Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Devendra Singh Udawat vs S. D. Tak & Ors on 5 January, 2011
Bench: Arun Mishra, Prakash Tatia
1.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR.
ORDER
DB Civil Contempt Petition No.411/2010 in DB Civil Writ Petition No.11317/2009 Devendra Singh Udawat.
VERSUS Shri S.D. Tak & Ors.
Date of Order ::: 5.1.2011
PRESENT
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI PRAKASH TATIA Dr.PS Bhati, for the petitioner.
Mr.RL Jangid, AAG ) for the respondents.
Mr.JP Joshi )
....
Similar contempt petition being D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.1127/2010 (Nand Gopal Goyal vs. Shri K.K. Pathak & Ors.) alleging violation of the similar order of which violation has been alleged in this contempt petition, has been dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench by a detailed order on 3.1.2011. Following order was passed by this Court :-
"This petition has been filed alleging violation of the order passed by this court in Civil Writ Petition 2. No.14616/09 decided alongwith other 23 writ petitions vide common order dated 6.8.2010. Vide order dated 6.8.2010, this court has observed that the matter is squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment of this court dated 10.5.2010 in DBCWP No.825/2010, Shrawan Kumar Vs. RPSC & Ors. and other connected writ petitions and the petition shall be governed by the order dated 5.5.2010 passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.4235/2010, RPSC Vs. Balveer Singh Jat & Ors. and connected appeals. The Apex Court passed following order dated 5.5.2010 in the matter of RPSC Vs. Balveer Singh Jat & Ors.:-
"Leave granted.
In 2005, Rajasthan Public Service Commission conducted test for the posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and 87 candidates were selected and they were appointed as Civil Judge (Junior Division) in 2007. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission had adopted a method of scaling for the purpose of assessment of answer sheets. Because of this, some of the candidates who had obtained less raw marks which were sealed up were called for interview and subsequently selected and appointed. Therefore series of writ petitions were filed before the High Court challenging the scaling method adopted by the Public Service Commission. The High Court by the impugned judgment has given certain directions and held that the fresh interviews of the candidates to be taken based on their raw marks obtained by them. As regards the candidates who have been already appointed by Rajasthan Public Service Commission, the High Court held that their appointments shall not be disturbed.
Now, pursuant to the directions of the High Court, it appears that 8 candidates who had already undergone interview secured more marks than the candidates who were already appointed to the Judicial Service based on raw marks and six other candidates namely, Sarita Noushad, Ashutuosh Kumawat, Rajant Khatri, Toshita Verma, Sarita Dhakad and Divya Singh were not subjected to interview though they have got higher raw marks. They have to be interviewed by 3. the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. If any one of them is found to be eligible, such candidates are also entitled to get appointment. Eight candidates who had already secured more marks than, the last candidate appointed, should be considered for appointment. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission is directed to conduct interview of above named six candidates within period of three weeks. The eight candidates who had already undergone interview, need not be interviewed again. Final list of eligible candidates based on the marks secured by the candidates who were already interviewed and are to be interviewed, shall be prepared and from the said list appointments on nine vacant posts shall be made in order of merits. We are told that the names of the candidates who were already selected in 2008 are sent for appointment to the Government. Naturally, the appointments pursuant to this order would take place after the appointments of the candidates selected in 2008 but they will be entitled to get seniority after their appointments.
The civil appeals are disposed of accordingly.SLP(C) No.6569/2010
W.P.(C) No.102/2010, W.P.(C) No.113/2010 W.P.(C) No.114/2010, W.P.(C) No.134/2010 W.P.(C) No.142/2010, W.P.(C) No.146/2010 and W.P.(C) No.128/2010 All the writ petitions filed under Article 32 in respect of the years 2005 and 2008 and special leave petition(c) No.6569 of 2010 are dismissed as withdrawn."
