Raja Ram Yadav & Ors. Vs. Arun Kumar & Ors.
EmailAppeal: ontempt Petition (Civil) No. 165 of 1999
In Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 8378 of 1993
(With Contempt Petition (Civil No. 303 of 1999 in SLP (C) No. 8287/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 329 to 357 of 1999 in SLP (C) No. 8378/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos 358 to 359 of 1999 in SLP (C) No. 7114/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 360 of 1999 in SLP (C) No. 8378/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 414 of 1999 in SLP (C) No. 8378/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 463 to 468 of 1999 in SLP (C) No. 8378/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 472 of 1999 in SLP (C) No. 7114/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 126 of 2000 in SLP (C) No. 7114/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 198 of 2000 in SLP (C) No. 8378/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 52 of 2001 in SLP (C) No. 7114/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 80 of 2001 in SLP (C) No. 7114/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 90 to 101 of 2001 in SLP (C) No. 8378/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 113 of 2001 in SLP (C) No. 7114/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 133 to 138 of 2001 in SLP (C) No. 8378/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 151 of 2001 in SLP (C) No. 8378/1993 and Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 255 of 2000 in SLP (C) No. 8378/1993)
In Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 8378 of 1993
(With Contempt Petition (Civil No. 303 of 1999 in SLP (C) No. 8287/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 329 to 357 of 1999 in SLP (C) No. 8378/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos 358 to 359 of 1999 in SLP (C) No. 7114/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 360 of 1999 in SLP (C) No. 8378/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 414 of 1999 in SLP (C) No. 8378/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 463 to 468 of 1999 in SLP (C) No. 8378/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 472 of 1999 in SLP (C) No. 7114/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 126 of 2000 in SLP (C) No. 7114/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 198 of 2000 in SLP (C) No. 8378/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 52 of 2001 in SLP (C) No. 7114/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 80 of 2001 in SLP (C) No. 7114/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 90 to 101 of 2001 in SLP (C) No. 8378/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 113 of 2001 in SLP (C) No. 7114/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 133 to 138 of 2001 in SLP (C) No. 8378/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 151 of 2001 in SLP (C) No. 8378/1993 and Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 255 of 2000 in SLP (C) No. 8378/1993)
Petitioner: Raja Ram Yadav & Ors.
Respondent: Arun Kumar & Ors.
Apeal: ontempt Petition (Civil) No. 165 of 1999
In Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 8378 of 1993
(With Contempt Petition (Civil No. 303 of 1999 in SLP (C) No. 8287/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 329 to 357 of 1999 in SLP (C) No. 8378/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos 358 to 359 of 1999 in SLP (C) No. 7114/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 360 of 1999 in SLP (C) No. 8378/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 414 of 1999 in SLP (C) No. 8378/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 463 to 468 of 1999 in SLP (C) No. 8378/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 472 of 1999 in SLP (C) No. 7114/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 126 of 2000 in SLP (C) No. 7114/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 198 of 2000 in SLP (C) No. 8378/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 52 of 2001 in SLP (C) No. 7114/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 80 of 2001 in SLP (C) No. 7114/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 90 to 101 of 2001 in SLP (C) No. 8378/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 113 of 2001 in SLP (C) No. 7114/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 133 to 138 of 2001 in SLP (C) No. 8378/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 151 of 2001 in SLP (C) No. 8378/1993 and Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 255 of 2000 in SLP (C) No. 8378/1993)
In Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 8378 of 1993
(With Contempt Petition (Civil No. 303 of 1999 in SLP (C) No. 8287/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 329 to 357 of 1999 in SLP (C) No. 8378/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos 358 to 359 of 1999 in SLP (C) No. 7114/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 360 of 1999 in SLP (C) No. 8378/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 414 of 1999 in SLP (C) No. 8378/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 463 to 468 of 1999 in SLP (C) No. 8378/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 472 of 1999 in SLP (C) No. 7114/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 126 of 2000 in SLP (C) No. 7114/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 198 of 2000 in SLP (C) No. 8378/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 52 of 2001 in SLP (C) No. 7114/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 80 of 2001 in SLP (C) No. 7114/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 90 to 101 of 2001 in SLP (C) No. 8378/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 113 of 2001 in SLP (C) No. 7114/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 133 to 138 of 2001 in SLP (C) No. 8378/1993, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 151 of 2001 in SLP (C) No. 8378/1993 and Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 255 of 2000 in SLP (C) No. 8378/1993)
Judges: B.N. KIRPAL, SHIVARAJ V. PATIL & P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 04, 2001
Head Note:
CONTEMPT OF COURT
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
Section 2 – Orders dated 27.9.93 to fill up vacancies upto 10.4.91 on basis of result declared on 17.4.89 – At that time, vacancies were 2597 – Only 174 remained unfilled and no more vacancies reported – Initially, chief secretary showing 1823 vacancies till 10.4.91 – Not certain if they were in addition to 2597 – Subsequent affidavit showing 3831 vacancies in all between 1.1.85 to 10.4.91 – Against them, 3867 candidates of 1986 exams already allocated. Held that there was no contempt in complying with orders dated 27.9.93. Petitions dismissed. (Paras 3, 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. By order dated 27th September, 1993, this Court had directed that on the basis of the selection which had taken place and the result declared on 17th April, 1989, vacancies which were available in the cadre of LDCs till 10th April, 1991 should be filled. In the said order, it was stated that according to the state government there were 2597 vacancies till April, 1991. The state government was also directed to find out if there were any further vacancies between the period 1st January, 1985 and 10th April, 1991. These vacancies were also to be filled on the basis of the result of the aforesaid examination which was declared on 17th April, 1989. Thereafter, contempt petition was filed, which on 8th April, 1994 was dismissed with the observation that out of 2597 vacancies only 174 vacancies were unfilled and no more vacancies till 10th April, 1991 existed.
