SANJEEV KUMAR VERMA Vs. M M KUTTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has prayed for an adjournment on the ground that his counsel is in some personal difficulty. A perusal of the order sheet shows that on the last date of hearing i. e. 1st April, 2009 also the counsel for the petitioner had sought an adjournment.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. This is a contempt petition filed by the petitioner against the respondents. In the petition, the petitioner has stated that the respondents have committed the contempt by disobeying the orders passed by this Court dated 16th January, 2006.

(3.) A perusal of the order sheet shows that on 16th January, 2006 this Court had disposed of the writ petitions in case titled Rajesh Kumar Sharma and Anr Vs. MCD and Ors bearing W. P. (C) Nos. 20/2006 and 21/2006 wherein the respondents were directed to fill up two posts of Technical Officer falling to the share of promotional quota. The direction of filling up of these two posts was given on the basis of the statement purported to have been made by one Mr. Tarun Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the MCD in the said cases on 16th January, 2006. It was also observed since the respondents had taken a stand that the petitioner was being proceeded in the departmental inquiry, therefore, his case will be kept by the Departmental Promotion Committee in the sealed cover. This entire exercise was to be done by the respondents at the earliest not later than three months from the date of the order i. e. 16th January, 2006.