Jyoti Devi vs Farooq Ahmed Shah Secy. Edu. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 329 j&K

                                                               Sr. No. 210
              HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
                         AT JAMMU
CJ Court

Case: CPLPA No. 14 of 2018


Jyoti Devi                                         ...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
                                 Through: Sh. Koushal Parihar, Advocate.

                         v/s
Farooq Ahmed Shah Secy. Edu. Deptt. and                .... Respondent(s)
another
                              Through: Sh. Ravinder Gutpa, AAG


       CORAM:
       HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
       HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE


                                      ORDER

01. This contempt petition is directed for the wilful disobedience of the

directions contained in judgment and order dated 04.08.2017 passed by the

Division Bench in LPASW No. 106/2017.

02. The Division Bench by the said judgment not only set aside the

judgment and order dated 28.10.2016 passed by the writ court but issued

directions to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for

appointment to the post of Rehbar-e-taleem in accordance with her merit

within a period of one month from the date of order.

03. It appears that no decision within the time specified was taken.

Accordingly, contempt proceedings were initiated on 03.04.2018 wherein the

respondents appeared on 06.08.2018. Till such date there was no compliance of

the directions of the court. Subsequently a Government Order was issued on

16.11.2018 and on that basis the petitioner was non-suited vide order dated

04.12.2018 on the ground that the Scheme itself stands closed.

04. The record reveals that though the directions of the Division Bench were

not complied with in the case of petitioner but atleast six persons were

considered and granted benefit.

05. The question is why the respondents could not consider the case of the

petitioner pursuant to the directions of the Division Bench when cases of some

other candidates were considered. The rejection of the petitioner's claim on the

basis of the Government Order dated 16.11.2018 appears to be manipulative

one with wilful intention to defeat the claim of the petitioner as he had initiated

contempt proceedings.

Issue notice to respondent nos. 1 and 2.

List on 18th May 2021.

                                   (SINDHU SHARMA)                   (PANKAJ MITHAL)
                                             JUDGE                     CHIEF JUSTICE
            Jammu
            18.03.2021
            Sunita




SUNITA KOUL
2021.03.19 13:00
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document