MOHAMMED BATALULLAH FAROOQUI Vs. CHANDRA SEKHAR POTDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The party-in-person has filed this contempt case ostensibly on the ground that the direction issued by a learned Coordinate Bench in WA.No.701 of 2015, in its judgment dated 21.07.2017, whereby the learned Coordinate Bench directed the English and Foreign Language University "to consider the candidature of the appellant for the post of Assistant Professor as against any of the existing vacancies, or against the vacancy that arose due to the termination of the services of the 5th respondent and pass orders within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment", has not been complied with so far.

(2.) Mr. Mohammed Batalullah Farooqui, party-in-person, submits that despite a clear direction of this Court to consider his candidature for the post of Assistant Professor, the alleged contemnor is refusing to do so. Secondly, relying on the case of S. KIRANMAYI v. N. SAMBASIVA RAO 2017 (4) ALD 287 , the party-in-person submits that the dictionary meaning of the word 'consider' means to consider basing on the material available on record. Since he was already interviewed in 2010 for the said post, sufficient material is available on record for the alleged contemnor to appoint him on the post of Assistant Professor in the said University. However, the alleged contemnor is intentionally and willfully disobeying the direction issued by the learned Coordinate Bench. Therefore, the alleged contemnor is guilty of having committed contempt of the judgment dated 21.07.2017.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. P.S. Rajasekhar, the learned counsel appearing for the alleged contemnor, submits that having received a copy of the judgment dated 21.07.2017, the alleged contemnor informed the party-in-person to appear for an interview for the said post, so that the University can "consider" the candidature of the party-in-person for the said post. However, the party-in-person has refused to appear for an interview for the said post. According to the learned counsel, in the absence of an interview, the University is not in a position to examine and to consider the suitability of the person-in- person for the said post. Therefore, as the party-in-person refused to appear for an interview, the University is not a position to "consider" candidature of the party-in-person for the said post. Therefore, due to the uncooperative attitude of the party-in-person, the judgment dated 21.07.2017 cannot be implemented. According to the learned counsel, the alleged contemnor has no intention or will to violate the judgment dated 21.07.2017. Hence, according to the learned counsel, no contempt is being committed by the alleged contemnor.