Page No.# 1/4 vs Ajay Kumar Bhalla And 3 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 4898 Gua

                                                                  Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010252242022




                       THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                        Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/736/2022

         PROSHANJIT DAS AND 5 ORS
         S/O BENU DAS, R/O VILL-LABARI, P.O.-MAZROWMARI, P.S.-DHEKIAJULI,
         DIST-SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN-784117.

         2: RITURAJ CHETRY
          S/O BHIM BAHADUR CHETRY
          R/O VILL-KAWAIMARI
          P.O.-BENGENA
          P.S.-ULUANI
          DIST-NAGAON
         ASSAM
          PIN-782137

         3: BASUDEV RIJAL
          S/O DILLI RAM RIJAL
          R/O VILL AND P.O.-HAWAIPUR
          P.S.-KHERONI
          DIST-WEST KARBI ANGLONG
         ASSAM
          PIN-782446

         4: HIMANGSHU PATHGIRI
          S/O DIGEN SHILL
          R/O VILL-BORGHOLA PART-2
          P.O.-CHALANTA PARA
          P.S.-JOGIGHOPA
          DIST-BONGAIGAON
         ASSAM
          PIN-783388

         5: DEBABRATA SUTRADHAR
          S/O SRI MAHANANDA SUTRADHAR
          R/O VILL- AMGURI PT-I
          P.O.-LOTIBARI
                                                        Page No.# 2/4

P.S.-ABHAYAPURI
DIST-BONGAIGAON
ASSAM
PIN-783384

6: ANKU KUMAR DAS
 S/O KRISHNA MOHAN DAS
 R/O VILL-MOHANPUR PART-VI
 P.O.-MOHANPUR
 P.S.-ALGAPUR
 DIST-HAILAKANDI
ASSAM
 PIN-78815

VERSUS

AJAY KUMAR BHALLA AND 3 ORS
THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW
DELHI-01.

2:S. KISHORE (IAS)

THE CHAIRMAN
STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION
INDIA
BLOCK NO.12 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD
NEW DELHI-03.

3:BHAKTI PRASAD SONOWAL

THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR
STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
HOUSE FED COMPLEX
DISPUR
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
PIN-781006.

4:DR. SUJOY LAL THAOSEN
 IPS

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE
EAST BLOCK-07
LEVEL-4
SECTOR-01
                                                                               Page No.# 3/4

             R.K. PURAM
             NEW DELHI
             66

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. S SUTRADHAR

Advocate for the Respondent :




                                 BEFORE
            HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

                                         ORDER

Date : 12-12-2022

Heard Mr. S. Sutradhar, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. This contempt petition is instituted alleging wilful and deliberate violation of the order dated 03.08.2022 in WP(C) No. 3148/2021 and other writ petition. In paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said order, it was provided as extracted:

"4. As the issue had already been decided by the judgment dated 07.06.2022 in WP(C) No. 1684/2021, we follow the said judgment and provide that in the circumstance if the petitioners had secured enough marks in the selection process to compete on merit with the unreserved candidates, the benefit thereof be provided to the petitioners.

5. In respect of WP(C) No. 3148/2021, we have been informed that no post had been ordered to have been kept vacant in the interim. If it is so, the respondents may consider the same and pass appropriate orders as advisable under the law."

3. In respect of WP(C) No. 1684/2021, it was provided that the respondents will look from the records whether the petitioners had secured enough marks to compete on merit with the unreserved candidates and if yes, to pass a reasoned order. In respect of WP(C) No. 3148/2021, the order passed was that as in the interim no post was kept vacant, the respondents may look into the claim of the petitioners and pass any reasoned order. But the said order had been misinterpreted in the representation by the petitioners dated 08.08.2022 by Page No.# 4/4

providing that as the petitioners had secured more marks than the unreserved category candidates, therefore the respondent authorities are requested to pass necessary appointment orders as per the direction of the Court passed in the order dated 03.08.2022 in WP(C) No. 3148/2021 and other writ petition.

4. Consequently, we are of the view that the representation had misconstrued the order of the Court whereas in the order of the Court, there is a requirement for the respondents to look into the claim of the petitioners and pass a reasoned order, in the representation, the same had been transformed to be a direction to issue appointment order. Because of the aforesaid reason, we are disagreeing to issue notice of contempt to the respondents.

5. Accordingly, contempt petition stands closed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to file appropriate representation before the respondent authorities informing them about the requirement of the order dated 03.08.2022 in WP(C) No. 3148/2021 and other writ petition.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant