Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra Singh Jat vs Arun Pandey on 11 April, 2019
...1... Conc.No.1712/2018 & other
connected matters
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE
Conc. No.1712/2018
(Madanlal Kayat & Ors. V/s. Arun Pandey & Ors.)
Conc. No.2430/2018
(Rajendra Singh Jat & Anr. V/s. Arun Pandey & Ors.)
Conc. No.2566/2018
( Rajendra Singh Jat. V/s. Arun Pandey & Ors.)
Conc. No.1722/2018
(Mukesh Shrivas V/s. Arun Pandey & Ors.)
Indore dt.11.04.2019
Shri Aviral Vikas Khare, Advocate for the petitioners (Conc
Nos.1712/2018, 1722/2018, 2566/2018).
Shri Anand Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner
(Conc.No.2430/2018).
Shri Govind Rai Purohit, Advocate for respondent No.2
(Conc. No.2430/2018).
Shri Kamal Airen, public prosecutor for respondents No.2, 3 and 5.
The petitioners have filed the present contempt petitions alleging the non-compliance of order dated 19.4.2018, passed in W.P.No.1357/2016 whereby the writ petitions have been allowed by directing the respondents to pass an appropriate order in a matter of their regularization, keeping in view the policy dated 16/19.10.2005, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy. This court has also quashed the subsequent circular of the State Govt. dated 19.08.2010 and the impugned order dated 11.3.2016. Thereafter a review petition was filed vide R.P.No.826/2018 in which vide order dated 15.05.2018 certain ...2... Conc.No.1712/2018 & other connected matters structures made against Dr. M.K. Agrawal Principal Revenue Commissioner has been expunged and again the respondents were directed to confer the same benefit of regularization to the petitioners, which has been conferred to other Process Server in the State of M.P. keeping in view the policy dated 16/19.10.2005. Thereafter, the State Government preferred a Writ Appeal bearing no.878/2018, which has been dismissed vide order dt.10.8.2018. The State Government preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court and that too has been dismissed vide order dt.8.2.2019. In compliance of the order passed by this court the Collector, Indore, passed an order dated 31.10.2018, rejecting the representation of the petitioners that regularization cannot be done and their representation shall be considered at the time of selection and conducted by the Professional Examination Board. Thereafter, the matter was heard on 10.12.2018 and the Collector, Indore and Rajgarh, were directed to file additional affidavit as to why the order passed by this court has not been complied with. Now the Collector, Indore has filed an affidavit by submitting that he has written a letter to Principal Secretary Revenue Department of Madhya Pradesh and Principal Commissioner Revenue, Bhopal to clarify in the matter of regularization of Process Server like petitioners and sought the clarification. He has placed reliance over the letter written by the Principal Revenue Commissioner, ie., Contemnor No.2 by which all the Divisional Commissioner and Collectors were restrained to recruit the Class IV employees by any other mode except selection by a Professional Examination Board under Madhya Pradesh Kanishth Seva (Sayukt Aharta) Pariksha Niyam, 2013. In view of the aforesaid letter, the Collector vide letter ...3... Conc.No.1712/2018 & other connected matters dated 13.2.2019 has requested Principal Secretary Revenue to take a policy decision for compliance of order passed by this court.
