JASHODABEN BHUDARBHAI PARMAR Vs. K K NIRALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application has been filed seeking initiation of contempt proceedings for willfully and deliberate contempt of CAV judgement dtd. 30/9/2019 passed in captioned writ petition and further it is prayed that the respondents may be directed to comply with the aforesaid judgement.

(2.) Learned advocate Mr.D.P.Joshi appearing for the applicant has submitted that despite the directions issued by this Court vide judgement dtd. 30/9/2019 directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of Mukhya Sevika, the respondents have not offered any appointment. Learned Advocate Mr.Joshi has placed reliance on the directions issued in para 6 of the judgemnent and order dtd. 30/9/2019. It is submitted that after the aforesaid directions were issued the respondents-authorities prepared a select list of 6 candidates and the name of the applicant was included in the same and she was placed at Sr.No.5. However, she is not offered appointment on the ground of non-availability of the vacancies. Learned Advocate Mr. Joshi has further submitted that in fact the respondents-authorities should have placed the applicant as per her merits looking to her seniority. It is submitted that the respondents- authorities have deliberately not included her name along with the the other candidates looking to her age. He has further submitted that the respondents have not clarified with regard to the the vacancy of the post and hence, in order to deny the appointment to the applicant, the respondents have acted in a contemptuous manner. Learned Advocate Mr. Joshi has also raised the issue of seniority in the matter and also placed the reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Janam Singh & Anr. Etc. vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. Etc. reported in AIR 1994 SC 1722. He has further submitted that the in fact the appointments are made dehors the rules.

(3.) Per contra, Learned Advocate Mr. H.S.Munshaw for the respondents Nos. 4 an 5 has submitted that the respondents- authorities have in fact complied with the directions issued by this Court as 4 candidates are already appointed to the post of Mukhya Sevikas and since the present applicant is less meritorious, she is not offered appointment and also 4 vacancies for which, such recruitment process was to be undertaken, they are filled-up by the candidates who are more meritorious then the applicant. Hence, it cannot be said that the respondents have willfully and deliberately disobeyed the directions issued by this Court. He has further placed the reliance on the affidavit filed by the respondents-authorities and also pointed out the communication dated 23 rd February, 2022. In support of his submissions, learned Advocate Mr.Munshaw has categorically stated that there were 4 posts of Mukhya Sevika, Class III which were absorbed on 14/2/2022 and accordingly, the Departmental Promotion Committee of Banaskantha District Panchyat which met on 14/2/2022 sent a proposal of 6 candidates to the Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Board and accordingly they were sanctioned. It is submitted that for rest of the two posts, it was observed that as and when any vacancies falls, the candidates who are placed in select list would be appointed. Thus, it is submitted that there is no willful or deliberate disobedience of the the directions issued by this Court.