TAPSI PATRA Vs. SONALI SADHUKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS contempt application was filed by the petitioner alleging violation of the directions contained in the order dated 9th June, 2006 passed in w. P. No. 13459 (W) of 2006, (for short 'the said order') Tapasi Patra v. State of West Bengal and Ors. , by Sonali Sadhukhan, the Headmistress, ramnagar Vidyasagar Balika Vidyalaya directing her to allow the petitioner along with other eligible candidates to appear at the interview to be held on 14th June, 2006 to the post of peon in Ramnagar Vidyasagar Balika vidyalaya if found eligible and possessed necessary qualifications and fulfilled other criteria. It has been stated that by letter dated 9th June, 2006 the gist of the said order was communicated to the alleged contemnor who, on 12th June, 2006 under her seal and signature, had accepted the same. It appears from a tetter dated 14th June, 2006, being Annexure-R-3 to the contempt application, that as she was not called for interview, the petitioner had requested her to comply with the directions contained in the order dated 9th June, 2006. The said letter dated 14th June, 2006 was despatched by post and was received by the alleged contemnor on 15th June, 2006. On 15th June, 2006 the petitioner had also informed the district Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education) Hooghly and the additional District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education)Chandannagore regarding the fact of the non-compliance of the order by the alleged contemnor and were informed about the contempt application being moved before the High Court.

(2.) THEREAFTER, the Contempt Application was moved on 27th february, 2007. Rule was issued, which was made returnable on 12th march, 2007. On 12th March, 2007 the alleged contemnor appeared. Directions for filing of affidavits were issued. Affidavits have since been filed and are on record.

(3.) MR. Biswaroop Bhattacharya, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the alleged contemnor submitted that in order to constitute contempt there should be deliberate and wilful disobedience. From the chain of events or from the totality of facts it is evident that there was no wilful disobedience. Since Managing Committee is the competent body for recruitment of non-teaching staff she on 12th June, 2006 informed the secretary of the Managing Committee of the school about the order passed on 9th June, 2006 by the High Court and had requested him to allow the petitioner to participate in the interview. Had intention been otherwise she would not have brought it to the notice of the Secretary. Evidently it meant no disrespect or defiance of the order. Moreover, even on 14th June, 2006, that is on the day of interview, the fact regarding wilful disobedience was not brought to her notice. Thus, as disobedience, if any, was not wilful and deliberate which should be the basis of committing contempt, the contempt application is without merit. Learned Advocate for the alleged contemnor relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Anil Ratan sarkar v. Hirak Ghosh and Ors. , reported in AIR 2002 SC 1405 in support of his submission.