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.