Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 65 (UTT)

Kishan Singh v. Sanjeev Agarwal

2023-01-11

VIPIN SANGHI

body2023
JUDGMENT Vipin Sanghi, CJ. - The petitioner has preferred the present Contempt Petition alleging willful and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 28.03.2017 passed by this Court in WPSS No. 353 of 2011, preferred by the petitioner. 2. The order, in respect of which the petitioner alleges contempt, reads as follows:- 'Father of the petitioner died in harness on 28.05.1997. Petitioner submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate ground. The application of the petitioner was duly forwarded to the Competent Authority on 28.10.1998. Documents asked for were submitted by the petitioner to the Competent Authority. Thereafter, the application of the petitioner was rejected on 23.03.2010 on the ground that no vacancy of clerk against 5% quota was vacant. Petitioner lost his father on 28.05.1997. The respondents have taken almost 12 years to decide the case of the petitioner. It cannot be believed that between 1998 to 2010, no vacancy of clerk was available. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned annexure no. 8 dated 23.03.2010 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner to the post of clerk, if any post of clerk was available between 1998 to 2010 within a period of six weeks.' 3. I may observe that during the pendency of the writ petition filed by the petitioner, the recruitment rules for the post of Clerk were amended, and the minimum educational qualification was raised from Class-X pass to Class-XII pass. Admittedly, the petitioner is only Class-X pass. The petitioner did not inform the Court dealing with WPSS No.353 of 2011 regarding amendment in the recruitment rules, and did not seek a direction that he should be appointed as a Clerk on compassionate ground de hors the amended rules. 4. The respondents, along with their Compliance Affidavit dated 07.09.2021, placed on record the Communication addressed to the petitioner on 21.02.2018 informing the petitioner that he did not meet the educational requirement for the post of Clerk, and he may make an application for grant of compassionate appointment to the posts of Beldar, M.T.S. or Khalasi, for which the meeting of the concerned Committee was to be held shortly. The petitioner, however, did not make such application, despite the offer made to him on 21.02.2018. 5. The petitioner, however, did not make such application, despite the offer made to him on 21.02.2018. 5. According to the petitioner, the amended recruitment rules for the post of LDC could not have been made applicable to this case, since the amendment in the recruitment rules was enforced in the year 2012, whereas the application to seek compassionate appointment had been made by the petitioner in the year 1998, which was rejected on 23.03.2010. According to the petitioner, his case should have been considered as per the amended recruitment rules for the post of LDC. 6. Having heard the learned counsels, I am of the view that the respondents, by issuing communication dated 21.02.2018 to the petitioner and making an offer to him to apply for the posts of Beldar, M.T.S. or Khalasi, complied with the order dated 28.03.2017. It was not pleaded before the Court by the petitioner that he should be considered for the post of LDC de hors the amended recruitment rules, and no finding was returned by the Court on the said aspect. The petitioner could be considered for grant of compassionate appointment in terms of the order dated 28.03.2017 only in terms of the prevailing recruitment rules, which was done, and he was asked to apply for appointment to the posts of Beldar, M.T.S. or Khalasi vide letter dated 21.02.2018. 7. In the light of the aforesaid, I am satisfied that the respondents have complied with the direction issued by the Court. The notice issued to the respondents is, therefore, recalled. 8. The Contempt Petition is dismissed.