NILACHAL TANDI Vs. TAPAN KUMAR BANERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed this contempt application on 7.4.2003 with the allegation of violation of the order of this Court dated 11.8.1998 passed in O.J.C. No. 15454 of 1997.

(2.) THIS is how the contempt application is before us. One Dipak Panda and 61 others filed O.J.C. No. 15454 of 1997 challenging the process of selection of appointment of Group -D post in the Indian Ordnance Factory, Badmal for the post of Danger Building Workers. The process of selection was challenged therein alleging appointment of some candidates by producing false residential certificates and misrepresenting the authorities. The operative portion of the said order dated 11.8.1998 is as follows : 'Considering all the aspects of the case and considering the submissions of the learned lawyers of the respective parties, we are of the considered view that generally speaking the selection process does not suffer from any infirmity. If there were fraud and misrepresentation practised by the candidates by obtaining false residential certificates to obtain the employment, their cases should be considered by the appropriate authority in accordance with law. Opportunity is given to the petitioners to point out the names of the selected candidates individually who are admittedly outsiders and who are alleged to have obtained employment by producing false residential certificates, suppression of facts of misrepresentation and the Collector along with the General Manager of the Ordnance Factory will jointly make enquiry as to such allegations made by the writ petitioners within a reasonable time and after giving opportunity to the persons concerned take effective steps and their appointment should be deemed to be cancelled and necessary consequence will follow.'

(3.) ON receipt of the notice the opp.parties Nos. 1, 2 and 3 filed their reply to show cause denying the allegations in toto. The allegation of non -compliance of the order ws totally denied and it has been contended that Shri Pravat Kumar Rout was appointed only after the order of the Collector though he along with 13 others were denied appointment for the cancellation of their residential certificates as per Annexure -4. The sum total of the show cause reply filed by all the opp.parties is that the Judgment of this Court (Annexure -2) was received by them on 9.10.1998 and they filed a review application bearing No. 163 of 1998 of the aforesaid judgment which is subjudice. The direction of this Court was not complied with by the petitioners and they did not submit any individual name out of the selection list as per the direction of this Court to enable them to commence a joint enquiry by the General Manager and the local Collector. Shri Pravat Kumar Sahu was appointed only after receipt of the order of the Collector dated 26.2.1999 (Annexure -A) wherein his residential certificate was found to be genuine as he is a resident of Saintala. It is further averred by the opp.parties in their show cause reply that the present application is barred by limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 as the same has been filed after lapse of more than four years from the date of receipt of the order by the opp.parties (9.10.1998) placing reliance in Om Prakash Jaiswal v. D.K. Mittal and Anr., (2000) 3 SCC 171.