AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The contempt case is filed alleging deliberate and intentional violation of the order of this Court in Writ Petition No. 19223/95, dated 20-10-1995.
The petitioner is a displaced person under Telugu Ganga Project having lost both the land and house. He also belongs to backward class. The Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 98, dated 15-4-1986 and subsequent instructions providing employment to displaced persons on preferential basis. As the petitioner was entitled for consideration and since the same was not extended to the petitioner, even though other similarly situate persons were appointed, he filed Writ Petition No. 4324/95. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with the G.O. issued by the Government. However, the Selection Committee passed order on 14-9-1995 rejecting the case of the petitioner and confirming the appointment of the other two persons as Junior Assistants. Against the said order, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 19223/95. This Court passed an order on 20-10-1995 declaring the petitioner as a displaced person and consequently he is entitled to be considered for appointment as Junior Assistant. It was disposed of with the following directions :
"That the 1st respondent shall consider the matter afresh keeping in view the provisions of the G.O.Ms. No. 98 and also memo issued by the Government, dated 7-10-1987.
The 1st respondent shall also issue notice to the petitioner and also issue notice to the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 at the time of consideration of the matter. The petitioner and respondents Nos. 4 and 5 shall submit their respective representations to the respondents putting their respective claims for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant. The exercise shall be done by the 1st respondent within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order."
It is the complaint of the petitioner that petitioner that even though the orders were communicated to the 1st respondent, she deliberately and intentionally did not act as per the directions of this Court. It is his case that the representation was made on 22-11-1995 and the same was acknowledged on 29-12-1995. So far as the directions granted by this Court were not implemented. Thus, it is submitted that the respondent has intentionally and deliberately flouted orders of this Court, dated 20-10-1995 and consequently she became liable for the punishment under the provisions of. Contempt of Courts Act.
Notice before admission was issued on 23-8-1996. Even though the notice having been received, the respondent did not file counter. Therefore, the contempt case was admitted on 19-9-1996 and the respondent was directed to be present. Accordingly, the respondent appeared on 10-10-1996 and the presence of the respondent was dispensed with.
In the counter filed by the respondent, it is stated that the fixation of seniority of Sri A. Ramleti and Sri Mekala Polaiah was fixed at Sl. Nos. 1 and 2 in Category-I and the petitioner was fixed in Category No. II. It is stated that the order copy of this Court was received on 13-10-1995 and a letter was addressed to the Government Pleader on 28-10-1995. It was also stated that after receiving the order it was decided that the matter must be decided by the Collector in the capacity of the Chairman of the Committee and, therefore, the Committee was constituted for the purpose. It was also stated that the petitioner cannot claim preference over the other two displaced persons mentioned above and, therefore, it was decided to file an appeal against the orders of this Court and accordingly issued communication in proceedings dated 28-10-1995, requesting the Government Pleader to file an appeal. Under those circumstances, the request of the petitioner to comply with the directions of this Court was not fulfilled and that cannot be constituted a violation of the order. However, it is stated that the Selection Committee was constituted and that the petitioner was directed to be present with all evidence to consider his case. Subsequent to filing of the counter, the Chief Engineer of Telugu Ganga Project issued proceedings on 9-10-1995 stating that the petitioner was considered to be fully a displaced person and, therefore he was placed in Category-I and consequently he was fixed at Sl. No. 2-A of the seniority list of the eligible candidates under B.C.-D group. In view of this, it is submitted that the case of the petitioner will be considered for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant as and when vacancy arises.
The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that there is a gross and deliberate violation of the orders of this Court in-as-much as it was not complied with by the respondents within the time stipulated by this Court. It is also their case that if there is any administrative delays that are anticipated in complying the directions of this Court, it was open for the respondent to seek extension of time. However, that was not done, which itself established the deliberate and intentional attitude of the respondent. It is also the case of the learned counsel for the petitioner that all the 12 persons in the panel have already been appointed as Junior Assistant. But, a peculiar situation has been created by placing the petitioner at Sl. No. 2-A, yet, he was not given the appointment. While the junior to the petitioner who were placed beyond Sl. Nos. 2 to 12 are already employed as Junior Assistants, still the petitioner who is at Sl. No. 2-A was not given appointment. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has to be accommodated under any circumstances. The respondent having denied the appointment to the petitioner, now cannot say that there are no vacancies in the establishment.
Now the issue that falls for consideration is whether the respondent has deliberately and intentionally flouted the orders of this Court ?
