Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chetan Ram vs T Guite & Ors on 19 March, 2013
Author: Vineet Kothari
Bench: Vineet Kothari
SBCCP No. 56/12 - Chetan Ram vs. T.Guite & ors.
Order dt: 19/3/2012
1/11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
ORDER
S.B.CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 56/2012
IN
S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1048/2009
Chetan Ram vs. T. Guite & Ors.
DATE OF ORDER : 19th March, 2013
PRESENT
HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
REPORTABLE
Mr. M.S.Godara, for the petitioner.
Mr. G.R.Punia, Addl. Advocate General & Sr. Advocate along with
Mr. Jamvant Gurjar, for the respondents.
BY THE COURT:
1. This contempt petition arises out of the directions given by this court while deciding the batch of 7 writ petitions (SBCWP No. 1045/09 - [Baljinder Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors]. & other connected matters) on 10/1/2011 including the writ petition of present petitioner - Chetan Ram - SBCWP No.1048/2009. The directions given by the coordinate bench of this Court in para 26 of the order dated 10/1/2011 is quoted below:
"26. In the result, the writ petitions are partly allowed. The action of the respondents in denying the selection and appointment to the candidates belonging posts to the reserved category who are entitled to be included in the select list of general/open category on their own merit, on the ground that they have availed the benefit of relaxation of age meant for OBC category is declared illegal and unconstitutional. The SBCCP No. 56/12 - Chetan Ram vs. T.Guite & ors.
Order dt: 19/3/2012 2/11 respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioners afresh and if after reshuffling of the merits by inclusion of the names of open/general category, according to their own merits, notwithstanding that they have availed the benefit of relaxation in age, the petitioners are found entitled to be appointed as per their merit then, they shall be provided appointment on the post of Constable with effect from the date the last candidate in their own category or in absence thereof in general category was appointed. The petitioners shall be entitled to notional benefits for intervening period including the benefits of seniority, increment etc. The entire exercise for providing appointments to the petitioner, if they are found entitled to be appointed shall be completed expeditiously in any case, within a period of three months from the date of this order. No order as to costs."
2. Thereafter, the respondents appear to have passed the order in purported compliance of the said directions of this Court on 18/8/2011 and along with the copy of the order at Annex.R/2, the respondents have also produced the detailed minutes of the meeting of three members committee dated 18/8/2011. The order dated 18/8/2011 (Annex.R/2) is quoted below for ready reference:
"क र लर मह न र कक पललस, ब क र रज, ब क र कम क :- 2784-85 द क : 18.08.2011 प ललक अध कक, जजल ह म गढ़ उपर!क व$षर न'ग' प सगगक आ श क सन र म लख ह. कक एसब .लसव$ल ररट वपट श स.1045/09, 1046/09, 1047/09, 1048/09, SBCCP No. 56/12 - Chetan Ram vs. T.Guite & ors.
Order dt: 19/3/2012 3/11 1049/09, 1050/09 ए$ 1051/09 म म र उच4 नर र लर,ज!धपर द र द क 10.01.11 क! प रर' न रर क7 प ल ह' ररवर ब!र क7 ब.ठक द क 18.08.2011 क! आर!जज' क7 गई। ब.ठक क =र ररवर> ब!र द र $ष 2008 क न .र'? पककर ह' पर $ सA ई आ श 1/2008 ए$ 'तसमर प4लल' न रमC क कम म म र उच4 नर र लर क न रर द क 10.01.11 क7 प ल ह' प>$ ब!र द र क7 गई क र$ ह क अ$ल!क कर प : सम क क7 गई।
उक ररट वपदटश रर कर $ ल अभर गAरC क7 प : सम क क7 गई। प : सम क उपर न' सपष हआ ह. कक इ पटश C क पपक
स म नर $ग परष> /मदहल ए$ ओब स $ग परष क प प क क कटऑफ म रस स कम प र गर ह. । अ': न म कक' वपट श रC क7 अभरगA' $र स' म ह आ क क रर इनह क न . प ह' अप त घ!वष' ककर ज ' ह.:-
क.स. म अभर A? र!ल मबर $ग एसब .ररट सखर
1 श बलजजनS लसह 100557 स म नर 1045/09
2 श र जप ल 102810 ओब स 1046/09
3 श महनS लसह 103772 स म नर 1047/09
4 श 4' रम 102170 ओब स 1048/09
5 क0 स म र 102514 स म नर मदहल 1049/09
6 श सरनS लसह 100581 स म नर 1050/09
7 श र कश कम र 101202 ओब स 1051/09
सलग : म>ल क र$ ह व$$रर स ल बन ललफ फ
र$ र
एस.र .
