1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents-State.
2. Grievance of the petitioner is that he was working on the post of Seasonal Collection Peon and was disengaged in the year 2007. Feeling aggrieved, he filed Writ Petition No.1767 (SS) of 2009 which was finally disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for regular appointment on the post of Collection Peon. The claim of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 10.7.2009 which was assailed in another Writ Petition No.6024 (SS) of 2009 which was also disposed vide order dated 28.11.2017 with the direction to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for regular appointment on the post of Collection Peon as per the regularized Rules, 2016.
When no consideration was made, the petitioner filed Contempt Petition No.1091 (C) of 2018 which was decided on the basis of assurance given by the learned counsel for the respondents that as and when proceeding to make regular selection is made, the candidature of the petitioner shall be considered. In the present writ petition, the petitioner claims to consider regular appointment of Collection Peon on the ground that the respondents are proceeding to make regular selection as per the seniority list prepared in the Department.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner approached the respondents to ensure compliance of the judgment and order passed in writ petition as well as in the contempt petition, but the respondents are not taking action to consider the claim of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for issuance of necessary direction to ensure compliance of direction issued in writ petition as well as in the contempt petition for consideration of claim of regular appointment on the post of Collection Peon.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that once there is a direction of the writ Court and on assurance of the respondents, the contempt petition was disposed of and in case orders are not complied with, the petitioner has remedy to approach the appropriate Forum and writ jurisdiction is not the competent Forum to issue another direction for consideration of claim of the petitioner for regular appointment.
5. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties.
6. This Court while entertaining the writ petition issued the following direction:
"Accordingly, the competent authority is hereby directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for regular appointment as Collection Peon in accordance with law.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly."
7. When the above-extracted order was not complied with, then a contempt petition was filed which was disposed of in the following terms:
"??............
Mr. Vinayak Saxena, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party informs that selection process for regular appointment on the post of Collection Peon has started and a tentative seniority list of Collection Peon has been issued and the final seniority list would be issued on 25.5.2018. Thereafter the selection against the existing vacant substantive posts of Collection Peon would be held and thereafter the selected persons would be appointed on the post of regular Collection Peon.
It is expected that entire exercise of appointment of regular Collection Peon would be carried out expeditiously.
In view of above, I do not find any reason to keep this contempt petition pending. The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed.
Notices issued, if any, stand discharged."
8. Considering the above, this Court is of the opinion that in case the respondents are not complying with the directions issued by this Court in writ petition as well as in contempt petition, the remedy lies before the contempt Court to ensure compliance of the direction of this Court and writ petition for the said purpose which has been raised, is not maintainable.
9. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Forum available in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 29.7.2021 GK Sinha