RANJEET SINGH Vs. K K PATHAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/petitioner (for short the appellant') aggrieved of the order dated 17th of July, 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 574 of 2012 (Ranjeet Singh vs. Shri K.K. Pathak) dismissing the contempt petition, has preferred the above-noted special appeal. Shorn off the unnecessary details, the material facts and particulars necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised in the special appeal are that the appellant preferred a writ application, which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 5th of December, 2011; with a direction to the appellant to remain present in the office of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short 'the Commission'), where he would be shown the names of the candidates between Roll Nos. 46551 to 46800, and in the event of detection of his name and Roll Number a copy of the marks-sheet may be provided to him. If the Roll Number and name of the appellant is not detected, the Commission cannot be faulted for non-supply of duplicate mark-sheet.

(2.) The appellant alleging non-compliance of the order dated 5th of December, 2011 initiated contempt proceedings, pleading that he was informed on 14th of December, 2011 that the number-wise guide book and Alfa list of that time, have already been weeded out as per weeding out parameters. Taking note of the fact that the appellant approached this Court in the year 2011, seeking necessary direction to secure a copy of his marks, with reference to an competitive examination which was concluded in the year 1990; the learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment and order dated 17th of July, 2013 dismissed the contempt petition, observing that initiation of the contempt proceedings was nothing but gross misuse of process of law.

(3.) The appellant, appearing in person, submitted that on 14th of December, 2011, he was furnished with a list running in two pages, which was incomplete and wrong. However, after a detailed scrutiny of the list and reply furnished by the Commission, he realized that Roll Numbers 46726 and 46727-28, were shown to be 'absent' at the examination. The appellant further stated that the Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, in response to an application under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, admitted the fact that if the appellant made available his Roll Number, the information about the result of the competitive examination conducted in the year 1989-90 could be furnished to him. The appellant further submitted that he indicated his Roll Number as 46598, but the learned Single Judge without considering the facts and material available on record dismissed the contempt petition vide impugned judgment and order dated 17th of July, 2013.