Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2029 (RAJ)

Nemi Chand Mahela v. Manju Rajpal

2022-07-14

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner with alleging therein that the respondents have not complied with the directions given by this Court on 14.11.2000 in SB Civil Writ Petition No.4121/2000 and, therefore, they may be suitably punished for committing contempt of this Court. 2. It appears that pursuant to an advertisement dated 15.06.1998, the petitioner has applied for selection on the post of teacher Grade-III way back in the 1998. However, when the petitioner failed to secure appointment, he filed writ petition No.4121/2000 before this Court. The said writ petition came to be disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 14.11.2000 in view of the judgment passed by this Court dated 21.10.1999 in Deepak Kumar Suthar vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2000)1 WLC 1 with a direction to consider the candidature of the petitioner preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of certified copy of the order. It was further made clear that the candidature of the petitioner shall be considered provided the selected list still in life, there is a vacancy and no selection has been made subsequently to the said advertisement in question and there should be no candidate over and above him in the merit list who has not offered the appointment. 3. When nothing has been done in the matter by the respondents than the petitioner has again preferred SB Civil Writ Petition No.2519/2003 before this Court and the said writ petition came to be allowed with a direction to the respondents to prepare a fresh merit list in accordance with the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kailash Chandra Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in JT(2002) 5 SC 591. It was further ordered that the petitioner is also entitled to be considered for appointment and if he stands in merit, appointment be given to him as Teacher Grade-III. 4. The order dated 09.10.2006 passed in SBCWP No.2519/2003 was challenged before the Division Bench by the State, however, the Special Appeal was dismissed vide order dated 24.05.2007. Against which, the State has preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein, leave was granted and ultimately the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided the controversy vide judgment dated 30.04.2019 passed in the State of Rajasthan v. Nemi Chand Mahela & Ors. Against which, the State has preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein, leave was granted and ultimately the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided the controversy vide judgment dated 30.04.2019 passed in the State of Rajasthan v. Nemi Chand Mahela & Ors. reported in 2019(2)WLC(SC) Civil 299. 5. It is noticed that in Nemi Chand Mahela's case (Supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the candidates who had not filed writ petitions on or before November 17 th, 1999 would not be entitled to appointment upon recalculation of marks by exclusion of the bonus marks form the marks of the selected candidate. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner while relying on the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that the direction of not providing appointment to the candidates who had not filed the writ petitions before November 17th, 1999 are not to be applied in legal cases by way of principle of res judicata would apply i.e. wherein the decision of the Single Judge or the Division Bench has become final since it was not challenged before the Division Bench or before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the order passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Writ Petition No. 4121/2000 decided on 14.11.2000 is not challenged by the State before the Division Bench, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III pursuant to the advertisement issued way back in the year 1998. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the present contempt petition is filed by petitioner nothing but an abuse of the process of law. 9. The writ petition No.4121/2000 filed by the petitioner was decided on 14.11.2000 with a direction to consider the candidature of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order with rider that the selection list is still in currency if there is vacancy, no selection has been made subsequent to the advertisement in question and there should be no candidate over and above him in the merit list who has not offered the appointment. 10. 10. Pursuant to the order dated 14.11.2000 passed by this Court, when the candidature of the petitioner has not been considered by the respondents within a period of four weeks, he has not taken any step to file contempt petition but instead of that filed a fresh writ petition before this Court in 2003, which came to be decided on 09.10.2006, thereafter, the State has filed Special Appeal and on dismissal of said Special Appeal has filed SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which came to be decided on 30.04.2019 as Nemi Chand Mahela's case (supra). 11. When the order passed by this Court in writ petition filed by the petitioner in the year 2003 is challenged by the State before the Division Bench and, thereafter, before the Supreme Court, it cannot be said that the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of not providing appointment to those candidates, who have not filed writ petitions up to November 17, 1999 are not applicable in the case of the petitioner. 12. The petitioner was fully aware about the fact and deliberately filed this contempt petition in January, 2021 only with an intention to mislead the Court. 13. Hence, I do not find any merit in this contempt petition and the same is hereby dismissed with a cost of Rs.10,000/-.