2. Despite the aforesaid order, the present petition was filed alleging that number of vacancies were more than what had been disclosed.
3. Initially, Shri Arun Kumar, chief secretary of the State of Rajasthan had filed an affidavit which seems to indicate that the total number of vacancies as on 10th April, 1991 was 1823. It is the contention of the petitioners that the figure of 1823 was in addition to 2597, but we do not find any warrant for the same because the affidavit of Shri Arun Kumar does not so indicate. However, a further affidavit of the present chief secretary, Shri Inderjit Khanna has been filed. He has stated that after he took over as the chief secretary on 1st January, 2000, he has undertaken an exercise to find out whether this Court’s order has been properly implemented. The number of vacancies determined by him, on the basis of the information which he had gathered, for the period 1st January, 1985 to 10th April, 1991 were 3831. This could be made available for successful candidates of 1986 examination. Against this, 3867 successful candidates of 1986 examination have been allocated and we understand that offers of appointment have been sent to them.
4. We are not satisfied that the averments made by Shri Inderjit Khanna should be doubted. The number of vacancies now stipulated, namely, 3831 appear to be more than what had been indicated earlier. It is not possible to come to the conclusion that there has been any contempt, deliberate or otherwise, in not complying with the orders of this Court dated 27th September, 1993.
5. Contempt petition (civil) no. 165/1999 and the connected petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.
1. By order dated 27th September, 1993, this Court had directed that on the basis of the selection which had taken place and the result declared on 17th April, 1989, vacancies which were available in the cadre of LDCs till 10th April, 1991 should be filled. In the said order, it was stated that according to the state government there were 2597 vacancies till April, 1991. The state government was also directed to find out if there were any further vacancies between the period 1st January, 1985 and 10th April, 1991. These vacancies were also to be filled on the basis of the result of the aforesaid examination which was declared on 17th April, 1989. Thereafter, contempt petition was filed, which on 8th April, 1994 was dismissed with the observation that out of 2597 vacancies only 174 vacancies were unfilled and no more vacancies till 10th April, 1991 existed.
2. Despite the aforesaid order, the present petition was filed alleging that number of vacancies were more than what had been disclosed.
3. Initially, Shri Arun Kumar, chief secretary of the State of Rajasthan had filed an affidavit which seems to indicate that the total number of vacancies as on 10th April, 1991 was 1823. It is the contention of the petitioners that the figure of 1823 was in addition to 2597, but we do not find any warrant for the same because the affidavit of Shri Arun Kumar does not so indicate. However, a further affidavit of the present chief secretary, Shri Inderjit Khanna has been filed. He has stated that after he took over as the chief secretary on 1st January, 2000, he has undertaken an exercise to find out whether this Court’s order has been properly implemented. The number of vacancies determined by him, on the basis of the information which he had gathered, for the period 1st January, 1985 to 10th April, 1991 were 3831. This could be made available for successful candidates of 1986 examination. Against this, 3867 successful candidates of 1986 examination have been allocated and we understand that offers of appointment have been sent to them.
4. We are not satisfied that the averments made by Shri Inderjit Khanna should be doubted. The number of vacancies now stipulated, namely, 3831 appear to be more than what had been indicated earlier. It is not possible to come to the conclusion that there has been any contempt, deliberate or otherwise, in not complying with the orders of this Court dated 27th September, 1993.
5. Contempt petition (civil) no. 165/1999 and the connected petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.
