JIWAN LAL SHARMA Vs. S S PARMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This contempt application relates to and arises out of a judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 19.10.2005 in C.W.P. 1031 of 2005.

(2.) In the said writ petition, an important question had arisen for this Court's consideration and the question was as to whether the rigour of 3 years' experience as a Joint Director, for promotion to the post of Director Prosecution be persisted with or it should be dispensed with because of the non-availability of eligible Joint Director linked with the aforesaid pre-requisite of 3 years' experience. This Court had observed that under the recruitment and Promotion Rules, the post of Director Prosecution was equired to be filled up 100% by promotion, and failing that, by deputation. Noticing the aforesaid rule position and the resultant harashness being faced by the incumbent Joint Directors, because of the aforesaid 3 years' experience begin an eligibility criteria, this Court observed thus:

(3.) Even though the discretion and the option to relax the aforesaid rigour of 3 years' experience as an eligibility criterion was squarely left to the State Government, this Court clearly was of the opinion that it shall be in greater public interest that an incumbent Joint Director is appointed as the Director of Prosecution on regular basis rather than continuing with the system of additional charge of this post being held by an officer who has practically nothing to do with the Directorate of Prosecution and who admittedly has no experience in this line. This observation was made in the context of the admitted fact situation that an officer from outside the prosecution department was holding the additional charge of the post of Director Prosecution.