Manoj Kumar Bhatiya vs Ritu Goyal, District Inspector Of ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 6578 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 36
 

 
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2015 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Bhatiya
 
Opposite Party :- Ritu Goyal, District Inspector Of School
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Kumar Sharma
 

 
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant through video conferencing.

The applicant is before this Court for a direction to initiate contempt proceeding against the opposite parties for wilful disobedience of the order dated 23.3.2021 passed in Writ-A No.3542 of 2021 (Manoj Kumar Bhatia v. State of U.P. & Ors.), which for ready reference is quoted as under:-

"Heard Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rahul Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Avanish Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent no.4, University.

The writ petition has been filed for following reliefs:-

"A. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 04.01.2021 passed by the Director, Secondary Education, Prayagraj and order dated 30.01.2021 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Hathras (Annexure Nos.12 and 13) to the writ petition.

B. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect to the impugned orders referred to above and to stay all further proceeding consequent there upon during the pendency of the writ petition before the Hon'ble Court.

C. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful functioning of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher in G.S.A.S. Inter College Mushan, Hathras and pay his salary regularly, month to month, if and when, the same falls due."

At the outset, it is stated that controversy involved in the present case that the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No.326 of 2020 (Kiral Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others) decided on 26.02.2021. Referring to that decision it has been stated that rights of the petitioner stand determined in terms of direction no.4 contained in the aforesaid order. It reads as under:-

"(4) So far as the termination orders in reference to tampered mark-sheets are concerned, as urged by the learned counsel for the appellants, the University is directed to complete the exercise, as directed by the learned Single Judge, after observance of the provisions of law referred in the judgment and otherwise directed by this Court in the case of Tilak Singh (supra). The order in reference to those candidates would be made within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The order of termination/cancellation of appointments would be governed by the outcome of the order passed by the University, as agreed by the learned counsel for the appellants. If the University hold mark-sheets to be genuine instead of tampered of any of the appellants, the order of termination/cancellation of appointments, those would stand set aside. However, if the University records a finding about any of the candidates holding tampered mark-sheets, then the order of termination/cancellation of appointments would have effect but it would be from the date of the order passed by the University and accordingly for a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment by the University, the order of termination/cancellation of appointments of the candidates holding tampered mark-sheets is kept in abeyance. Those candidates would be allowed to work with payment of salary.

It is, however, made clear that in case any of the candidate fails to participate in the proceedings initiated by the University or delays it, this order would not be to their benefit and accordingly, the direction herein above would remain operative only for a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order by the University. On the expiry of the period given above, the order of termination/cancellation of appointments would become effective and thereby the University is directed to complete the exercise within the period given above. In case any candidate fails to cooperate with them, then a separate order for it can be passed but University would not, in any case, delay the process and for that no extension would be given by this Court rather default of the University to comply the direction aforesaid would have consequences of stoppage of salary of those who have to take action and to pass order in pursuance to the direction of this Court. The Vice Chancellor of the University would monitor compliance of this order and in case of delay, he would not be entitle to salary.

The University would be at liberty to make inspection of the marks folio lying with the Registrar, High Court or the S.I.T. for the purpose of verification, if so required and accordingly Registrar, High Court as well as S.I.T. is directed to cooperate with the University for it."

It is submitted that the D.I.O.S. has already taken a decision regarding services of the petitioner and the decision is pending before the University Authorities, who have to take a final decision in terms of the decision of the Division Bench.

In view of above, the present writ petition is also disposed of in terms of the decision made by the Division Bench. It is further expected that the University Authorities shall make final decision within prescribed time."

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a certified copy of the aforesaid order was submitted for compliance before the opposite parties but the opposite parties have wilfully not complied with the order and, thus, have 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 parties to comply with the aforesaid order of the Court within six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order.

The applicant shall supply a duly stamped registered envelope addressed to the opposite parties and another self-addressed stamped envelope to the office within two weeks from today. The office shall send a copy of this order along with the self-addressed stamped envelope of the applicant with a copy of contempt application to the opposite parties within one week, thereafter and keep a record thereof. The opposite party shall comply with the directions of the writ Court and intimate the applicant 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 applicant to move a fresh application, if the order is not complied with by the opposite parties within the stipulated time as aforementioned.

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

Order Date :- 23.6.2021

SP/