Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 23525 of 2015 Petitioner :- Ramman Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Awdhesh Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
(Civil Misc. Amendment Application No.373211 of 2017 filed on behalf of Raman Kumar Singh).
This application has been filed under Section 151 of C.P.C. readwith Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. for amending the order of this Court dated 24.4.2015 passed in Writ A No.23525 of 2015 (Ramman Kumar Singh vs. State of UP and 2 ors).
Record in question reflects that the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 24.4.2015, asking the third respondent, Joint Director of Education, Jhansi Region, Jhansi to decide the petitioner's representation dated 6.1.2015 within a period of six weeks. When the said order was not complied with by the respondents then in such situation the petitioner had proceeded to file Contempt Application (Civil) No.146 of 2016 (Raman Kumar Singh vs. Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, Joint Director of Education) and the said application was also disposed of by this Court on 14.1.2016 and one more opportunity was afforded to the respondent to comply with the aforesaid order within six weeks' time. When the respondents had not complied with the order dated 14.1.2016 passed in the Contempt Application (Civil) No.146 of 2016, then again the petitioner had proceeded to file another Contempt Application (Civil) No.3764 of 2017, which was dismissed with following observations:-
"The contempt application is reported to be beyond time by 60 days inasmuch as the Writ Court's order was required to be complied within six weeks from the date of furnishing a certified copy of the order passed in Contempt Application (Civil) No. 146 of 2016 dated 14.01.2016.
The order passed by the contempt court was also served by the petitioner upon the opposite party but the order has not been complied with.
It is the case of the petitioner that the order passed by the contempt court was served on 27.04.2016.
As the period of six weeks expired sometimes in the month of July, 2016, the limitation for filing contempt application, as per section 20 of the Contempt Courts Act, would expire sometimes in the month of July, 2017, whereas, this contempt application has been presented on 25th August, 2017.
Under the circumstances, the contempt application is barred by limitation and is dismissed as such."
This much is also reflected from the record in question that the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of on 24.4.2015 only on the ground that the petitioner had sought that his representation dated 6.1.2015 may be decided and the same was directed to be decided within six weeks. The said time was enlarged by the Contempt Court by an order dated 14.1.2016. It is admitted situation that the second contempt application was also filed after expiry of the said period and the same was dismissed on 31.8.2017. At this stage, the petitioner is before this Court that the time may be extended so that the petitioner may move fresh representation and in compliance of the order of this Court dated 24.4.2015 the respondents may be directed to pass an appropriate order on the said representation.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and finds that the Court had proceeded to take into consideration that the petitioner had applied for his appointment as Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade in pursuance of the advertisement dated 5.10.2012. It is also admitted situation that he had received a letter on 11.7.2014 from third respondent wherein he had been asked to appear for counselling on 24.7.2014 alongwith all educational certificates. It is also claimed that after appearing in the counselling before the authority concerned on 24.7.2014, he was awaiting for his appointment. In this backdrop, he had moved the representation on 6.1.2015.
This Court is of the considered opinion that once the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of on 24.4.2015 asking the third respondent to decide the representation dated 6.1.2015 but at no point of time the petitioner has been vigilant regarding his right, then at this stage, no reprieve can be extended in favour of the petitioner.
The amendment application is misconceived and it is, accordingly, rejected.
Order Date :- 24.4.2018 RKP