LAKSHMAN CHANDRA BHANDARY Vs. SUNIT SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The aforesaid applications are filed by the petitioner seeking for an initiation of the contempt proceedings for alleged violation of an order dtd. 8/2/2019 passed in WPCT 74 of 2016 and for filing a criminal contempt under Sec. 195 read with Sec. 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Criminal Court of competent jurisdiction and for quashing and/or setting aside the document dtd. 24/5/2021 by which they claim, all the applicants therein, for grant of railway service in the land loser category was rejected.

(2.) A prelude to the aforesaid litigations can be traced when the land was acquired for railway project of the applicants and in terms of the scheme in vogue at the relevant point of time, the applicants sought for their job in the railways. Their applications were taken out before the competent authority but the same was not being moved further which constrained the applicant to move before the Tribunal. The Tribunal disposed of the same directing the authorities to consider and decide the representations filed by the applicants in accordance with law taking into consideration the Railway Board Circular dtd. 16/7/2010. In compliance of the said direction, the order was passed by the Chief Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway on July 15, 2014 declining to offer the appointment to the Applicant no. 1 as he was found not to have submitted the relevant document/paper so that the matter can be put up before the Screening Committee. The Applicant no. 1 thereafter moved a contempt application before the Tribunal and the Tribunal observed that its order has not been complied with in true letter and spirit and, therefore, directed the alleged contemnors therein to appear in personem to show-cause why an action should not be taken against him. In addition to the same, the Tribunal further directed the alleged contemnor therein to file a compliance report. Pursuant to the same, a letter was caused on December 12, 2014 by Chief Personnel Officer that in terms of the provision indicated in Paragraph 5 of the Railway Boards Letter dtd. 16/7/2010 the General Manager has not considered to offer the appointment in railways as the applicants have crossed the prescribed upper age limit fixed for the direct recruitment quota from open market. The letter was produced before the Tribunal who taking note the same observed that it is clear from the stand of the respondent authorities that they have simply avoided the prayer for giving the appointment upon relaxation of the age standard and further directed the Assistant Personnel Officer to appear before the Tribunal. Ultimately, the Tribunal did not accept the ground taken by the respondent authorities that because of the upper age limit the case under the land loser category cannot be accepted and directed the authorities to consider redress the said default. Obviously, the Tribunal was of the view that in some cases the Railways have relaxed the upper age limit. Ultimately, the matter came up before this Court in WPCT 74 of 2016 and the Division Bench observed that it is evident from the materials on record that even the land losers who were 47 years old were offered appointment and the applicant no. 1 at the relevant point of time was below such age and, therefore, the rejection on such ground does not appear to be proper. Ultimately, the writ petition was disposed of with the following directions:

(3.) Pursuant to the aforesaid direction the case of the applicant was further taken up and it is evident from the conduct of the railway authorities that they were adamant in rejecting the prayer for appointment under the land loser categories as this time they took a plea that the petitioners does not possess the minimum educational qualification at the time of acquisition of the land. The contempt was admitted and the notices were directed to be issued and ultimately when the matter came up before this Bench this Court finds that the point of unsuitability of the candidates which were never taken is prima facie an act of disobedience of the order passed by the Division Bench. The Court further noticed that 17 persons were given appointment upon relaxation of the educational qualification and there is further act of discrimination evident in this regard and directed the Chief Personnel Officer to explain the decision that was taken. The aforesaid applications came to be filed not only for initiation of proceeding under Sec. 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but also a further contemptuous act having been done in projecting the act of discrimination.