Anwar Ulla vs Om Prakash & Another

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

Writ Court vide judgment dated 19.06.2018 passed in WPSS No. 378 of 2018 and WPSS No. 379 of 2018 had directed the selecting body to consider petitioners' (in the above writ petitions) candidature for appointment on the post of Driver. Against the said judgment, petitioner (Anwar Ulla) preferred SPA No. 696 of 2018, which was disposed of along with five connected petitions vide judgment dated 07.12.2018, by the Division Bench of this Court. Operative portion of the said judgment is extracted below:-

We consider it appropriate, in such circumstances, to modify the order of the learned Single Judge and, instead, issue the following directions: -

(a.) the respondent officials shall first examine whether the requirement, in terms of the advertisement, was only for drivers with a heavy motor vehicle or transport vehicle driving licence or whether the requirement was for drivers holding either a light motor vehicle driving licence or a heavy motor vehicle/transport vehicle driving licence.

(b.) it is only if other candidates, who only have a light motor vehicle driving licence and not a heavy motor vehicle / transport vehicle driving licence, have been selected and appointed as drivers, would the respondent officials then be required to consider the petitioner's candidature as he, admittedly, possessed only a light motor vehicle driving licence.

(c.) if the requirement is for both categories (drivers holding heavy motor vehicle/transport vehicle driving licence or only a light motor vehicle driving licence), the authorities shall then examine whether the petitioner had a valid light motor vehicle driving licence, both three years prior to when the advertisement was issued, and on the date on which the driving test was held.

(d.) in case it is found that the respondent-writ petitioner had a valid driving licence, the respondent officials shall then examine whether inclusion of the name of petitioner in the select list of drivers, based on his merit, would result in his being required to be appointed as a driver, since it is only if candidates lower than him in merit have been appointed as drivers, can the petitioner justifiably claim that he should also be appointed as a driver.

All the appeals are disposed of with the aforesaid directions. However, in the circumstances, without costs."

In this contempt petition, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that order passed by Division Bench of this Court has not been complied with.

The stand taken by the selecting body now is that petitioner's claim has been considered on merit and since petitioner's score was much below the last selected candidate, against a post reserved for OBC category, therefore, he could not be appointed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that certain persons, who did not possess driving licence for driving heavy/transport vehicle, have been selected and appointed, although they are not eligible, and if such ineligible candidates are ousted from the zone of consideration, then petitioner would have a fair chance of appointment.

The scope of contempt proceedings is limited and merits of the decision making process by the selecting body cannot be gone into in contempt jurisdiction. Moreover, petitioner's counsel has not been able to point out name of any candidate, who has been appointed against the post reserved for OBC category, who scored lesser marks than the petitioner.

In such view of the matter, the contempt petition is dismissed. Notices issued to the opposite parties are hereby discharged. However, petitioner shall be at liberty to approach appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance, if any.