Arun Kumar Jain vs Mr.V.P.Aggarwal Chairman ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 3973 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                Judgment reserved on : 09.08.2011
                                 Judgment delivered on : 16.08.2011

+             CONT. CAS (C) No. 20/2011

ARUN KUMAR JAIN                                  ........... Petitioner
                          Through:     Mr.Prakash Gautam, Advocate.
                     Versus

MR. V.P. AGGARWAL, CHAIRMAN
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA              ..........Respondent
                    Through: Ms. Anjana Gosain, Advocate.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

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

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                     Yes

     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
                                                          Yes

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the conduct of the

respondent; his contention is that the directions contained in the

order of the Single Bench dated 31.08.2010 have not been

complied with by the respondent.

2. Record shows that the two writ petitions had been filed by

petitioners were allowed; contempt petition has been preferred

by one petitioner, namely Arun Kumar Jain. The petitioner had

been selected for the post of Manager (Electronics); he was

however not appointed; contention of the respondent was that

there were less number of vacancies.

3. Facts emanating are as follows:

4. In December, 2007, an advertisement had been given for

filling up 68 posts of Manager (ATC) and 171 posts of Manager

(Electronics). Out of the 171 posts of Manager (Electronics); 88

posts were in the general category, 46 posts in the OBC category,

25 posts in the SC category and 12 posts in the ST category which

included 5 posts for the physically challenged. This is clear from

the advertisement which had been effected in December, 2007

and forms a part of para No. 3 of the judgment dated 31.08.2010.

Result was declared in January, 2009; the petitioner was not

included in the said list; aggrieved, the petitioner had filed the

aforenoted writ petition.

5. The respondent had contested the petition. Various defences

had been raised by the respondent. It was never the defence of

the respondent that the petitioner was not qualified. In para 22 of

the judgment dated 31.08.2010, the submission of the respondent

was noted that the petitioner has no vested right to be appointed

merely because his name has been shown in the selection list.

Respondent No. 1 however did not dispute this factum that the

petitioner did not have the requisite qualifications in terms of the

advertisement issued by them. All the contentions raised by the

respondents had, in fact, been repelled. This has been noted in

para 34 of the judgment. In paras 35 & 37 learned Single Judge

had noted that the case of the petitioner is not different from

those persons who had already been issued a letter of

appointment; mandamus was accordingly issued to the

respondent to offer letter of appointment to the petitioner.

6. Letter of appointment has admittedly not been issued till

date. The contention of the respondent is that although the

petitioner had the requisite qualification for the post of Manager

(Electronics), but since his name appears at serial No. 90, he had

not come into the consideration zone; contention being that there

were 171 vacancies of which 87 already stood filled; 84 posts

were to be filled in and appointment letters for 88 persons, in fact,

have already been given i.e. the total of 171 vacancies now stands

filled; the petitioner falls at serial No. 90; he cannot be

considered. The combined merit list of Manager (Electronics) has

been placed on record along with the reply affidavit of the

respondent. The counsel for the respondent has pointed out that

candidate at serial No. 5 Kamalini Pradhan has been taken in the

ST category; candidate at serial No. 41 Adarsh Kumar Srivastava

did not produce his NOC and as such he has not been appointed;

the person at serial No. 88 Laxmi Chauhan also did not produce

her 'No objection Certificate'; she has also not been appointed;

three candidates have thus gone out of this list but in view of the

fact that five posts have to be kept for physically challenged, two

persons have been appointed in that category; 88 appointment

letters have already been issued; the case of the petitioner falling

at serial. No. 90 could not be considered for this reason and that

is why the appointment letter has not been issued to him.

7. In the rejoinder affidavit which has been filed by the

petitioner, this stand has been disputed. It is contended that the

combined merit list (now relied upon) had not seen the light of the

day in the writ petition; in the writ petition Annexure P-3 which

was the merit list of the general candidates for the post of

Manager (Electronics) had only been filed where the name of the

petitioner Anil Kumar Jain was shown at serial No.87. Record

shows that this has specifically been stated by the petitioner in

para 10 of the writ petition. In the corresponding para of the reply

affidavit filed by the respondent there is no dispute about this

factum.

8. It has thus been established from the record that the only

merit list which had been filed before the writ court was the merit

list of the general candidates for the post of Manager (Electronics)

where the name of the petitioner Anil Kumar Jain was shown at

serial No. 87. There was no separate list of the OBC, SC or ST

category.

9. The court sitting in contempt jurisdiction does not have to

see the rightness or the wrongness of an order; it has only to see

that the directions contained in the order have or have not been

complied with. The directions contained in the order of the Single

Bench dated 31.08.2010 are clear and unequivocal; a mandamus

had been issued to the respondent to give appointment letter to

the petitioner. The stand of the respondent in not complying with

the directions is misconceived; the respondent cannot now raise

an argument and furnish a combined merit list of all categories of

candidates which was not the submission before the writ court;

admittedly before the writ court there was only one merit list of

general category where the petitioner figured at serial No. 87.

Admittedly as per the reply, offer of appointment has been made

to 88 candidates; the petitioner had originally been placed at

serial No. 87; in not issuing the petitioner the appointment letter,

the respondent is clearly guilty of contempt of Court. Respondent

has willfully and intentionally not complied with the specific

mandamus issued to him which amounts to nothing short of but

interfering in the administration of justice; Mr. V.P. Aggarwal,

Chairman of the respondent is held guilty of contempt of Court; he

is accordingly convicted under Sections 11 & 12 of the Contempt

of Court Act.

10. For order on sentence, to come up on 23.08.2011.

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

AUGUST        16, 2011
a