Delhi High Court
Sadachari Singh vs Shashi Mishra & Ors. on 15 November, 2018
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: November 15, 2018
+ CONT. CAS. (C) 518/2002
+ CONT. CAS. (C) 192/2008
+ CONT. CAS. (C) 125/2009
SADACHARI SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Amiy Shukla and Mr. Shakti
Vardhan, Advocates
versus
SHASHI MISHRA & ORS.
DR. MANGALA RAI & ORS.
DR. MANGALA RAI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. S.S. Lingwal, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. In the above captioned three petitions, non-compliance of various
interim orders in W.P. (C) 3792/2002 is alleged. With the consent of
learned counsel for the parties, these three petitions have been heard
together and are being decided by this common order.
2. Vide interim order of 30th September, 2002 respondents were
directed to allow petitioner to participate in the interview. In the reply
filed by respondents, it is asserted that upon receipt of fax message from
the Headquarters, i.e. ICAR, on 1st October, 2002 in noon time, petitioner
was searched by the Controller of Examination and the Dealing Assistant
but he was not traceable. It is a case of petitioner that he was very much
present. In the interim order of 7th January, 2003, it is noted that
respondents are not contemplating the abolition of post of Assistant
Director General (Engg.), Indian Council for Agricultural Research
(ICAR). Even in the reply to the contempt petition, respondents maintain
that they have no proposal to abolish the said post. Learned counsel for
respondents submits that the said post is still lying vacant.
3. As per order of 12th January, 2007, respondents had disclosed to
the Court that petitioner's application for two posts is being considered
and petitioner has been shortlisted. The grievance of petitioner is that it
has not been so done. In the reply filed by respondents, it is maintained
that proceedings for imposition of major penalty was initiated against
petitioner vide order of 12th July, 2007 and petitioner was infact
considered for the post of Asstt. Director General (Engg.), ICAR HQ,
New Delhi, on 15.11.2006/9.8.2006 respectively and also for the post of
Director Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur, on 14.10.2006/7
& 8 August, 2006. Petitioner was also called for the interview for the post
of Project Director (DIPA) ICAR HQ, New Delhi, on 26.4.2007/2.4.2007
to 4.4.2007 and the marks obtained have been also disclosed by
respondents in the affidavit of 3rd September, 2007. It is also submitted on
behalf of respondents that the disciplinary proceedings initiated against
petitioner were challenged by petitioner by filing O.A. bearing No.
392/2006 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi and is
pending adjudication before the Tribunal.
4. During the course of hearing, it was brought to notice of the Court
that alleged non-compliance of the interim orders in the writ petition,
pales into insignificance as the writ petition already stands dismissed.
5. Upon hearing and on perusal of orders of which non-compliance is
alleged, I find that there has been no wilful disobedience of the afore-
referred interim orders by respondents. In fact, substantial compliance of
the afore-referred interim orders has been done by respondents. In the
considered opinion of this Court, no case for initiating contempt
proceeding against respondents is made out.
Accordingly, these three petitions are dismissed.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 15, 2018
v
