SANJAY KUMAR KHARE Vs. REWA RAM GANGAREKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Contempt Petition has been filed on the ground that the Respondents have disobeyed the direction contained in the order dated 22.04.1999 (Ajay Tiwari and others v. State ofM.P. and others) and the connected petitions. The petitioner was one of the petitioners in the said case whose selection and appointment as Shiksha Karmi Grade III had been set aside by the Collector and the Prescribed Authority, Panna, in an appeal filed against the same under Rule 12 of the M.P. Panchayats Shiksha Karmis (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997. The said appellate order of the Collector was challenged in various Writ Petitions and by order dated 22.4.1999 passed in W.P.No. 4761/1998 while dismissing the petitions challenging the appellate order passed by the Collector, the following directions were issued in view of the claim in the connected petition W.P.No. 5305/1998 (Vikramadiya Singh and another v. State of M.P. and others):

(2.) THE crux of the grievance of the petitioner is that although the direction was clear that the respondents were required to proceed with the selection afresh on the basis of the applications already received, the respondents published Advertisment Annexure A -2 inviting applications against the very posts in patent disobedience of the said direction and they have, therefore, committed contempt of this Court and for which they should be punished.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent No. 4 has pointed out that since it was stated in the direction that the selection was to be made on the basis of the applications received against posts advertised, it was understood as meaning that posts were required to be advertised to receive such applications. Learned counsel has pointed out that advertisement Annexure A -2 was issued on the basis of the understanding of the respondents with regard to the action required to be taken by them in obedience of the order passed by this Court and even if it is held that the respondents had proceeded on a wrong notion, since the respondent No. 4 who has issued the advertisement has tendered unconditional apology, the same deserves to be accepted in the interest of justice.