DIWAKAR PRASAD MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DIWAKAR Prasad Mahto has filed this contempt application for initiation of contempt proceedings against the opp. parties for non -compliance of the order dated 5.1.2000 passed in CWJC No. 7106/1998.

(2.) THE petitioner and others, challenging the termination order from the post of case III and, IV, filed writ petition, being CWJC No. 7106/1998, on the ground that holding of their appointment to be illegal is not valid under law. Though the learned Single Judge in the writ petition observed that no relief could be granted, he gave liberty to the petitioners to produce their documents to show that they were issued interview letter, they attended interview and consequently their names were included in the panel and in that event, the authority concerned will recall the order of termination. The relevant portion of the order passed by the learned Single Judge is as follows: In the circumstances, while no relief can be granted at this stage, in the interest of justice, I give liberty to the petitioners to produce their relevant interview letters, if any before the District Education Officer, Sahibganj. If any such interview letter like memo No. 610 dated 23.07.1990 is produced before the D.E.O. Sahibganj, he will enquire from the office of Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj, as to whether such petitioners actually appeared in interview on the date fixed and whether names of such petitioners were recommanded for appointment against class -Ill & posts or not. On enquiry, if it is found that name of one or other petitioner was included in the panel and recommended for appointment against the post against which such petitioner was functioning made, in that case the D.E.O., Sahibganj, will recall the order of termination dated 27.07.1993 in respect of such petitioner. However, on such reinstatement said petitioner will not be entitled for arrears of salary though will get other benefits on such continuity. On the other hand, if it is found that one or other petitioner was not provided with interview letter, not appeared in the interview or his name was not empanelled or not recommended, then he will reject the claim and communicate the same to such petitioner.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and for the opp. parties and also have gone through the show cause filed by the opp. parties.