AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shylendra Kumar, J.—Contempt petition is on the premise that the order 14.9.2012 passed by this court in W.P.No. 37836/2012 (S-TR) directing the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner to transfer her from Gangavathi where she is working as a junior agronomist in the University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore, to any place in Bangalore, Hassan and Chintamani, etc., has not been complied with. Contempt petitioner alleges that her representation is not considered although a reply dated 16.10.2012 had come to be issued that the request of the petitioner will be considered, it has not been done so, and therefore, a legal notice had been issued on behalf of the complainant as per notice dated 26.11.2012 Annexure-F, but no action has been taken so are.
However, Mr. Mohamed Shafiulla, learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that the State Government has subsequently issued a further order dated 8.12.2012 pointing out that there was a mistake in the reply dated 16.10.2012; that the mistake was while the application cannot be considered, on the other hand, it had been indicated it will be considered etc. and now it is subsequently indicated that it will not be possible to accede to the request of the complainant as per the corrigendum and accordingly the request is rejected etc. Though this communication was not on record, it has been placed before the court today along with a memo. A perusal of the earlier reply at Annexure E and the present corrigendum indicates that it cannot be considered due to certain earlier resolution and the impediment as indicated and the present corrigendum is to correct the operative portion it was earlier reading as "pariganisalaguvudendu" instead of "pariganisalagadendu" and we find the correction to be appropriate.
In this view of the matter, while we do not find any need to keep this contempt petition on board, it is open to the complainant to independently challenge the communication, if so advised. Without prejudice to the rights and remedies of the complainant, this contempt petition is dismissed.