RAMESH MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order passed by this Court in earlier writ petitions being W.P. (S) No. 1631 of 2004, W.P. (S) No. 3224 of 2003 and W.P. (S) No. 6154 of 2003 vide order dated 16th March, 2010 has not yet been complied. Learned counsel for the University submitted that in due compliance of the direction given by this Court, interview of all the eighteen petitioners, who were petitioners in earlier three writ petitions, were taken and after holding interview and after following due procedure for selection, six persons have been selected, whose names have also been given in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit. Thus after holding interview, few persons are not found suitable and, therefore, it cannot be said that there is contempt committed by the respondents because the direction given by this Court to consider the cases of those petitioners, have been considered and few persons have been selected and, therefore, this contempt application may not be entertained by this Court.

(2.) HAVING heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the earlier direction given by this Court vide order dated 16th March. 2010 in W.P. (S) No, 1631 of 2004, W.P. (S) No. 3224 of 2003 and W.P. (S) No. 6154 of 2003, it appears that following direction was given by this Court in paragraph 9 of the aforesaid order:

(3.) IT appears that the applicants in these contempt applications had also appeared in the interview, but, they were not selected by the Interviewing Committee. Merely because they were not selected by the Interviewing Committee, it does not tantamount to wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court. In fact, there is due compliance of the order passed by this Court. In view of the aforesaid facts, I see no reason to entertain this contempt application and, hence, the same is, hereby, dismissed.