SMT. KALPANA Vs. SHRI DEEPAK UPRATEE & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for the alleged non -compliance of the order dated 24.07.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in SBCWP No. 6516/2003. It has been submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Anurag Pareek for the petitioner that though the learned Single Judge had directed the respondent vide the order dated 24.07.2009 to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Nurse Grade -II from the date candidates lower in the order of merit, were appointed pursuant to the advertisement, the respondents have not given regular appointment to the petitioner. He also submitted that the petitioner had filed fresh petition being No. 8992/2012, however the Court vide the order dated 08.10.2012 had dismissed the said petition of the petitioner with liberty to file contempt petition for non -compliance of the earlier order dated 24.07.2009. According to him, the present petition having been filed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, the respondents should be directed to comply with the said order dated 24.07.2009.

(2.) AT the outset, it is required to be mentioned that the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition being No. 6516/2003 as per the order dated 24.07.2009 had directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for the appointment on the post of Nurse Grade -II from the date of candidates lower in the order of merit were appointed in pursuance to the advertisement in question. It was directed that the compliance of the order to be made by the respondents within a period of 30 days. The petitioner has failed to point out as to under what circumstances, the contempt petition was not filed for about four years of the alleged non -compliance by the respondents. It is needless to say that as per Section 20 of the Contempt of Court Act, no court can initiate any proceedings for contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.

(3.) IT is also pertinent to note that the petitioner herself has stated in the petition that in compliance of the order dated 24.07.2009 passed by the High Court in the writ petition, the respondents had given her the appointment on the post of Nurse Grade -II under the Chief Medical & Health Services, Jhunjhunu, vide the order dated 15.12.2010. In view of the said statement and in view of the fact that in the said order dated 24.07.2009, the learned Single Judge had directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for the appointment, and had not given any direction to the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner on the post of Nurse Grade -II, it could not be said that there was non -compliance of the order by the respondents. In view of the above, the present contempt petition is dismissed.