After filing of the previous writ petition, another Civil Writ Petition No.13082/2010 was preferred by the petitioner Nand Gopal Goyal which was dismissed as not maintainable vide order dated 20.10.2010. Thereafter this contempt petition has been preferred.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner at length, we are of the opinion that in the order dated 5.5.2010 passed by the Apex Court, the Apex Court has ordered for appointment on 9 posts which were vacant 4. and 9 posts out of those persons have already been filled up. Nothing remains to be done now. The scope of the Apex Court order cannot be enlarged so as to include other persons also like the petitioners as Apex Court order was confined. The meaning of this court order in the petition preferred by the petitioner which was decided vide common order dated 6.8.2010 has to be understood as clearly from the order passed by the Apex Court. Not only this, the Apex Court has also clarified that there were petitions/review petitions and other applications submitted before the Apex Court after the order dated 5.5.2010 was passed. Those petitions stand dismissed. The Apex Court in the order dated 6.12.2010 passed in Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 283-284 of 2010 Sarita Noushad & anr. Vs. S.D. Tak & Anr. has observed as under:-
"So far as condition No.2 is concerned, it is mentioned therein that the appointment of the nine candidates would be subject to the final decision of the Division Bench in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3310 of 2007 which is pending in the Rajasthan High Court as per order dated 6.8.2010. The order dated 6.8.2010 passed by the Division Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3310 of 2007 is produced at Annexure R1/10 along with affidavit filed by the respondent No.1. In the concluding paragraph of the said order it is observed as under -
"In view of directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as contained in the order dated 5.5.2010 and the facts as stated by RPSC, though at present we are not inclined to issue interim mandamus to the effect that the petitioner be called out for interview at this stage but then having regard to the over all circumstances we are of the opinion that interest of justice shall be served if it is observed that the fresh appointments pertaining to the selections for the year 2005 shall remain subject to the final decision of this Writ Petition and it is enjoined upon respondents to put a statement to this effect in the select list published or to be published and 5. in the consequential appointments. Ordered accordingly."
Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, the learned senior counsel for the respondent No.1 had, after reading the above quoted order and on instructions of the respondents, mentioned that in view of the order dated 6.8.2010 passed by the learned Judges constituting the Division Bench, there was no option for the respondents but to incorporate condition No.2 in the appointment letters. Thereupon, this Court had pointed out that the order dated May 5, 2010 passed by three Judge Bench of this Court was very much before the learned Judges of the Rajasthan High Court who had passed the order dated 6.8.2010 and it would not be fair to suggest to them that though they had read the order dated May 5, 2010 passed by this Court they had made the order of the Supreme Court subject to the order to be passed by them in a writ petition pending before them. The meaningful reading of the order dated 6.8.2010 makes it evident that what is observed by the Division Bench is that fresh appointments which may be made subsequently after the passing of the order dated 5.5.2010 would be subject to the result of the writ petition pending before the Division Bench. This position being pointed out, Shri Soli J. Sorabjee, the learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 1 had immediately reacted and stated that the order of the Supreme Court can never be made subject the order to be passed by the High Court and after taking instructions from the respondents, Shri Sorabjee had stated at the Bar that condition No.1, mentioned in the appointment order dated 29.11.2010 shall also be deleted while issuing joining orders to the nine candidates. Shri Soli J. Sorabjee, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 had stated at the Bar that joining orders, without mentioning/incorporating the two conditions stated in appointment order dated 29.11.2010, shall be issued to the nine candidates within two weeks from today and prayed to adjourn the matter to 11.1.2011.
In view of the statements made at the Bar, by the learned senior counsel for the respondent No.1, the respondents are hereby directed to issue joining orders to the nine candidates whose names are mentioned in the appointment order dated 29.11.2010, without mentioning the two conditions, incorporated in the appointment order 6. dated 29.11.2010 within two weeks from today. As prayed for, the matters are adjourned to 11.1.2011.
What is relevant to notice is that the order dated 5.5.2010 passed by this Court was before the High Court and therefore, it is wrong to interpret that the appointments which were to be made pursuant to order dated 5.5.2010 were subject to the result of S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.3310 of 2007.
At this stage, it would be relevant to mention that by order dated May 5, 2010 passed by three Judge Bench of this Court, one SLP and seven writ petitions directly filed in this Court claiming appointments pursuant to the test conducted by Rajasthan Public Service Commission in 2005, were dismissed as withdrawn. Subsequent writ petitions/review petitions are also dismissed by this Court. Therefore, the respondent No.2 should bring to the notice of the Division Bench hearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3310 of 2007.
The Registry is directed to send copy of this order to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court for information."
In view of the order passed by the Apex Court on 5.5.2010, it is not open to this court to enlarge the scope. No scope has been enlarged vide order dated 6.8.2010.
Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has secured higher marks than the candidates who have been appointed pursuant to the order dated 5.5.2010. As matter stands concluded by the order dated 5.5.2010, the aforesaid submission cannot be entertained by this court. Moreover, this is beyond the scope of contempt petition.
Consequently, we find that there is no violation of the order dated 6.8.2010 passed by this court. The contempt petition stands dismissed."
This contempt petition being similar as similar order was 7. passed by this Court in the writ petition, is also dismissed for the reasons mentioned above.
[PRAKASH TATIA], J. [ARUN MISHRA], CJ.
S.Phophaliya/-