RAMA SHANKAR DUBEY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS contempt petition has been filed complaining non compliance of the order dated 19.02.2010, passed in W.P.(S) No. 2194 of 2009, to the extent that the State instead of completing the process of filling up class III Posts from class IV Posts in terms of the Resolution No. 4161 dated 8.7.2008, has come up with a new Notification dated 26th July, 2010, according to which, the Petitioners may be deprived from being promoted. Mr. Manoj Tandon submitted that as per the said Resolution dated 8.7.2008, the minimum qualification was matriculation which has now been made Graduation. Clause 3 of the Notification No. 335 dated 16.9.1992 provided for filling up 50% posts from class IV employees, which has been curtailed to 15%. Moreover, the basis for promotion was seniority 60:40 merit but now that provision has been changed to a provision of taking examination which means merit cum seniority. It is further submitted that for every completed year, a candidate was to be given 4 and 1/2 marks but the present Notification is silent on that. Referring to the judgment reported in (1995) 6 SCC 16 : (1997) 8 SCC 522, it is submitted that the Executives or the Government have no power to override the order of the Court.

(2.) ON the other hand, learned Advocate General, appearing for the Respondents, submitted that the State has complied/is in the process of complying the order in question and the Petitioners cannot be allowed to raise such controversies and enlarge the scope of this Contempt Case. Moreover, on the basis of the stand taken by the Respondents -State at that time that examination will be taken as per Resolution dated 8.7.2008, this Court directed to complete such process in terms of the said Resolution, as early as possible. He also submitted that by Clause 5 of the Resolution dated 8.7.2008, all the earlier Notifications including the Notification No. 335 dated 16.9.1992 stood amended to the extent provided in Resolution dated 8.7.2008. It was submitted that the order dated 19.2.2010 was passed when an interim arrangement was made. Thereafter, the Notification dated 26.7.2010 has been promulgated under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that it cannot be said that the said Notification has been promulgated to frustrate the claim of the Petitioners rather it has been issued to deal with all the employees of the State. He lastly submitted that the Government has power to take its own decision irrespective of the provisions made in the interim arrangement under Resolution dated 8.7.2008 in the interest of work.

(3.) THUS , it appears that on the basis of the resolution, dated 8.7.2008, which was made by way of interim arrangement, the order in question was passed. Thereafter, the State Government has promulgated the notification dated 26.7.2010 under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It cannot be said that such notification has been issued to frustrate the claim of 27 Petitioners, or overreach the order of this Court.