Dr. Sajeeda Parveen Shaik, vs Prof. Rajnish Jain
2023 Latest Caselaw 1600 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

                CONTEMPT CASE No.1874 of 2018

JUDGMENT:-

     This Contempt Petition was filed alleging the willful

disobedience     of   the   order   dated    26.04.2018      passed   in

W.P.No.10027 of 2018 in I.A.No.1 of 2018. The order reads as

under:-

     "Heard Sri P.Bhanu Prakash, learned counsel appearing
    for the petitioner. Perused the material record.
     The request of the petitioner, at this stage, is to direct the
    3rd respondent to select the petitioner for the Fellowship for

the Post Doctoral Fellowship for Women PDFWM - 2017 - 2018 - AND - 44875, pending further orders in the writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are 100 slots for Post Doctoral Fellowship for Women; only 89 candidates results were declared and the results of the remaining slots, which are 11, are not declared; the petition applied for the Post Doctoral Fellowship with ID No. PDFWM - 2017 - 2018 - AND - 44875; she is eligible for selection; no reasons are assigned for selecting only 89 candidates and leaving the other 11 slots vacant without any declarations.

In that view of the matter, there shall be a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the request of the petitioner, if she is otherwise eligible.

Notice."

2. It is evident that this Court issued direction to the

respondent No.3 in the writ petition, the University Grants

Commission, to consider the request of the petitioner, if she is

otherwise eligible.

3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No.2,

inter alia, submitting and specifically in para No.7 that "the

case of the petitioner has been re-examined by U.G.C and it has

observed that due procedure was followed while entertaining her

application for awarding post of doctoral fellowship under the

scheme of PDF for Women".

4. Though the petitioner has filed the reply affidavit to the

counter of the 2nd respondent but the reply affidavit does not

contain reply to para 7 of the counter affidavit, even in the reply

affidavit it has not been denied or disputed that the petitioner's

case was re-examined by U.G.C.

5. Consequently, no case is made out for proceeding against

the respondents for contempt.

6. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed.

7. Notices issued to the respondents are discharged.

8. No order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending,

shall also stand closed.

__________________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI,J Date: 21.03.2023 SCS

4455554646

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

CONTEMPT CASE No.1874 of 2018

Date: 21.03.2023

Scs