in this regard have also been placed on record as Annexure-C/R/1 to Annexure-C/R/3. 6. The documents in this regard have also been placed on record as Annexure-C/R/1 to Annexure-C/R/3. 6. Based on the said submission, it is contended that the petitioner had suppressed the said aspect from this Court while filing SBCWP No. 15224/2018 and as the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on a totally different ground, which ground was not contested by the petitioner and from the documents, the same is well established, the allegation about the respondents violating the directions issued by this Court has no basis and the petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that when the order dated 01.10.2018 was passed by this Court, the respondents were well aware of the above aspect, however, they did not point out the said aspect to the Court and the order dated 01.10.2018 was passed requiring the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner based on her qualification and now, factually, they were seeking to contest the writ petition instead of contempt petition and therefore, the said aspect sought to be raised by the respondents in reply cannot be looked into and the respondents be hauled up for disobedience of the directions issued by this Court. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 9. A perusal of the record of the writ petition, indicates that on the first date when the matter came up before the Court on 01.10.2018, as the respondents had appeared on caveat and submissions were made regarding the matter being covered by judgment in the case of Heera Lal Jat (supra), based on the submissions made in the writ petition, the writ petition was allowed with similar directions as given in the case of Heera Lal Jat (supra). 10. Apparently, neither counsel for the respondents nor counsel for the petitioner was aware of the fact that the candidature of the petitioner had already been rejected on 31.05.2013, inasmuch as, none of the documents annexed with the petition, indicated the pendency of the application and the petition was filed based on certain documents, whereby the qualification held by the petitioner was subsequently ordered to be equivalent for the purpose of eligibility. 11. 11. The documents, which have been filed along with the reply to the present contempt petition by the respondents, clearly indicates that the candidature of the petitioner already stood rejected on 31.05.2013 and that as the petitioner was granted decree of divorce under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage act, 1955 on 09.09.2013 and the application was filed on 18.03.2013 in the category of 'divorcee', the rejection apparently was justified. 12. In view thereof, even if the direction as given by this Court on 01.10.2018, regarding the qualification of the petitioner was to be implemented by the respondents, the rejection on the ground of eligibility as a divorcee which took place on 31.05.2013 would not get obliterated so as to revive the application of the petitioner and consider her for appointment in terms of the advertisement. 13. In view thereof, on account of the material now placed on record by the respondents, apparently, the order dated 01.10.2018 was passed by this Court, in absence of the material facts and therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents have in any manner committed any willful disobedience of the directions issued by this Court. 14. Consequently, no case for proceeding against the respondents is made out. The contempt petition is, therefore, dismissed. 15. The observations made herein-before have been made for the purpose of disposal of the contempt petition.