Allahabad High Court
Daulat Ram And Another vs Shivendra Vikram Singh, Director Of ... on 2 March, 2020
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 36 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1447 of 2020 Applicant :- Daulat Ram And Another Opposite Party :- Shivendra Vikram Singh, Director Of Education (Basic) Counsel for Applicant :- Mamta Maurya,Ram Yash Maurya Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
By order dated 12.7.2018 passed in Writ A No.14531 of 2018 filed by the applicants, the Court directed as under:
"Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as Assistant Teacher in the respondent no.6 institution since the date of his appointment i.e. 7.12.1998. He further submits that a report in the matter of the petitioners was submitted by the respondent no.3 to the respondent no.2 vide letter No.3960-61/2013-14, dated 21.1.2014, but no decision has been taken by the respondent no.2 so far.
The respondent no.6 institution was taken on grain-in-aid list in December 2006. A letter with respect to the grain-in-aid dated 16.3.2007 was issued by the respondent no.3 in which the name of the petitioners were not mentioned. The respondent orally told that the petitioner holds Visharad Degree which is not equivalent to B.Ed. and as such they could not be continued as Assistant Teacher.
Sri Pranesh Dutt Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 and 5 submits that there is no evidence that the petitioner was ever working in the institution in question. That apart as per his own showing the petitioner does not possess even the minimum educational qualification. He is not holding B.Ed. degree. Therefore, there does not arise any question for the petitioner to be an Assistant Teacher. He further submits that the Visharad degree is not equivalent to B.Ed. and, thus, the petitioner does not possess the minimum basic qualification. The controversy with respect to degree of Visharad has already been settled by this Court by judgment dated 23.5.2018 in Writ - A No.32456 of 2002 (Indu Devi Vs. Zila Samaj Kalyan Adhikari Kushinagar & another).
In view of the aforesaid, since the matter is stated to be pending before the respondent no.2 and as such this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent no.2 to take a final decision in the matter of petitioners, strictly in accordance with law including the judgment in the case of Indu Devi (supra), expeditiously, preferably within eight weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.
Writ petition is disposed of."
It appears that a certified copy of the aforesaid order was submitted for compliance before the opposite party but the opposite party has wilfully not complied with the order and, thus, has committed civil contempt liable for punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Prima facie a case of contempt has been made out. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, one more opportunity is afforded to the opposite party to comply with the aforesaid order of the Court within six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
The applicants shall supply a duly stamped registered envelope addressed to the opposite party and another self-addressed stamped envelope to the office within one week from today. The office shall send a copy of this order along with the self-addressed envelope of the applicant with a copy of contempt application to the opposite party within one week thereafter and keep a recorded thereof.
The opposite party shall comply with the directions of the writ court and intimate him of the order through the self-addressed envelop within a week thereafter.
With the aforesaid observations, this application is disposed of at this stage with liberty to the applicants to move a fresh application, if the order is not complied with by the opposite party within the stipulated time as aforementioned.
Order Date :- 2.3.2020 RKP