D S POONIA Vs. YUMNA DIMBAJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are filed aggrieved by the common judgment and order dated 14-7-2000 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in Criminal Contempt Petition No. 1/2000. In this judgment, parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the contempt petition. In brief, the facts leading to the filing of these appeals are that respondent No. 2 was an employee in Manipur Electronics Development Corporation (MANITRON); pursuant to the instructions of the Election Commission for computerization of electoral rolls, respondent No. 2 was appointed on deputation for a period of one year as Assistant Chief Electoral Officer (ACEO) by an order dated 7-11-1997; since computerization work could not be completed, his deputation was sought to be extended for one more year with effect from 12-11-1998; the petitioner challenged this order of extension in Writ Petition Civil Rule No. 1187/98 inter alia contending that since respondent No. 2 was serving in a Corporation, an autonomous body it was not permissible to take him on deputation; only a State Services Officer could be taken on deputation and not an officer belonging to the Corporation; accepting this contention, the writ petition was allowed quashing the order of extension given to respondent No. 2; while quashing the order, from the relevant file the High Court found that the services of the second respondent as ACEO was not more required in the Department of Election as computerization of electoral rolls had been completed; the respondent No. 2 was only B-Tech. (Electronics and Communication) and not a Computer Engineer; despite the office objection raised, respondent No. 1 extended the period of deputation of respondent No. 2 for one more year by overruling the objections. Respondent No. 2 filed Writ Appeal No. 108/99 against the order passed in the writ petition; the writ appeal was admitted on 24-6-1999 and an interim order was passed in the following terms :-

(2.) In the aforementioned interim order, respondent No. 1 was restrained from extending the period of deputation of the respondent No. 2 beyond 11-11-1999. At the same time, a direction also was given for framing the recruitment rules for recruitment to the post of ACEO and to finalise the recruitment before 11-11-1999.

(3.) When these directions given in the above extracted interim order passed by the Division Bench were not followed, the petitioner filed a Civil Contempt Petition No. 357/99. Responding to the direction issued in this contempt petition, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 produced copy of the order dated 11-11-1999 passed by the respondent No. 1 purportedly in compliance with the direction given in the said interim order. Looking to the said order, the Court on 15-12-1999 closed the Civil Contempt Petition No. 357/99 so far it related to the respondent No. 1.