ARUN KUMAR JAIN Vs. V P AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the conduct of the respondent; his contention is that the directions contained in the order of the Single Bench dated 31.08.2010 have not been complied with by the respondent.

(2.) RECORD shows that the two writ petitions had been filed by petitioners were allowed; contempt petition has been preferred by one petitioner, namely Arun Kumar Jain. The petitioner had been selected for the post of Manager (Electronics); he was however not appointed; contention of the respondent was that there were less number of vacancies.

(3.) THE respondent had contested the petition. Various defences had been raised by the respondent. It was never the defence of the respondent that the petitioner was not qualified. In para 22 of the judgment dated 31.08.2010, the submission of the respondent was noted that the petitioner has no vested right to be appointed merely because his name has been shown in the selection list. Respondent No. 1 however did not dispute this factum that the petitioner did not have the requisite qualifications in terms of the advertisement issued by them. All the contentions raised by the respondents had, in fact, been repelled. This has been noted in para 34 of the judgment. In paras 35 & 37 learned Single Judge had noted that the case of the petitioner is not different from those persons who had already been issued a letter of appointment; mandamus was accordingly issued to the respondent to offer letter of appointment to the petitioner.