RAKESH I A S Vs. G CHANDANI KABUINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This contempt appeal is directed against the order dated 25.5.2001 passed by the learned Singel Judge in Contempt Case No. 61 of 2001.

(2.) The facts leading toe filing of this writ appeal may be briefly stated as follows. The husband of the writ petitioner (respondent in the instant appeal) while working as a Duftry in the Electricity Department of Govt. of Manipur died on 12.1.97. The writ petitioner then submitted an application dated 6.2.1997 to the respondent No. 3 (appellant No. 3 here) for appointment to a post under die-in- harness scheme followed by a reminder dated 19.8.97. Unable to get any response, she filed W.P.(C) No. 451 of 2000 before this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution for issuance of an writ of mandamus directing the State respondents to consider her case for appointment to any post commensurate with her educational qualifications under the die-in-harness scheme. The Court disposed of the said writ petition by an order dated 24.4.2000 (Annexure-X/1) directing the State respondents to consider her case for appointment under the die-in-harness scheme. The writ petitioner then filed Contempt Case No. 61 of 2001 alleging that despite such direction of this Court, the respondents (appellants in the instant appeal) did not consider her case and thus wilfully disobeyed this Court's order. This Court disposed of the contempt petition by the impugned order dated 25.5.2001. The operative portion thereof reads as under:

(3.) Being aggrieved by the above order, the appellants respondents have come up before this Court in the instant appeal on the ground that the learned Single Judge could not have directed the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to appoint the writ petitioner to the post of sweeper by enlarging the scope of the original writ petition wherein this Court directed the respondents only to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment vide order dated 24.4.2000 (Annexure-X/1). It is submitted that in that order there was no direction to the respondents to appoint the writ petitioner under the die-in-harness scheme.