AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner is seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against respondents for violating 3order dated 01.03.2024 passed by learned Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 10193/2019. The above said writ petition was disposed of by directing as under in paragraph 8:-
“8.In the light of the aforesaid, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order which directs the petitioners to correct the anomalies after taking into account the opinion of the Expert Committee, which as noted hereinabove, clearly opined that the answer key to question No. 56 was incorrect. As we find that the answer, i.e., Option „C‟, given by the respondent was correct, we dismiss the writ petition by directing the petitioners to grant one mark to the respondent as also to all other similarly placed candidates who had marked Option C, i.e., 7/75 as their answer to Question no. 56. In case, after awarding one extra mark to the respondent and other similarly placed candidates, the total marks obtained by the respondent or by any other similarly placed candidate are found to be more than the marks obtained by the last candidate in the merit list, the respondent and such other similarly placed candidates will forthwith be appointed to the post of TGT (Sanskrit) by adjusting them against the presently available vacancies. It is, however, made clear that in case the respondent or any other similarly placed candidate is found fit to be appointed to the aforesaid post, they will be entitled to receive all notional benefits w.e.f, the date, the last selected candidate was appointed. They will, however, not be entitled to any back wages for the period prior to the date of actual appointment. The exercise in terms of this order be completed within eight weeks from today.”
It is informed by learned counsel for the petitioner that against the above said order, special leave petition (SLP) was filed by the respondents herein and such petition has been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the respondent admits the above said fact and has rather shown order dated 11.11.2024 in SLP(C) Diary No.32786/2024, whereby such SLP has been dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the respondent within one month.
When asked, learned counsel for the respondents, on instructions, submitted that since the SLP has already been dismissed, the requisite steps for the purposes of compliance of the directions contained in the above said paragraph 8 would be taken within four weeks from today.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the above, she does not press her contempt petition. However, she submits that if nothing happens within a period of four weeks from today, she may be granted permission to revive the present petition.
The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Liberty, as prayed, is granted.