ZAHID ALI KHAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has preferred this contempt petition alleging that in defiance of the order of this Court dated 19.09.2013 passed by this Court in W.P.No.6856/2013 directing the respondents/condemners not to issue advertisement for recruitment of only "female staff nurse" without obtaining leave of this Court and even after dismissal of the application of the State Government seeking permission for the said recruitment, the respondent No.3/contemner issued advertisement No.12/2015 dated 5.2.2015 inviting applications for the post of staff nurse only from female candidates, hence prayed for punishing the contemners for disobeying the order passed by this Court and for quashment of the impugned advertisement.

(2.) In reply, respondents No.1, 2 & 4 submitted that no such advertisement as alleged by the petitioner was issued by the respondent No.2 and it has been issued by VYAPAM after obtaining consent of various departments. The Department of Public Health and Family Welfare did not participate in the meeting convened by VYAPAM in this regard and never consented for any advertisement for recruitment of staff nurse only from the female candidates. Besides that answering respondents tendered their unconditional apology for disobedience of order of this Court, if any.

(3.) In separate reply, respondent No.3 has submitted that although the notices of the writ petition on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 4 were accepted by the learned Govt. Advocate but the information regarding the interim order dated 19.09.2013 passed in the writ petition was not to the knowledge of the respondent. It is submitted that in absence of the said information they conducted the said recruitment process and result has already been declared. It is only when they received the notice of this contempt petition came to know about the interim order passed by this Court in the writ petition. It is further submitted that the action of the answering respondent is bona fide in absence of the knowledge of the interim order dated 19.09.2013. The answering respondent has also tendered unconditional apology.