Allahabad High Court
Shalini Gupta vs Smt. Ruby Singh, Secretary, Basic ... on 12 July, 2021
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 1
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1519 of 2020
Applicant :- Shalini Gupta
Opposite Party :- Smt. Ruby Singh, Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Hemant Kumar,Pradeep Kumar Keshri
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Yatindra,Shivam Yadav
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Hemant Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Yatindra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 1.
The present contempt application has been filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act for punishing the Opposite Parties for willful disobedience of the judgment and order of the writ Court dated 01.11.2018 passed in Writ Petition No. 22581 of 2018 (Kamlesh Kumari and others vs. State of U.P. and others) as well as order passed by Division Bench in Special Appeal Defective No. 365 of 2019 on 16.04.2019.
When the matter was taken up on 03.03.2020, the counsel for the applicant was directed to serve a copy on Sri Yatindra, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 1. Today, when the matter was taken up, Sri Yatindra, learned counsel placed before the Court the correct facts stating therein that the writ Court on 01.11.2018 relying upon the orders of Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 867 of 2018 (Pavitra Kumari vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) had directed that applicants, who had worked as Shiksha Mitra, may make an application before the authority and their claim would be considered by the authorities pursuant to the dictum of Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 867 of 2018. Against the order dated 01.11.2018, the U.P. Basic Education Board filed Special Appeal (Defective) No. 365 of 2019 wherein the Division Bench passed the following order:-
"Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondents further submits that out of 9 respondents, the respondents no. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8 & 9 have already joined at their place of posting and the controversy in the present Special Appeal is now confined to only respondents no. 1, 5 & 6.
The Supreme Court in its order of 1.3.2019 in the case of Pavitra Kumari (Supra) had granted benefit to the respondents Shiksha Mitra therein of consideration in the district of Shamli where they had worked earlier and the said order does not indicate that it would not be a precedence in the case of persons similarly situated when for some reasons they were not being able to fill up their particulars on-line against the advertisement but had nevertheless pointed out off-line to the department immediately.
We are of the view that the respondents no. 1, 5 & 6 herein would be entitled to the same benefit as per the directions of the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 867 of 2018 decided on 17.09.2018 and the directions given by the Supreme Court in the case of Pavitra Kumari (Supra).
We therefore, do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order of the learned single Bench dated 01.11.2018.
The Special Appeal is dismissed."
In the said special appeal, the applicant was arrayed as respondent no. 7. Sri Yatindra emphatically argued that appellate Court had granted the benefit as per the directions of the Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 867 of 2018 as well as the directions of the Apex Court to only respondent nos. 1, 5 and 6 who were Kamlesh Kumari, Amit Kumar and Seema Rani and no such benefit was passed on to the present applicant.
When the counsel for the applicant was asked as to how the present contempt petition is maintainable as in the special appeal only benefit has been granted to respondent nos. 1, 5 and 6 and no such relief was afforded by the Division Bench to the applicant, he could not answer the same.
After hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I find that no contempt is made out against the opposite parties and present contempt proceeding has been initiated on wrong legal advice as the order on which reliance has been placed by the applicant for initiating contempt proceeding clearly specifies that the benefit was to be accorded only to respondent nos. 1, 5 and 6 in Special Appeal No. 365 of 2019 while the applicant was arrayed as respondent no. 7. This fact having been accepted by learned counsel for the applicant, no such contempt is being made out.
The contempt petition is consigned to record.
Order Date :- 12.7.2021
V.S.Singh
