Uttarakhand High Court
CLCON/586/2017 on 11 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
SRI JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
11TH JANUARY, 2023
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 586 OF 2017
Between:
Kishan Singh ...............Petitioner.
and
Sanjeev Agarwal and others. ....Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner. : Mr. Rajesh Joshi.
Counsel for the respondents : Mr. Virendra Kumar Kaparwan, learned
Standing Counsel for the Union of
India.
Upon hearing the learned Counsel, the Court made the
following
JUDGMENT :
The petitioner has preferred the present Contempt
Petition alleging willful and deliberate disobedience of the
order dated 28.03.2017 passed by this Court in WPSS No.
353 of 2011, preferred by the petitioner.
2. The order, in respect of which the petitioner
alleges contempt, reads as follows:-
"Father of the petitioner died in harness on
28.05.1997. Petitioner submitted an application
seeking appointment on compassionate ground.
The application of the petitioner was duly
forwarded to the Competent Authority on 28.10.1998.
Documents asked for were submitted by the petitioner
to the Competent Authority.
Thereafter, the application of the petitioner was
rejected on 23.03.2010 on the ground that no vacancy
of clerk against 5% quota was vacant.
Petitioner lost his father on 28.05.1997. The
respondents have taken almost 12 years to decide the
case of the petitioner.
It cannot be believed that between 1998 to 2010,
no vacancy of clerk was available.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The
impugned annexure no. 8 dated 23.03.2010 is quashed
and set aside. The respondents are directed to
consider the case of the petitioner to the post of clerk,
if any post of clerk was available between 1998 to
2010 within a period of six weeks."
3. I may observe that during the pendency of the writ
petition filed by the petitioner, the recruitment rules for the
post of Clerk were amended, and the minimum educational
qualification was raised from Class-X pass to Class-XII pass.
Admittedly, the petitioner is only Class-X pass. The
petitioner did not inform the Court dealing with WPSS No.
353 of 2011 regarding amendment in the recruitment rules,
and did not seek a direction that he should be appointed as
a Clerk on compassionate ground de hors the amended
rules.
4. The respondents, along with their Compliance Affidavit
dated 07.09.2021, placed on record the Communication
addressed to the petitioner on 21.02.2018 informing the
petitioner that he did not meet the educational requirement
for the post of Clerk, and he may make an application for
grant of compassionate appointment to the posts of Beldar,
M.T.S. or Khalasi, for which the meeting of the concerned
Committee was to be held shortly. The petitioner,
however, did not make such application, despite the offer
made to him on 21.02.2018.
5. According to the petitioner, the amended
recruitment rules for the post of LDC could not have been
made applicable to this case, since the amendment in the
recruitment rules was enforced in the year 2012, whereas
the application to seek compassionate appointment had
been made by the petitioner in the year 1998, which was
rejected on 23.03.2010. According to the petitioner, his case
should have been considered as per the amended
recruitment rules for the post of LDC.
6. Having heard the learned counsels, I am of the
view that the respondents, by issuing communication dated
21.02.2018 to the petitioner and making an offer to him to
apply for the posts of Beldar, M.T.S. or Khalasi, complied
with the order dated 28.03.2017. It was not pleaded before
the Court by the petitioner that he should be considered for
the post of LDC de hors the amended recruitment rules, and
no finding was returned by the Court on the said aspect.
The petitioner could be considered for grant of
compassionate appointment in terms of the order dated
28.03.2017 only in terms of the prevailing recruitment rules,
which was done, and he was asked to apply for appointment
to the posts of Beldar, M.T.S. or Khalasi vide letter dated
21.02.2018.
7. In the light of the aforesaid, I am satisfied that
the respondents have complied with the direction issued by
the Court. The notice issued to the respondents is,
therefore, recalled.
8. The Contempt Petition is dismissed.
________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
Dt: 11th January, 2023
Rathour
