Ramkesh Mahawar S/O Shri Ghudmal ... vs Dr. R. Venkateswaran Principal ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 6603 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

               D. B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 479/2020

                                          In

                 D. B. Special Appeal Writ No. 961/2019

Ramkesh Mahawar S/o Shri Ghudmal Mahawar, aged about 32
years, R/o Village and Post Binori, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa.
                                                                        ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.      Dr.    R.   Venkateswaran           Principal       Secretary,     Education
        Department,        Government            of    Rajasthan,       Government
        Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.      Sourabh        Swami,         Director,         Secondary         Education,
        Government of Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3.      Mukesh         Kumar         Sharma,           Secondary          Education,
        Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4.      State of Rajasthan, through the Principal Secretary
        Education       Department,            Government          of     Rajasthan,
        Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
                                                                   ----Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Munesh Bhardwaj Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Ganesh Meena Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rahul Sehra Advocate.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

Order

17/11/2021

Heard.

Though, the respondents have not been served, in view

of the reply which has been filed by the State and the material

brought on record relating to consideration of the case of the

petitioner, this contempt petition can be disposed off.

(2 of 4) [CCP-479/2020]

This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner

alleging willful disobedience of the direction issued by learned

Single Judge vide order dated 02.04.2019 in batch of writ

petitions including the writ petition filed by the petitioner, which

was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court vide its

judgment dated 29.08.2019 passed in special appeals (writ),

wherein directions were issued.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that

the spirit of the directions issued by learned Single Judge as also

by the Division Bench was to consider the preference based on

merit for posting and allocation of cadre against the reserved

category posts, but instead of considering the case of the

petitioner, the respondents-authorities altogether excluded him

from consideration and denied the benefit of the order only on the

ground that he had not joined pursuant to the appointment order.

It is contended that even when the order was passed

by the learned Single Judge on 02.04.2019 and thereafter by the

Division Bench on 29.08.2019, no such contention was raised by

the State that those, who had not joined, were not entitled to any

consideration. According to learned counsel for the petitioner,

since the petitioner was also granted relief by the learned Single

Judge and also by the Division Bench in the form of specific

direction for consideration of his allocation based on merit and

preference against the reserved category post, the respondents-

authorities had no justification to deny consideration on the

ground which was not raised before the Court when the orders

were being passed. He would also contend that the order, which

has been relied upon by the respondents-authorities, was passed

without it being brought to the notice that an interim order was

(3 of 4) [CCP-479/2020]

passed on 27.09.2018 in one of the connected petitions, i.e., S. B.

Civil Writ Petition No. 22050/2018 Mamta Devi Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Others, wherein learned Single Judge, during

pendency of the writ petition, restrained the Director, Secretary

Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner from conducting counselling

regarding posting of teachers on the basis of their allotment order

dated 25.09.2018 till further orders and it was clearly stated that

counselling shall not be conducted till further orders from the

Court. It is argued that even then, counselling was conducted,

posting orders were issued. Non-joining of a candidate could not

be made a basis for exclusion of the petitioner from consideration.

On the other hand, learned State counsel would submit

that after the orders were passed by the learned Single Judge and

Division Bench, the authorities examined case of all the candidates

and while formulating the policy for implementation of the

direction of the Court, it was also decided that those candidates,

who had not joined pursuant to the order of appointment, shall be

kept outside the purview of consideration. He would further

submit that this particular condition of the policy was challenged

by one of the writ petitioners and orders were passed where

learned Single Judge of this Court held that the condition that

those, who had not joined pursuant to appointment order, would

be excluded from consideration of revised allocation, was held as

valid.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find

that the contempt is alleged to have been committed on the

contention that exclusion of the petitioner's case from

consideration in implementation of the directions of the Court in

earlier round of litigation, only on the basis that he had not joined

(4 of 4) [CCP-479/2020]

pursuant to appointment order, is an act of willful disobedience.

The said contention on the face of order dated 21.01.2021 passed

by learned Single Jduge of this Court in batch of writ petitions,

i.e., S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5281/2020, Sangeeta Ahuja Vs.

The State of Rajasthan & Others (Annexure-R/5) cannot be

accepted. Learned Single Judge has held that in the case of some

of the candidates that such an action of exclusion of candidates in

the course of implementation of the directions issued by the

Division Bench in the case of State of Rajasthan & Others Vs.

Poonam Sharma, D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 815/2019

could not be said to be illegal in law. Therefore, it is clear that the

view which has been taken by the respondents-authorities cannot

be said to be an act of willful disobedience.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner herein

that the said order does not bind the petitioner, leaves the

petitioner with liberty to take recourse to the remedy that may be

available to him under the law as against the decision to exclude

him from purview of consideration on the basis that he did not join

pursuant to appointment order.

With the said liberty, contempt petition is found to be

without merit and is, therefore, dismissed.

Rule is discharged.

(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J

MANOJ NARWANI /37

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)