High CourtsSingle Bench(2020) 10 SHI CK 0363

Dimple Kumari And Others vs Rohit Jamwal

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 9 October 2020

HON’BLE JUDGES
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
COPCT No. 712 Of 2020

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 317 words

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J

1.

The petitioners had approached the erstwhile Tribunal by filing Original Application No. 5544 of 2017 for grant of the following substantive reliefs:

"7(i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to fill-up the backlog posts of Drawing Teachers as well as Physical Education Teachers which are meant for disable persons like the present applicants within time bound period as these posts are lying vacant for several years. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to fill up the posts of PET and DM from the quota meant for persons with disabilities under which the applicants belong within time bound manner as no posts are being filled-up for the last 17 years despite vacancies in District Chamba.

(iii) That the respondents may further be directed to consider and decide the representation of the applicants contained in Annexure A-7 dated 3.5.2017 within time bound manner."

2.

The Original Application was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners made vide Annexure A-7 as expeditiously as possible and in no event later than 30 days from the date of production of certified copy of the order along with copies of representation.

3.

Unfortunately, the respondents did not consider and decide the representation of the petitioners for nearly three years and it is only now on 30.09.2020 that a special recruitment drive has been initiated by the respondent to fill up the vacancies reserved for persons with disabilities.

4.

This probably reflects upon the insensitivity of the respondent. Be that as it may, since the respondent has initiated steps for implementing the order, therefore, nothing survives for adjudication in this contempt petition, save and except, that the steps initiated to be taken by the respondent, be taken to its logical end as expeditiously as possible.

5.

The contempt petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.