AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present contempt petition has been filed for deliberate
defiance of order of the court dt.27.02.2007.
The writ petition a the instance of the petitioner was filed in
1996 assailing the conditions of eligibility which was laid down by
the respondents while holding the selection pursuant to the
advertisement dt.29.03.1996 for the post of Supervisor.
The writ petition was disposed of with the direction to
consider the candidature of the petitioner against the vacancy
reserved for Anganwadi Worker and if finally found to be suitable,
be considered for appointment but when the order of the court,
according to the petitioner, was not complied with, she
approached this court by filing instant contempt petition.
After the notices were served, reply has been filed by the
respondents and their specific statement in the reply is that the
advertisement dt.29.03.1996, in reference to which grievance was
raised, was never acted upon and no appointments were made by
the Government pursuant to the advertisement dt.29.03.1996 and
this fact was recorded by this court too in its order dt.22.04.2014
and counsel for the petitioner was called upon to file affidavit of
the petitioner denying the factum of cancellation of the
advertisement dt.29.03.1996 since there is no contemporaneous
notification has been filed.
Affidavit in compliance of order of the court has been filed
and petitioner has tried to plead before this court that from the
documentary evidence on record, inference can be drawn that the
advertisement dt.29.03.1996 has not been cancelled by the
respondents since order of cancellation, if any, passed by the
respondents, has not been placed on record.
It should have been better for the respondents to have
placed the order of cancellation of advertisement dt.29.03.1996
on record, in reference to which the litigation was initiated at the
behest of the petitioner but even if that action has not been taken,
the submission made by the respondents in their reply can
certainly be taken on its face value and from the documents which
has come on record, no inference can be drawn that any
selection/appointment have been made by the Government
pursuant to their advertisement dt.29.03.1996.
Accordingly, in the considered opinion of this court, the
petitioner has not been able to make out a case of deliberate
defiance of order of the court being committed by the respondents
and if the appointments are made, as indicated in the order
dt.12.06.2007, which nowhere appears to be made in reference to
the advertisement dt.29.03.1996, the petitioner is always at
liberty to take remedial measures which she considers proper in
the facts & circumstances of the case but this court is clear in its
mind that no case of alleged deliberate defiance of order of the
court, as pleaded by the petitioner, is not made out against the
respondents.
Consequently, the instant contempt petition is dismissed and
accordingly the notices stand discharged. However, the petitioner
is at liberty to avail remedy which the law permits to her.