SHAKUNTALA Vs. NEELAM BASIC SHIKSHA ADHIKARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for respondents. Petitioner has approached this court for non compliance of the order of this court dated 30.6.2005 by which it was provided that the petitioner be considered for appointment on compassionate ground under 1974 Rules on some suitable post as per her qualification in ministerial cadre. It has been argued that prior to passing of the aforesaid order, the petitioner was offered appointment on the post of Sub Inspector which the petitioner turned down due to physical requirement. Thereafter the petitioner moved this court by filing the aforesaid writ petition and an order was passed in her favour to consider her claim. The qualification etc of the petitioner was considered and vide order dated 7.11.2006 it was noted that the petitioner could not be appointed in ministerial cadre on suitable post as there are already surplus persons on the post in as much as against 134 sanctioned posts 984 persons were working. Thereafter the matter was again considered for her engagement as stenographer S.I.(M) but the qualification of the job required certain speed in shorthand and typing which admittedly the petitioner did not have. There is recital in the order that the petitioner could be considered for appointment on the post of constable G.R.P The said benefit could also not be availed by the petitioner on the ground that the physical requirement of the job was such which the petitioner was unable to undertake. According to learned counsel for petitioner all this exercise is a smoke screen that has been created for not giving appointment to her and for not complying the order of this court and the authorities should be hauled up for committing willful and deliberate contempt of the order of this court. On the other hand Sri Lalit Shukla learned Additional Chief Standing counsel stated that the order of this court was to consider the claim of the petitioner and vide order dated 7.11.2007 the claim of the petitioner has been considered and if the petitioner has any grievance against that order, it is open for her to challenge the same before appropriate forum. Learned counsel for petitioner states that there are other posts available in the department upon which the petitioner can be suitably adjusted as mentioned in para 6 of the rejoinder affidavit but the authorities are deliberately not considering the claim of the petitioner. He further submits that in the cases of other widows of the officers, the department have considered and have also given appointment on such posts. Sri Lalit Shukla in reply to the aforesaid averments on affidavit states that the order of this court was to appoint the petitioner on ministerial post and not on the post of an officer. Be that as it may, there appears to be force in the contention of Sri Lalit Shukla. So far the order of this court is concerned, the same has been substantially complied. The petitioner's claim has been considered in detail by the respondents and therefore, it cannot be said that there is any willful or deliberate attempt on the part of the authorities to flout the directions of this court. No cause of action survives. The contempt petition deserves to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. Notices if any are discharged.