Sri M.K. Misra, holding brief of Sri G.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 12.08.2011 passed in writ petition no. 5139 of 2011(S/S), this Court has given a direction that the petitioner is entitled to continue in service and he should not be replaced by way of another contract appointment. For the purpose, the advertisement dated 27 July, 2011 was stayed.
Learned counsel further submits that inspite of numerous requests, the opposite party is not giving an appointment letter to the petitioner after May, 2011. He also submits that the contempt has been committed.
Learned Standing Counsel submits that the application for vacation of the stay order is pending in the writ Court but he has no further instruction in the matter.
After hearing both the parties, it appears that the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer on contract basis and this Court has given a direction that the petitioner shall continue in service and will not be replaced by way of another contractual appointment. After 31st May, 2011, any appointment made by the opposite party is a contractual appointment or not on he post in question, this aspect has not been explained by the learned Standing Counsel.
Therefore, I direct the opposite party i.e. Zila Social Welfare Officer, Hardoi to remain present in this Court on the next date of listing to show cause as to why the contempt proceedings may not be initiated against him.
In the meantime, learned standing counsel will also seek instruction in the matter.
In addition, learned counsel for the petitioner shall also inform the opposite parties about this order, in writing, within a period of one week.
List on 10.05.2012.
Order Date :- 19.4.2012 Nitesh