Court No. - 4
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 176 of 2020 Applicant :- Mahtab Khan Opposite Party :- Dr. Ujjawal Kumar, D.M./ Collector Maharajganj Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Wajid Ali
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
The applicant is before this Court for a direction to initiate contempt proceeding against the opposite party for wilful disobedience of the judgement and order dated 16.09.2019 passed in Writ A No.40655 of 2016. The operative portion of the order is reproduced hereinbelow :-
"Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioner came to be appointed Daily Wage Clerk by order dated 6 June 1990. The State Government framed " The U.P. Regularisation of Daily Wages Appointment on Group 'C' posts (Outside the Purview of the U.P. Public Service Commission) Rules, 1998" (for short "the Rules, 1998"). Pursuant thereof, services of the petitioner was not considered for regularization after the Rules came into force, however, by the impugned order dated 1 August 2016, services of the petitioner came to be regularized on a condition that petitioner would have pass the computer/type test with 25 words per minute speed.
Attention of the Court has been drawn to the sub-clause (ii) of Rule 4 (1) of the Rules, 1998, which provides that any person who possesses the requisite qualifications prescribed for regular appointment for that post at the time of such appointment under the relevant service rules on daily wages basis, shall be considered for regular appointment on Group 'C' post in permanent or temporary vacancy as may be available on the date of commencement of these rules, on the basis of his record and suitability before any regular appointment is made in such vacancy.
It is urged that conditions of service and qualifications for the post of Clerk is provided under the Uttar Pradesh District Offices (Collectorates) Ministerial Service (Second Amendment) Rules, 2011" (for short "the Service Rules, 2011"). A candidate for direct recruitment to the post of Clerk must have passed Intermediate examination from the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh or an examination recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto. Further, must pass the type test at 25 words per minute speed.
On specific query, learned counsel for the petitioner admits that till date the respondents have not conducted the type test. Consequently, the services of the petitioner has not been regularized.
Petitioner, by the instant writ petition, seeks the following reliefs:
"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 1.8.2016 (Annexure No.7) passed by the respondent No.2 only to the extent of not regularizing the services of the petitioner from 11.11.2002, when services of other similarly placed employees were regularized.
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to provide regularization to the petitioner from 11.11.2002 when the services of other similarly placed employees were regularized and to provide him all the consequential benefits."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied, in case, the petitioner's case is considered for regularization after respondents conduct the type test, as per the Rules.
Learned Standing Counsel submits that the second respondent shall get the type test conducted as provided under the Service Rules, 2011, expeditiously.
In view thereof, on consent, the petition is disposed of directing the second respondent-District Magistrate, Maharajganj, to get the type test conducted as per the Service Rules, 2011, within a period of eight weeks from the date of filing of certified copy of this order alongwith copy of the writ petition.
In the event of the petitioner qualifying the type test, his case for regularization shall be considered from the date of his juniors w.e.f. 11 November 2002, provided it is permissible under the Rules. "
It is stated in affidavit of compliance in para 6 that pursuant to the order passed by this Court a letter dated 15.11.2019 was written by the opposite party to the petitioner to appear in the type test on 22.11.2019. When the applicant refused to appear again a letter dated 7.12.2019 was issued directing the applicant to appear on 11.12.2019 for the computer type test. Inspite of the same applicant did not appeared for the computer type test.
In view of the same, Court is of the opinion that no case for contempt is made out.
Accordngly,, the present contempt application is dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.8.2021 Pramod Tripathi