KAMALBHAI NARSHIBHAI CHAVDA Vs. RAKESH MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioner who was the original contemnor before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in CP No. 17 of 2015 in OA No. 445 of 2013 has challenged the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dtd. 25/8/2021 in the said CP No. 17 of 2015 whereby the Tribunal dropped the contempt petition and discharged the notice to the alleged contemnor.

(2.) Mr. Hasit Joshi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner would assail the order of the Tribunal by which his application for initiating proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act was not entertained on the following grounds: (a) That the OA No. 445 of 2013 was filed by the petitioner for seeking appointment on compassionate grounds on the post of Seaman/Sepoy on the death of his father who died in harness. Despite a clear vacancy being available as he would demonstrate, by relying on the minutes of the meeting dtd. 29/11/2013, he would submit that being eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds and despite the availability of a vacancy, the petitioner was not considered for appointment on compassionate grounds. (b) In support of his submissions, he would tender across the bar an affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondents and annex thereto a copy of the minutes of the meeting dtd. 29/11/2013 wherein the petitioner was considered as eligible and recommended for continuation for consideration for the post of Sepoy. Subsequently, he would invite the court's attention to the order passed by the CAT dtd. 21/7/2014 wherein final directions were given to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and a direction to issue order of appointment on compassionate grounds within three months from the date of the Central Committee. (c) Since the petitioner did not receive any positive response, he filed application for invoking contempt proceedings against the respondents wherein by the order under challenge the Tribunal decided to drop the proceedings.

(3.) Mr. Parth Divyeshwar, learned advocate for the respondents would submit that after the death of the petitioner's father in harness, the application for appointment would have to be made and considered within a period of one year as prescribed in the Office Memorandum dtd. 3/12/1999. That time limit was revised by Office Memorandum dtd. 5/5/2003 for a period of three years. The DOPT on 26/7/2012 issued instructions that the Office Memorandum dtd. 5/5/2003 prescribing a cap of three years be lifted and all cases which were otherwise not considered as a result of being beyond time was revived to be reconsidered. The case of the petitioner was considered for appointment along with 63 cases in a committee meeting of 29/11/2013 and since there was no vacancy available, all 63 applicants who were considered along with the petitioner and were similarly situated were not given any appointments. In a subsequent committee meeting of 2/12/2016 the case of the petitioner along with 42 cases were scrutinized for the post of Havaldar which is a post which was erstwhile the post of Sepoy/Seaman and since the new recruitment rules came into force, the petitioner was not found competent to be considered for appointment. The case was subsequently considered too in the committee meeting dtd. 11/9/2018. These are part of the record in the affidavit-in-reply filed in the contempt proceedings before the Tribunal. It is in the background of these facts that the Tribunal decided to drop the contempt proceedings.