(ट . गइट)
मह न र कक पललस,
ब क र रनज,ब क र
पन'ललवप: मह न र कक पललस (मखर लर) र ज. जरपर क! उ क आ श कम क र-9(9) प.फ!./क न .र'?/2010/3946 द क 11.08.11 क कम म ररवर> ब!र द र '.र र क7 गई प!लसडरग क7 पन' स>4 A ए$ आ$शरक क र$ ह ह' पवष' ह. ।"
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Godara submitted that in pursuance of the said order dated 18/8/2011, the respondents rejected the candidature of petitioner for appointment on the post of SBCCP No. 56/12 - Chetan Ram vs. T.Guite & ors.
Order dt: 19/3/2012 4/11 Constable, which he challenged by way of fresh writ petition no. 11380/2011 - Chetan Ram vs. State & Ors, which was, however, withdrawn on 18/1/2012 with the following observations of the coordinate bench of this Court:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. After perusing the writ petition and more specifically the judgment dated 10/1/2011 rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court in earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, it appears that there is judgment in favour of the petitioner and as per learned counsel for the petitioner, there is non- compliance of aforesaid judgment passed by this Court, therefore, the petitioner is required to file contempt petition and not fresh writ petition to claim any relief because there is judgment in his favour.
In this view of the matter, counsel for the petitioner submits that this writ petition may be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to take recourse of contempt proceedings, if there is any non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court.
Ordered accordingly."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Godara further submitted that the respondents have not thus complied with the directions of this Court dated 10/1/2011 in true letter and spirit and noticing these facts the coordinate bench of this Court in the present contempt petition has passed the detailed order on 21/5/2012 in the following terms:-
SBCCP No. 56/12 - Chetan Ram vs. T.Guite & ors.
Order dt: 19/3/2012 5/11 " Vide Judgment dated 10.01.2011, this Court had directed the respondents as under:-
"The respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioners afresh and if after reshuffling of the merits by inclusion of the names of open/general category, according to their own merits, notwithstanding that they have availed the benefit of relaxation in age, the petitioners are found entitled to be appointed as per their merit then, they shall be provided appointment on the post of Constable with effect from the date the last candidate in their own category or in absence thereof in general category was appointed. The petitioners shall be entitled to notional benefits for intervening period including the benefits of seniority, increment etc. The entire exercise for providing appointments to the petitioner, if they are found entitled to be appointed shall be completed expeditiously in any case, within a period of three months from the date of this order. No order as to costs."
A perusal of the directions clearly reveal that five directions were issued; firstly, to consider the candidature of the petitioners afresh. Secondly, to reshuffle the candidates belonging to the reserved category, who should, in fact, be placed in the category of General Candidates due to the dint of their merit. Thirdly, after shifting those OBC candidates from the reserved category to the General category. If the petitioners were found entitled to be appointed, then they should be appointed on the post of Constable. Forthly, they were entitled to be SBCCP No. 56/12 - Chetan Ram vs. T.Guite & ors.
Order dt: 19/3/2012 6/11 appointed from the date the last candidate in their own category/General category was appointed. Lastly, they were entitled to notional benefit for the interregnum period including the annual increment, seniority ctc. Thus, this Court had given five distinct and separate directions to the respondents, as mentioned above.
The respondents have submitted their reply along with the order dated 18.08.2011, whereby the exercise with regard to the present petitioner and others, who were petitioners in the writ petition, was carried out. A bare perusal of the order dated 18.08,2011 clearly reveals that the Review committee is of the opinion that since the petitioner has marks less than the cut off point for the OBC category, therefore, he should be put in the Reserved List at serial No. 1. However, the Review committee has not shifted those OBC candidates, whose cut off marks were between 57.250 to 62.875. Thus, the second direction given by this Court has not been complied with. Secondly, after having shifted those OBC category candidates from the reserved category to the General category, the respondents were required to see whether the petitioners were entitled to be appointed on the post of Constable, or not.
Obviously, the last OBC candidate, who has secured more than 57.875 marks, would be shifted to the General category. Therefore, the petitioner, who is at Serial No.1 in the selection list. However, the respondents have failed to do so. Thus, prima facie, it seems that the contemnors have failed to implement the directions given by this Court vide judgment dated 10.01.2011.
The learned counsel for the contemnors seeks time to bring the observation of this Court to the SBCCP No. 56/12 - Chetan Ram vs. T.Guite & ors.
Order dt: 19/3/2012 7/11 notice of the contemnors. He seeks weeks' time to implement the judgment dated 10.01.2011. The time prayed for is, hereby, granted.
List this case on July 3, 2012."
5. Yet another coordinate bench passed an order on 4/1/2013 in the following terms asking the respondents to deposit cost of Rs.2000/- in Account Section of this Court:-
"By the order dated 12/12/2012, the respondents were directed to show that against 60 vacancies subjected to process of selection how many vacancies were filled-in from general category candidates, who were selected for appointment. Same details were also required with regard to the persons belonging to reserve categories for whom vertical reservation is applicable. No details have been provided by the respondents so far. It appears that the respondents are taking the orders passed by this Court lightly and flouting the same in quite casual manner. The conduct of the respondents is highly deplorable. However, in view of the request made by the learned counsel for the respondents a last opportunity is given to them to submit necessary details to this Court on 8.1.2013, provided each of the respondent deposits a cost of Rs.2,000/- in Account Section of this Court on or before 8.1.2013."
