HARI MOHAN NIRANJAN Vs. J P RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER/applicants had applied for consideration of their claim for the post of junior clerk, which was advertised on 19. 7. 2007 for 18 posts and out of them 7 posts were to be filled up by backward classes. Petitioners/applicants further contended that they have qualified in typing test and were called for interview, which was held on 17/18. 10. 2008. Petitioners/applicants have contended that on 17. 11. 2007 waiting list was issued wherein petitioner no. 1 was placed at serial no. 3 and petitioner no. 2 was placed at serial no. 1 and they were informed that said waiting list was to be effective for one year from 17. 11. 2007. Petitioners/applicants have contended that against the vacancy meant for OBC category, only three appointments had been made and they have been waiting for their appointment, but again vacancy in question were advertised on 20. 7. 2008. Petitioners/applicants have contended that they made request to absorb them in pursuance to the waiting list before making fresh selection and then filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 50510 of 2008 has been filed wherein this court passed following order, which is being quoted below:-

(2.) AFTER the said order has been passed, 8 persons have been appointed vide letter dated 22. 12. 2008. After the said appointment letter has been issued, present contempt application has been filed.

(3.) IN the present case as far as earlier selection based on advertisement dated 19. 7. 2007 are concerned it was in respect of 18 vacancy, out of which petitioner/applicant claim that 7 posts were to be filled up from amongst backward classes and merely 3 candidates from OBC category have been appointed and rest of OBC candidates have not been appointed, but have been illegally kept in waiting list. In this background petitioners had claimed that qua 18 vacancies, which have been advertised, against remaining vacancies, they were liable to be absorbed. This court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 50510 of 2008, at no point of time has ever stayed on going selection proceeding pursuant to advertisement, which has been made, and at no point of time further proceeding pursuant to selection had ever been stayed and only direction which was given and provided that vacancies for which waiting list was prepared meant for OBC, shall not be filled by the respondents except from the candidature found in the waiting list dated 17. 11. 2007. In the entire body of the contempt application it is not at all case of petitioner that current vacancy which has been advertised, they form part and parcel of 18 vacancy, which has been advertised on the earlier occasion and qua which petitioners claim that they were found in the waiting list dated 17. 11. 2007. Once such averments are not there in the contempt application, then in this background on the basis of fresh selection being held and there being no interim order qua fresh selection proceeding, then it cannot be said that order passed by this court has been deliberately and willfully flouted. Consequently, contempt application is dismissed, as it has been framed and drawn.