OM PRAKASH PANDEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Show cause replies have been filed on behalf of the respondents/opposite parties stating therein that this contempt application is misconceived in view of the fact that there was no specific direction issued to the respondents for compliance though an observation was made in the impugned order of this Court that applying the ratio decided in the case of Y.V.Rangaih & Others V/s. J.Sreenivasa Rao & Others, 1983 3 SCC 284, the petitioners who were qualified and eligible at the time when the process for process was initiated, cannot be denied on the ground of coming into force the new 2004 Rules, by applying the same with retrospective effect.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondents/opposite parties informs that in another contempt application, vide contempt case No. 631 of 2008 arising out of the same impugned order, this Court has dropped the contempt application though with certain specific directions to be complied with by the respondents and submits that in the present contempt application also a similar order may be passed.

(3.) Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, since in the impugned order passed in the writ application there was no specific direction to be complied with by the respondents, this contempt proceeding cannot be retained on board and therefore it is hereby dropped. However the respondent authorities shall dispose of the representation of the petitioner, if filed, within a period of six weeks from the date of this order. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file an appropriate application as per procedure, if the directions as made above are not complied with within the period stipulated.