Tejinder Kaur vs Sarla Gopalan & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 902 Del

                * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                               Date of Reserve: 7th January, 2010
                                               Date of Order: 16th February, 2010

CONT. CAS.(C) No. 316/1995
%                                                                16.02.2010

       Tejinder Kaur                                             ... Petitioner
                             Through: Petitioner-in-person

               Versus


       Sarla Gopalan & Ors.                          ... Respondents
                         Through: Mr. A.K.Singla, Sr. Advocate with
                         Mr. J.K.Sharma, Mr. H.D.Sharma &
                         Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocates for R-1 & 2

JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

JUDGMENT

The present Contempt Petition was filed in 1995 and unfortunately is pending till date.

2. The petitioner had filed a Writ Petition which was under consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in 1994. On 26th August, 1994 Division Bench passed an order; the operative part of which is as under:

"In view of the fact that the petitioner is now eligible for being appointed, the petitioner's application for direct recruitment should be entertained and her candidature be considered with other candidates."

3. The contention of the petitioner is that a statement was made before this Court that the petitioner was eligible to apply and for being considered for direct recruitment to the post of Dy. Director and her candidature would be considered along with other candidates. Because of this statement of the respondent, one of the prayers made by the petitioner in the Writ Petition was considered as satisfied. The petitioner, after this statement made by the

respondent, applied for the post of Dy. Director (direct recruit). The petitioner was called for interview on 15th February, 1996 for the post of Dy. Director (Nutrition) however, this post did not exist on the date when petitioner was called for interview thus the petitioner was called for interview for a non-existent post only to satisfy the order passed by this Court. The result of the petitioner for the post was not declared and thus the statement made by the respondent before the Court was false and there was no compliance of the order in the sense that there was no post and the result of the petitioner was not declared.

4. In response to the petition it is stated by the respondent that the advertisement was issued for four posts of Dy. Director on 7 th May, 1994. The petitioner had submitted her application on 12th September, 1994 against one of the four posts. It is submitted that the petitioner was called for interview and she was interviewed on 15th February, 1996. Selection Committee forwarded panel for approval by the Competent Authority (Secretary, Department of Woman & Child Development). The panel recommended for the post did not contain the name of the petitioner. This panel itself was not approved by the Competent Authority and the second Selection Committee was constituted by the Competent Authority. This Selection Committee again interviewed applicants including petitioner on 19th November, 1996. The second Selection Committee recommended panel of three names for approval by the Competent Authority. This panel also did not contain the name of the petitioner. It is stated that another post of Dy. Director (Nutrition) was sought to be filled by the Institute through direct recruitment under advertisement dated 20th June, 1998. Last date for making application was 21st July, 1998. The petitioner did not apply against this advertisement.

5. I have gone through the documents filed by the respondent in respect of considering the candidature of the applicants and the reports of the Selection Committee. I consider that this Court had not given any direction to the respondent to appoint the petitioner against any particular post. The only direction given by this Court was in respect of eligibility of the petitioner. Selection of the petitioner and appointment could only be done by the Selection Committee in accordance with the rules on the basis of interview of the Selection Committee. The plea taken by the petitioner that a false statement was made regarding availability of the post of Dy. Director (Nutrition) is also not tenable

because the post could not have been said to be filled if the additional charge of the post was given to someone. I find no force in the petition. The petition is hereby dismissed.

February 16, 2010                         SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.
vn