Allahabad High Court
Puneet Singh vs Shri Jagdish Secy. U.P. Public ... on 13 May, 2022
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 18
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2088 of 2020
Applicant :- Puneet Singh
Opposite Party :- Shri Jagdish Secy. U.P. Public Service Commission Praygraj
Counsel for Applicant :- Dr. V.K. Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Raj Kumar Upadhyaya (R.K.Upadhyaya),Ashok Shukla
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Dr. V.K. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Raj Kumar Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the opposite party.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the writ Court by means of order dated 14.11.2019, passed in Writ Petition No. 30995 (S/S) of 2019, while disposing of the writ petition had granted two directions : first direction was with regard to disclosure of details of successful candidates to be demonstrated in respect of marks obtained by such candidates, and in this regard the Court had directed opposite party no. 3 to take appropriate decision strictly in accordance with law with promptness.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the opposite party that the said direction of the writ Court has been complied with and has submitted that by means of order dated 10.10.2019, the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commissioner, Prayagraj had provided that all the candidates can obtain details of their marks obtained by them by availing facility of OTP. He submits that entire marks obtained can be seen and hence submits that order of writ Court has been complied with. Order dated 10.10.2019, is annexed alongwith the compliance affidavit.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant on the other hand submits that full compliance of the directions issued by the writ Court has not been made. He submits that marksheet of all the candididates should have been made available to enable a candidate to know whether he/she has secured higher/lower marks.
5. In any view of the matter, this Court by means of order dated 14.11.2019 had left the said matter to be considered and decided by the opposite party and it is informed that opposite party by means of order dated 10.10.2019, has taken decision, therefore, it cannot be said that opposite party has violated the order of writ Court.
6. The second direction given by the writ Court in its order dated 14.11.2019, is with regard to declaration of waiting list of 10% of the existing vacancies. In this regard it has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in the judgment the writ Court has observed that after preparation of final list the Commission is obliged to prepare wait list of 10% existing vacancies.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite party on the other hand has submitted that the second direction of the writ Court has also been complied with by the opposite party and in paragraph 6 of the affidavit of compliance it is stated that waiting list to the tune of 10% of the existing vacancies was also prepared of seven candidates considering the vertical as well as horizontal reservation has also been forwarded to the State Government.
8. The aforesaid response of the opposite party clearly indicates that waiting list is prepared to the tune of 10% of the existing vacancies and the same will be been sent to the State Government as and when it is demanded. At this stage it is noticed that even the direction given in the case of Manish Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others - Writ-A No. 4204 of 2019, has been applied, considering that the waiting list has also been prepared by the Commissioner in terms of the directions issued in the case of Manish Kumar Singh (supra).
9. Considering the fact that the opposite party has complied with the order of writ Court, it cannot be said that the opposite party now runs in contempt of the order passed by the writ Court.
10. Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed. Notice issued to opposite party stands discharged.
11. However, in case applicant is aggrieved by the decision taken by the Commissioner, he is at liberty to assail the same before appropriate form in appropriate proceedings.
Order Date :- 13.5.2022
A. Verma
(Alok Mathur, J.)
