Jharkhand High Court
Dr. Bina Dubey vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cont. Case (Civil) No. 783 of 2021
Dr. Bina Dubey --- --- Petitioner
Versus
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Dr. Kamini Kumar, Vice Chancellor, Ranchi University, Ranchi
3.Amitabh Chaudhary, Chairman, Jharkhand Public
Service Commission, Ranchi --- --- Opposite Parties
.......
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
For the Petitioner : Mr. Nagendra Tiwary, Advocate
For the O.P.-JPSC : M/s A. Allam, Fahad Allam, Advocates
For the O.P.- University : M/s A.K. Mehta, Manish Kumar, Advocates
For the O.P.-State : Mr. Rohit, A.C. to AA.G-I
06/08.08.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The order under offence reads as under:
1. "Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that suffice
it will be for the disposal of this writ petition, if the grievance
ventilated in this writ petition are finally decided by the Vice-
Chancellors of the respondents-Universities in accordance with
law, rules, regulations, Governmental policies, University
Grants Commission norms and statutes etc.
2. In view of the limited submission made by the counsel for the
petitioner, we, hereby, direct the Vice-Chancellors of
respondents-Universities to decide the claim of this petitioner in
accordance with law, rules, regulations, Governmental policies,
University Grants Commission norm, statutes etc. and on the
basis of the earlier judgment delivered by all the competent
courts. The decision will be taken as early as possible and
practicable. If need arises, the Vice-Chancellors will inform the
Jharkhand Public Service Commission.
3. With these observations, this writ petition is, hereby, disposed
of.
4. In view of the final order passed in this Letters Patent Appeal,
I.A. Nos. 1141 of 2014, 3109 of 2015, 1833 of 2012, 3760 of
2015, 15 of 2016 & 3488 of 2011 stands disposed of."
3. Show cause has been filed by the Opposite Party no. 2 and 3 i.e.,
the Ranchi University and the Jharkhand Public Service Commission.
The University has enclosed the reasoned order at Annexure -B to their
show cause. J.P.S.C in its show cause has referred to the pendency of the
CBI case in respect of the selection process of the year 2008 under
advertisement no. 1/2007.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the career of the
petitioner has been ruined. The opposite parties, University and the
J.P.S.C. both should have taken a decision in respect of the claim of the
petitioner for appointment and not abdicated their responsibilities of
taking a decision on the ground of CBI case.
5. We have taken note of the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties. On perusal of the order under offence, it is apparent that the
learned Writ Court did not render a finding on the merits of the case of
the petitioner. On the limited submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner, the Vice Chancellor of the respondent Universities were
directed to decide the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law,
rules, regulations, Governmental policies, University Grants
Commission norms, statutes etc. and on the basis of the earlier
judgments delivered by all the competent courts. The reasoned order has
been passed. We cannot examine the merits of the reasoned order in the
contempt petition. Neither can we declare any right in favour or against
one or the other party in exercise of the power under contempt
jurisdiction. We are of the view that no case of deliberate disobedience
of the Court's order can be made in the instant contempt petition.
6. Accordingly, the instant contempt petition is disposed of leaving
the petitioner to agitate her grievance in an appropriate proceedings
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
A.Mohanty
