Allahabad High Court
Kamal Nayan Singh And 9 Another vs M Devraj And 1 Other on 15 April, 2024
Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:65018 Court No. - 51 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 419 of 2024 Applicant :- Kamal Nayan Singh And 9 Another Opposite Party :- M Devraj And 1 Other Counsel for Applicant :- Siddharth Khare Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
The writ Court on 05.12.2022 while allowing Writ-A No. 5390 of 2022 had required the opposite party to grant appointment pursuant to result which was declared by U.P. Subordinate Services Selection Commission (UPSSSC) dated 10.12.2021 within a period of one month. The Court further held that in case State authorities were of another view such decision was to be made within the same time, keeping in mind the observations which was made in the order. The State, thereafter, did not proceed to grant appointment to applicants nor it took another view as held by writ Court. On filing of contempt application, this Court on 05.03.2024 passed the following order:-
"1. It is informed that, till date, the authority concerned has neither accorded appointment to the petitioners nor decided his case in compliance of the order dated 05.12.2022 passed by this court in Writ- A No.5390 of 2022.
2. As a last opportunity, in the interest of justice, one month and no more time is granted to the opposite party (contemonr), either to give an appointment to the present petitioner or pass an appropriate order with respect to his appointment in pursuance of the order dated 05.12.2022 passed by this court and file a compliance affidavit on or before the next date fixed.
3. It is made clear that in case the order of date is not complied with by the next date fixed, the opposite party (contemnor) shall be present in person in court and explain his conduct as to why he should not be punished under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act.
4. List on 15.04.2024 in top ten cases of the additional cause list."
From perusal of the order, it is clear that a month's further time was granted to State to either issue appointment letter to the applicants or pass an appropriate order in respect to appointment in pursuance of order dated 05.12.2022.
Today, a compliance affidavit has been filed which is taken on record.
Learned Standing Counsel informs the Court that State has taken a decision in the matter on 23.03.2024. Copy of which has been brought on record as CA-1 to compliance affidavit.
This Court finds that substantial compliance has been done by State pursuant to directions of this Court dated 05.03.2024 and the order dated 05.12.2022 has been complied.
However, Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants submits that requirement was that either the appointment was to be given within a month pursuant to declaration of result by UPSSSC or the State was to take some decision within the same time and time period fixed by writ Court had expired in January, 2023 but no application till date has been made by State for enlarging time for complying the order dated 05.12.2022.
This Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record finds that this Court on 05.03.2024 as last opportunity had granted a month's time to State to comply the order, pursuant to which the decision has been taken on 23.03.2024.
As the order of writ Court has been complied with, contempt application stands disposed of.
However, leaving it open to applicants to challenge the order passed by authorities on 23.03.2024 before appropriate forum, if so advised.
Order Date :- 15.4.2024 V.S.Singh