2. By order dated 19.4.2019, this court has only directed the State Government to comply the decision taken in policy dated 16/19.10.2005. The said policy is reproduced below :-
dzekad ,Q 10&17@97@lkr&1 Hkksiky fnukad 19-+10-05 izfr] leLr dysDVj] e/;izns'kA fo"k;%& izkslsl loZjksa dks fu;ferhdj.k ds lca/k esaA ekuuh; mPPk U;k;ky; }kjk izkslsl loZjksa ds fu;ferhdj.k djus gsrq fn;s x;s fu.kZ; ds ifjikyu esa foHkkx }kjk xfBr lfefr dh vuq'kalkvksa ds vuqlkj vuq'kalkvksa dks ekU; djrs gq, jkT; 'kklu }kjk izkslsl loZjksa dks fu;fer fd;k tkuk gSA vr% fuEufyf[kr fcUnqvksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, fu;ferhdj.k fd;k tkosa %& ¼1½ ftys esa tc Hkh prqFkZ Js.kh ¼Hk`R;ksa@izkslsl loZj½ ds in ij fu;fer HkrhZ ;k iwoZ ls dk;Zjr izkslsl loZj dj fu;ferhdj.k fd;k tkos rc HkrhZ esa fu;ferhdj.k esa mDr izkslsl&loZj dks izkFkfedrk nh tkosaA ¼2½ izR;sd ftys esa bl Js.kh ds izkslsl loZjksa dh ,d ofj"Brk lwph izR;sd o"kZ ,d tuojh dh fLFkfr esa rS;kj dh tkosaA ofj"Brk dk vk/kkj deZpkjh }kjk dh xbZ dqy lsok vof/k dks j[kk tkosaA ¼3½ Hk`R;ksa ds fu;fer inksa ij HkrhZ@fu;ferhdj.k ds fy;s izkFkfedrk nsrs le; izkslsl loZj fu/kkZfjr vk;q lhek ds ca/ku ls eqDr jgsaxsA ¼4½ fu;fer inksa ij HkrhZ@fu;ferhdj.k ij izkFkfedrk nsrs le; vkj{k.k ,oa fu/kkZfjr ;kstuk ds ekin.Mksa dk iw.kZr% ikyu fd;k tkosaA e/;izns'k ds jkT;ikyu ds uke ls rFkk vkns'kkuqlkj gLrk@& voj lfpo e/;izns'k 'kklu] jktLo foHkkx
3. This policy was issued much prior to the date when Madhya Pradesh Kanishth Seva (Sayukt Aharta) Pariksha Niyam, 2013, came into force. The writ petitions have been allowed despite there being Madhya Pradesh Kanishth Seva (Sayukt Aharta) Pariksha ...4... Conc.No.1712/2018 & other connected matters Niyam, 2013 was in force. While allowing the writ petition, this court has observed that in most of the districts - process servers have been regularized in compliance of circular dated 19.5.2005, but only in Indore and Rajgarh, the said circular has not been complied with and this is nothing but discrimination and violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. In view of the above, the Collector, Indore has wrongly taken the shelter of circular dt.7.5.2018 and the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Kanishth Seva (Sayukt Aharta) Pariksha Niyam, 2013, by writing letter dated 13.2.2019 to the Principal Secretary Revenue. He is trying to defeat the direction given by this court. Once this court has allowed all the writ petitions and the said order have attained the finality after dismissal of the SLP, then no policy decision is required to be taken at any level. The Government has already taken a policy decision while issuing the circular dated 19.10.2005 much prior to the Madhya Pradesh Kanishth Seva (Sayukt Aharta) Pariksha Niyam, 2013, came into force. Most of the process servers in other districts have been given the benefit and regularization. Therefore, no fresh decision is required to be taken and by not complying the order, the Collector, Indore has committed a contempt of this court.
4. By order dated 8.4.2019, this court has granted 48 hours to submit the compliance report and even the said order has not been complied with. No affidavit has been filed in this regard. Vide order dated 12.3.2019, this court has directed Shri Manish Rastogi, IAS to be remained present before this court in case the order is not complied with on or before 8.4.2019, but today, neither he is present nor any application seeking exemption from personal appearance has been filed. Hence a show cause notice be issued as ...5... Conc.No.1712/2018 & other connected matters to why they should not be punished for non-compliance of the order dated 10.12.2018, 12.3.2019 and 8.4.2019.
5. Let the Collector, Indore and Mr. Manish Rastogi, IAS be remained present before this Court on 13.05.2019.
6. So far in Conc.No.2430/2018, today Ms. Nidhi Nivedita, Collector, Rajgarh, has filed the affidavit along with the copy of order dated 9.4.2019 whereby, she has recalled the earlier order dated 4.2.2019 and initiated the process of preparation of seniority list and also sought the permission from the Election Commission. It is made clear that for compliance of the orders passed by this court, which have been upheld by the Apex court, no permission from Election Commission is required. She is directed to complete the process for compliance of order dated 19.4.2018, passed in W.P.No.7308/2016, as early as possible and submit the compliance before next date of hearing. She is also directed to remain present before this court on 13.05.2019.
7. In view of the above, list on 13.05.2019.
8. Certified copy, as per rules.
(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE SS/-
Digitally signed by Shailesh Sukhdev Date: 2019.04.16 10:56:04 +05'30'