6. From the aforesaid quoted portion of the main order dated 10/1/2011, it is clear that direction to the respondents was only to consider the candidature of the petitioner afresh and if after reshuffling after inclusion of the names of candidates selected in reserved category according to their own merit, notwithstanding that SBCCP No. 56/12 - Chetan Ram vs. T.Guite & ors.
Order dt: 19/3/2012 8/11 they have availed the benefit of relaxation in age, the petitioners are found entitled to be appointed as per their merit then, they shall be provided appointment on the post of Constable with effect from the date the last candidate in their own category or in absence thereof in general category was appointed.
7. According to the respondents, upon reshuffling, more meritorious candidates belonging to reserved category, who have not availed the benefit of age relaxation, were included in the select list and consequently seven persons, namely; Baljinder Singh, Rajpal, Mahendra Singh, Chetan Ram (present petitioner), Kumari Seema Rani, Surendra Singh and Rakesh Kumar were found to be not entitled for appointment as Constable as they were pushed down in merit upon reshuffling.
8. From the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner & the averments made in the present contempt petition and upon perusal of the orders passed by the coordinate benches, as quoted above, with great respects, it appears that the petitioner has been able to persuade this Court to undertake such fresh adjudication process for examining the validity of the order dated 18/8/2011 in the present contempt petition. This, in the considered opinion of this Court, is beyond the jurisdiction of contempt under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Unless the directions of the Court out of which contempt petition arises are categoric and specific and a deliberate disobedience of the same is established, the contempt SBCCP No. 56/12 - Chetan Ram vs. T.Guite & ors.
Order dt: 19/3/2012 9/11 jurisdiction cannot be invoked by the Court to undertake such a fresh adjudication process in contempt petitions.
9. Admittedly, the order passed by the respondent, Inspector General of Police, Bikaner Range, Bikaner on 18/8/2011 along with the minutes of the three members committee dated 18/8/2011 giving detailed reasons have not been challenged by the petitioner at any forum. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M.S.Godara that the order dated 14/9/2011 rejecting his candidature in pursuance of the aforequoted order dated 18/8/2011 was challenged by him in subsequently filed writ petition No. 11380/2011, which he withdrew on 18/1/2012 vide aforesaid quoted order, however, that order dated 14/9/2011 is not placed on record of the present contempt petition. The order dated 18/8/2011 is an independent order declaring the petitioner and other 6 persons as ineligible for appointment on the post of Constable having fallen down in merit upon reshuffling in terms of the judgment of this court in which the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Jitendra Kumar Singh & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.- 2010 (3) SCC 119 was followed by this Court. Thus, prima facie, the direction in the order dated 10/1/2011 stood complied with. Whether rightly or wrongly, fully or partially or whether there was any misconstruction of the judgment and directions dated 10.1.2011 or not are not the questions which can be determined in contempt jurisdiction. Only a fresh challenge thereto, if successful, could result into any fruitful result for the petitioner. Invoking contempt jurisdiction on unclear SBCCP No. 56/12 - Chetan Ram vs. T.Guite & ors.
Order dt: 19/3/2012 10/11 foundations or debatable questions cannot be a correct exercise of this jurisdiction.
10. In other words, so long as the order dated 18/8/2011 holds the field and unless the same is quashed on appropriate grounds to be raised by the petitioner in a fresh writ petition or any other appropriate proceedings, the intricate questions of facts and legal contentions, which are controverted from the side of respondents here, cannot be traversed in contempt jurisdiction. The contempt jurisdiction is to be invoked very sparingly and in exceptional circumstances, when a clear and positive direction of the Court stands disobeyed, that too deliberately on the part of the respondent contemnors. The frequent & flexible use of this extra ordinary jurisdiction is only likely to reduce the rigour of this jurisdiction. This Court is at loss to understand how, without successfully challenging the subsequent order dated 18/8/2011 passed by the respondents, which they claim and, prima facie, correctly, to be in compliance of the judgment of this Court dated 10.1.2011, the petitioner can be permitted to maintain the present contempt petition in the face of the said order dated 18/8/2011, which the present petitioner has not admittedly challenged any where so far.
11. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present contempt petition is absolutely misconceived and the same deserves to be dismissed.
SBCCP No. 56/12 - Chetan Ram vs. T.Guite & ors.
Order dt: 19/3/2012 11/11
12. Accordingly, the present contempt petition is dismissed. Notices are discharged. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties forthwith.
(DR.VINEET KOTHARI),J.
Item no. 38 baweja/-