Admittedly, the orders of this Court were received by the respondent in the month of November, 1995 and no action was taken to comply with the directions of this Court. On the other hand, the 1st respondent appears to have addressed a letter to the Government Pleader on 20-12-1995 seeking certain clarification and also requesting him to file a writ appeal. After 20-12-1995 there was no document to establish that the matter was pursued by the department. Further, I also noticed that the language used in the counter-affidavit by the 2nd respondent is not commensurate with the status and position held by the respondent as a Collector of the District and also as an Officer of an All India Service. Paras 8 and 10 of the counter-affidavit is extracted below :
"8. I respectfully submit that the order copy was received by the office of the 1st respondent on 13-11-95. Thereafter the 1st respondent office addressed a letter to the Govt. Pleader for Irrigation to prefer an appeal by a letter dt. 28-12-95. It is true that though specifically the District Collector i.e. the 1st respondent is directed by this Hon''ble Court to dispose of the matter within a period of 2 months after giving notices to the petitioners and other two unofficial respondents, the District Collector cannot unilaterally take a decision. As per the G.O., a Selection Committee headed by the District Collector as Chairman is constituted. After receiving this order, I bonafidely felt that the matter must be decided by the Collector in the capacity of the Chairman of Selection Committee. Of course in the year 1996, two times the meeting took place and in the second meeting while implementing the orders of this Hon''ble Court notices were issued and after receiving by them, the matter will be decided.
I respectfully submit that it is a fact that representations made to this office by the petitioner on 9-11-1995 and 22-11-1995 requesting for his appointment as Junior Assistant. But the request of the petitioner could not be considered as the matter was referred to the Govt. Pleader for irrigation for filing appeal against the order in W.P. No. 19223/95, dt. 20-10-1995 vide this office ref. A7/5835/94, dt. 28-12-1995 which does not mean violation of the above High Court orders.
However, the petitioner''s case is reconsidered by the Selection Committee, at its meeting held on 17-9-96. As per the Hon''ble Court directions, notice is issued to the petitioner to appear before the Selection Committee on 7-10-1996 with all evidence in support of his claim and the matter will be decided thereon."
Thus, it is seen that the respondent did not make any effort to comply with the directions of this Court. Mere addressing a letter to the Govt. Pleader requesting him to file an appeal could not absolve the respondent of her responsibility and solemn duty to comply with the directions of this Court and she specifically states that when a letter was addressed to the Government Pleader for filing an appeal, the delay cannot be construed as violation of the orders of the High Court. Any time consumed between the Department and the Government Pleader cannot extend the limitation stipulated in the order. In all fairness, the respondent ought to have sought for extension of time for complying with the orders of this Court. But she cannot presume that merely because she addressed a letter to the Govt. Pleader, it would not amount to violation of the orders of this Court. The tenor language used in the counter-affidavit is susceptible for inference that the respondent has sworn to the affidavit in a mechanical and routine manner little realising the consequences.
Under these circumstances, I am satisfied that the respondent has not dealt with the matter in the manner in which it is expected to be considered. The respondent being an I.A.S. Officer and being the Head of the District Administration is expected to bestow sincere attention to the orders passed by this Court. But the solacing, factor is that she came out with a categorical statement that there was no willful disobedience of the orders of this Court and if, however, the Court comes to a conclusion that there is any violation of the orders of the Court, she tendered unconditional apology. In view of this, I am not inclined to proceed with the matter further and accept the apology tendered by the respondent. But, however, the fact remains that the petitioner who is successful in his voyage seeking justice still languishing the place where he was in 1995, when he filed Writ Petition No. 19223/95. Even though the Selection Committee constituted placing the petitioner at Sl. No. 2-A, yet the net result is that he is without job as on date. The explanation of the department is that the case of the petitioner will be considered as and when vacancy arises in Group-B post. But, at the same time it has to be seen that the petitioner was categorised as fully displaced person. The other similarly situated persons up to Sl. No. 12 were already provided employment. Thus the respondent caused mental agony to the genuinely displaced person like petitioner.
Under these circumstances, I am inclined to dispose of the contempt case with a direction to the respondent that the petitioner''s case shall be considered for appointment in the existing post of Junior Assistant. If, there are no posts available at this juncture, and there is no likelihood of post falling vacant within a period of three months from today, the respondent shall appoint the petitioner in supernumerary post until such time the regular post becomes available.
The contempt case is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Order accordingly.